Difference between 2003 side and 2001 side

[An Observer]

While I am happy for the side and the boys and the fact that we got farther than we ever have before, I am somewhat concern that we may be going a bit overboard on the accomplishments of this team.

I see two main reasons that this side progressed and the previous side did not and they really don't lie in the depth or quality of the team.

1. Dale Mitchel - I think he prepared the side much better (CSA must be given some credit here as well since this team basically played together for about two years) and they were by far more organised that Paul James side. This kept us in every match as we never allowed more than two goals and allowed the team to gain confidence as they went on. Moreover, I think this side from the back out was probably better defensively than the 2001 side which in my opinion with De Guzman, Kluklowski, Nsaliwa, Canizales, and Dunfield had a superior midfield.

2. Iain Hume - without Hume, we score no goals like the 2001 side. He tallied 3 himself and the fourth was the result of his brilliant cross to Simpson (who granted scored a beauty). In this sense, our offense relied solely on one player in spite of the fine play of Matondo and Simpson. On the positive side, this is what Canada needs. A player like Hume to come along every two years that adds something special offensively and which of the course of 10 years will gives us 4 or 5 such players to surround with tough defenders and fast/hard midfielders.

I still believe we are going in the right direction...but lets not get carried away. We need more professional sides, more international exposure for our youth sides, and more stars like Hume to lead as examples for our youth.

[Canuck Oranje]

But let's not discount the acheivement either.. This team is deeper than Hