U-20 Canada Australia Report

[Daniel]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

The MLS players that started for the USA (Mapp, Johnson, Quaranto, Convey, Clark and Magee) are not NCAA products. They are products of the U17 residency program; a difft kettle of fish entirely, as they typically play more internationals per year than all of our men's teams combined.

Ricardo Clark has played 42 internationals in the last 2 yrs.

Bobby Convey played in 45 internationals for the U17s IN ONE YEAR.

The list goes on.

7/11 starters and 7/10 field players from the US were pros. Including 6 MLS players.

[Guest Ed]

But it was put forward by "Free Kick" that the pro players were developed by the NCAA which is not the case at all. The MLS players are products of the USSF developmental teams and have scholarships waiting for them after their careers are over.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

But it was put forward by "Free Kick" that the pro players were developed by the NCAA which is not the case at all. The MLS players are products of the USSF developmental teams and have scholarships waiting for them after their careers are over.

What he's been basically promoting is more follwing on hitching our wagon to MLS. That is not finacially sound at all.

When you look at the Australians, they have their players either developed through the NSL or their various sporting institutes. They've proven that they can devlop talent without having to realy heavily on another country.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

What he's been basically promoting is more follwing on hitching our wagon to MLS. That is not finacially sound at all.

When you look at the Australians, they have their players either developed through the NSL or their various sporting institutes. They've proven that they can devlop talent without having to realy heavily on another country.

Mitchell's quotes that I read in this mornings paper were even more direct, he said the biggest obstacles we face is "lack of high level competition in canada". That was the initial point that I was trying to make. Then someone tried to infer that Mitchell was alluding to the NCAA. which is rediculous of course and further clarified by this quote/.

[An Observer]

I do agree with Mitchel's assessment in the reports that we could have got something out of this match. I think we split possession with Australia and certainly had the better chances. I also agree that we made two defensive miscues that allow the goals.

What I am not so convinced on is the explanation that we were not properly prepared. I mean highly doubt the Brazilians played together much or the Australians for that matter. If he is relating to the A-League not being sufficient caliber, perhaps I agree but I really think it is a certain naivity that our players exhibit that other sides do not. And that is down to coaching at all levels in my opinion.

One further point, on my player rankings, I am not saying that only Hume, Matondo, Hutchinson and Marshal can advance from this side to the National team but that they are the ones that definitely at this time show the most promise to add something for the future. The others possibly show more promise than the Fenwicks and Hastings of this world but I am looking more to the future of a Canadian side that plays football than previous sides that didn't in my opinion. Besides, if every U-20 side could develop 4 or 5 quality national side players we would probably have a pool of 25 to 30 players to select from which would definitely give us a solid starting 11.

[The Beaver]

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

7/11 starters and 7/10 field players from the US were pros. Including 6 MLS players.

I don't want to start another MLS versus Canadian Domestic league debate, but after much thought and deliberation--for what its worth--I now see that joining the MLS will do nothing for Canadian soccer unless we can enter 6 - 8 teams in a fairly short amount of time. Since this is unlikely, I think we are much better off with our own league. We are making good strides, now that we have new A-league teams. If we can model ourselves after the CFL and get some TV coverage, then a domestic league will do much to develop players for the future. The MLS is better competition and would be easier to market, but we need as many Canadian teams as possible. I would be fine with Toronto having an MLS team if--and only if--they also had an A-league team or a canadian domestic league team. Maybe North York could field a team or something.

My ideal set-up: Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary in the MLS, with the possibility of adding Winnipeg and Hamilton.

My second choice: A domestic league--linked with the A-league perhaps--consisting of 6 - 8 Canadian teams.

My third choice: Domestic league with 6 - 8 teams, and one MLS team in Toronto.

The good news is that the A-league is starting to do well to develop our younger players. We need our 18 and 19 year olds--and younger, where possible--to be playing adult football on a regular basis.

[The Beaver]

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

I do agree with Mitchel's assessment in the reports that we could have got something out of this match. I think we split possession with Australia and certainly had the better chances. I also agree that we made two defensive miscues that allow the goals.

What I am not so convinced on is the explanation that we were not properly prepared. I mean highly doubt the Brazilians played together much or the Australians for that matter. If he is relating to the A-League not being sufficient caliber, perhaps I agree but I really think it is a certain naivity that our players exhibit that other sides do not. And that is down to coaching at all levels in my opinion.

One further point, on my player rankings, I am not saying that only Hume, Matondo, Hutchinson and Marshal can advance from this side to the National team but that they are the ones that definitely at this time show the most promise to add something for the future. The others possibly show more promise than the Fenwicks and Hastings of this world but I am looking more to the future of a Canadian side that plays football than previous sides that didn't in my opinion. Besides, if every U-20 side could develop 4 or 5 quality national side players we would probably have a pool of 25 to 30 players to select from which would definitely give us a solid starting 11.

I think Mitchell is talking about overall experience here, not preparation for this tournament. He wants our lads to play more regularly with club sides, to play at a high level and get the sort of experience and understanding of soccer that you can only get from playing the game regularly at a high level--versus men, not boys. Our lads are naive, yes, but because they do not get enough game experience. Harmse, I am confident, would have had a better tournament if he'd played regularly in Norway. Remember, he was injured for the better part of the season and then had a tough time cracking the line-up. Expect big things from him in the future. Hey, if we have more A-league teams then more of our young guns will get jobs and game time. We should be excited about the developments in the A-league. They are a step in the right direction.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

I don't want to start another MLS versus Canadian Domestic league debate, but after much thought and deliberation--for what its worth--I now see that joining the MLS will do nothing for Canadian soccer unless we can enter 6 - 8 teams in a fairly short amount of time. Since this is unlikely, I think we are much better off with our own league. We are making good strides, now that we have new A-league teams. If we can model ourselves after the CFL and get some TV coverage, then a domestic league will do much to develop players for the future. The MLS is better competition and would be easier to market, but we need as many Canadian teams as possible. I would be fine with Toronto having an MLS team if--and only if--they also had an A-league team or a canadian domestic league team. Maybe North York could field a team or something.

My ideal set-up: Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary in the MLS, with the possibility of adding Winnipeg and Hamilton.

My second choice: A domestic league--linked with the A-league perhaps--consisting of 6 - 8 Canadian teams.

My third choice: Domestic league with 6 - 8 teams, and one MLS team in Toronto.

The good news is that the A-league is starting to do well to develop our younger players. We need our 18 and 19 year olds--and younger, where possible--to be playing adult football on a regular basis.

Having so many Canadian cities in the MLS is not even considerable. There isn't even the capital to have one team on MLS, not even 6-8. The third choice should also be out if it involves MLS.

The only sound options would be either a domestic league or improving the number of A-LEague teams we have. The latter seems to be the better course at the moment.

[Gian-Luca]

I think Free Kick's original point is that since we beat the US in qualifying for this tourney one year ago, the US MLS players have been continuing to develop their skills with a year in the MLS, while our players (like Matondo, Lemire, Chin) have spent time developing in the A-league. Measuring how much player development can happen over one year is difficult to say, but it might not be a stretch to suggest that the US players might have developed more over the past year with the higher-level of competition than our Canadian A-league based players - and presumably, would continue to do so until our players get jobs in European leagues (that are feature a higher level of play than the A-league, or equivalent level of play but much-longer seasons).

We can argue until the cows come home about is the more financially-viable route to take (Canadian-only league vs. Cdn. teams in A-league & plus a few in MLS), but I think the original point stands.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Snipped relevant material in the interest of space.

We can argue until the cows come home about is the more financially-viable route to take (Canadian-only league vs. Cdn. teams in A-league & plus a few in MLS), but I think the original point stands.

The only problem is that none of us have seen either the Canadian team or the US team in action so we are making assumptions that may not hold true. How does a 3-1 loss to Germany compare to a 2-0 loss to Brazil? The US beat Paraguay while we lost a close one to Australia. Again not much revealed without seeing the game. We did lose 1-0 to Paraguay in a friendly, but we were absent our top strikers so that may - or may not have - made a difference, and it was a friendly. Simply put, we have no evidence to suggest that the US is the stronger team or that their players have developed more in the last year. Obviously the longer MLS season - a strong point in favour of the MLS you have made a few times - may mean that the MLS players are closer to game shape than their Canadian A-League counterparts but even that would be speculation as we have no evidence.

[Gian-Luca]

Its definitely an assumption of sorts, but certainly not an unreasonable one. It is not unreasonable to believe that players will develop better when competing at a higher level of play.

I'm not really debating about whether or not the US has a stronger team in this tournament than we do especially as other factors (such as the team's European-based players) would have to be considered. Mitchell's point was that we lack high-level competition in Canada & its hurting us, and it would be difficult to argue that the likes of Di Tullio, Lemire, Chin and Matondo (or any young A-league player) would not develop better if they were competing in Canada at a higher level of competition than what we currently have.

There can be exceptions of course - Ngon starting in the A-league for the Lynx will do a lot more for his development than sitting on the bench & not playing at all for a US MLS team, but by & large one would expect Canadian players to be playing for Canadian-based teams & exceptions like Ngon probably wouldn't apply.

[The Beaver]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I think Free Kick's original point is that since we beat the US in qualifying for this tourney one year ago, the US MLS players have been continuing to develop their skills with a year in the MLS, while our players (like Matondo, Lemire, Chin) have spent time developing in the A-league. Measuring how much player development can happen over one year is difficult to say, but it might not be a stretch to suggest that the US players might have developed more over the past year with the higher-level of competition than our Canadian A-league based players - and presumably, would continue to do so until our players get jobs in European leagues (that are feature a higher level of play than the A-league, or equivalent level of play but much-longer seasons).

We can argue until the cows come home about is the more financially-viable route to take (Canadian-only league vs. Cdn. teams in A-league & plus a few in MLS), but I think the original point stands.

G-L, point well taken.

As for the A-league versus MLS, remember that a good chunk of the US team--for what its worth--ply their trade in the A-league, too. I once felt that putting a few Canadian teams in the MLS was the way to go, but now I think differently. We should look to the MLS like we do all other soccer leagues in the world: simply as an option for individual Canadian players to find work and develop. Entering a few Canadian teams in the MLS will kill any real chances of a league in Canada, and the only way we will gain critical mass, so to speak, is to develop as many good young players as possible, and we need as many Canadian teams as possible to make this happen. A domestic league will not, of course, prevent our players from seeking work in Europe or the MLS or elsewhere, nor should it. Joining the MLS will sabotage the future of Canadian soccer.

[Guest Ed]

Name one player on the US squad that plays in the A-League. You are wrong on that point.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Its definitely an assumption of sorts, but certainly not an unreasonable one. It is not unreasonable to believe that players will develop better when competing at a higher level of play.

It is an equally reasonable assumption to suggest that players getting more actual competitive game experience at a lower level may be developing faster than players sitting on the bench at a higher level i.e. Hume vs. Godfrey. Which would then suggest the A-League is a better option as 19 year olds are more likely to be competitive with lower division payers. This suggests the best option, then, is the A-League with a longer season. We can, of course, pick out rationale "assumptions" on both sides of this issue. But they are essentially speculative until we actually test the hypothesis.

Certainly players like Hutchinson, Hume and Convey would suffer at a lower level simply because they are capable of playing regularly at the higher level. But Justin Mapp, FREX, in game reports at least, is not having as good of a Tournament as Matondo. Yet Matondo played at the lower level. Of course, game reports are not a good indicator, nor is a two game window.

I just don't think that we can point to this U-20 Tournament and make any kind of assumptions regarding the benefit of a Canadian team in the MLS, based on what has occured. Germany scored 3 against the US in 16 minutes, a German team missing several of its top players. Did the higher level of the MLS keep this from being 4 or 5? Not an assumtion I'd want to make.

[Gian-Luca]

Playing is almost always going to be a better options than sitting on the bench (or not even dressing). By the same token, playing at a higher level is generally going to be more beneficial to playing at a lower level. Mitchell indicated that the level of play in Canada is not high enough - whether or not the MLS is could be debated for centuries, but there can't be much doubt that it is a step up over the A-league and that in general it would be better for our players to play at a higher level than to play at a lower level.

And here I was thinking that I was clarifying the point.....

[The Beaver]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

Name one player on the US squad that plays in the A-League. You are wrong on that point.

My apologies--I read in an earlier post by one of our American colleagues that a number of the players on the US u-20 squad ply their trade in the A-league. Is this not true? Does the entire squad play in the MLS and in Europe? (I know I should not take any post here as reliable...)

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

My apologies--I read in an earlier post by one of our American colleagues that a number of the players on the US u-20 squad ply their trade in the A-league. Is this not true? Does the entire squad play in the MLS and in Europe? (I know I should not take any post here as reliable...)

MLS and College. One guy in Europe I think (Whitbread) and one guy Adu who has just signed with the MLS. Their U-23's has a guy, Testo, who played with Richmond inthe A-League, but I think that is pretty much it.

[Gian-Luca]

PS - in reference to Matondo vs. Mapp, I'm not saying every player in the MLS is better than every player in the A-league- the gap isn't that large. I am more interested in whether Matondo's natural skills would be developed further after spending a year playing in the MLS vs. spending a year playing in the A-league.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Playing is almost always going to be a better options than sitting on the bench (or not even dressing). By the same token, playing at a higher level is generally going to be more beneficial to playing at a lower level. Mitchell indicated that the level of play in Canada is not high enough - whether or not the MLS is could be debated for centuries, but there can't be much doubt that it is a step up over the A-league and that in general it would be better for our players to play at a higher level than to play at a lower level.

And here I was thinking that I was clarifying the point.....

I understood your point Gian-Luca, and the key element of that is "playing". I doubt that guys like Chin and company would have gotten anymore, and probably less, playing time in the MLS. I have a problem with the whole MLS debate coming up in this thread since no accurate conclusions could be drawn. I am trying to think and only Di Tullio jumps out as someone who got regular, significant playing time in the A-League. I am not sure he would have gotten the same amount in the MLS, but one see's so little of the A-League in Saskatchewan that it would not be fair to pass judgement either way.

If guys like Hutchinson and Convey, for example, were playing in the A-League, or had not choice other than the A-League - then the point would be valid that their development may have been stunted. But who among our A-Leaguers would have played a significant amount of time in the MLS? Who would have even played the same amount of time. One could argue that the A-Leaguers would have seen their development stunted playing fewer minutes in the MLS. A lot of those P-40 guys rarely see the field and they ultimately end up in the A-League - or lower, with their development put on hold for a year or two.

I don't want to flog a dead horse, but their is no evidence that an MLS team in Canada would have had any effect on our U-20 performance. So it is not reasonable, IMO, to conclude it would. Perhaps if these games had been televised we might have additional info that might support the MLS thesis, but at this point we do not.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

PS - in reference to Matondo vs. Mapp, I'm not saying every player in the MLS is better than every player in the A-league- the gap isn't that large. I am more interested in whether Matondo's natural skills would be developed further after spending a year playing in the MLS vs. spending a year playing in the A-league.

Fair enough Gian-Luca. I don't disagree that a player develops more playing at the highest level he is capable.

[The Beaver]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

Fair enough Gian-Luca. I don't disagree that a player develops more playing at the highest level he is capable.

Yes, this point is difficult to argue against, and I personally agree with both of you. My point, in part, is tangential to the core one here: What I wanted to say is that I no longer feel that we should opt for a few Canadian teams in the MLS, that we should instead develop a domestic league, a league that will develop young players who will then pursue better leagues as soon as their skills and experience allow such a move. I agree, playing regularly in the MLS would be a good thing for many of our players. DD has done well there, and I expect others would do well, too.

[bettermirror]

i think we should be building a solid a-league foundation. 8-10 a-league clubs. eventually forming an all canada a-league system. build up a canada usl - meaning, start building up all-canadian pdl/cpsl/pcsl/thatnewleaguebycdrr/andhopefullythataleagueintheleveldirectlybelowthea-league. make it like baseball where the canadians play against each other, but against the americans on specific dates. AL v. NL. you know?

no clubs in the mls except vancouver or toronto who have big enough soccer communities to support both a-league and mls. make sure the sched's don't conflict.

sorry for the mess.

point: little or no MLS. many many usl/a-league clubs prior to a canuck league.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

I understood your point Gian-Luca, and the key element of that is "playing". I doubt that guys like Chin and company would have gotten anymore, and probably less, playing time in the MLS. I have a problem with the whole MLS debate coming up in this thread since no accurate conclusions could be drawn. I am trying to think and only Di Tullio jumps out as someone who got regular, significant playing time in the A-League. I am not sure he would have gotten the same amount in the MLS, but one see's so little of the A-League in Saskatchewan that it would not be fair to pass judgement either way.

If guys like Hutchinson and Convey, for example, were playing in the A-League, or had not choice other than the A-League - then the point would be valid that their development may have been stunted. But who among our A-Leaguers would have played a significant amount of time in the MLS? Who would have even played the same amount of time. One could argue that the A-Leaguers would have seen their development stunted playing fewer minutes in the MLS. A lot of those P-40 guys rarely see the field and they ultimately end up in the A-League - or lower, with their development put on hold for a year or two.

I don't want to flog a dead horse, but their is no evidence that an MLS team in Canada would have had any effect on our U-20 performance. So it is not reasonable, IMO, to conclude it would. Perhaps if these games had been televised we might have additional info that might support the MLS thesis, but at this point we do not.

Well there is no Canadian MLS team so there can't possibly be any "evidence" to that that its existence would have helped, just like there is no "evidence" that it wouldn't have helped. What we've been doing is suggesting that it would help our players to play in a higher quality league, based on the general rule of thumb that playing in a higher quality league tends to do that.

What there is evidence of is that the level of play in Canada isn't high enough, provided by Mitchell's comment, and I remain skeptical that adding a couple more teams at the same level & playing a few months of the year will do more than adding more A-league teams and a few MLS teams. Matondo's comment in that excellent new FIFA article that he needs to get out of Canada as quickly as he can continues to emphasize that we can not be satisfied with the status quo here. Lets hope he has turned enough heads with this play (which the article seems to suggest) that he can get the job in Europe he needs.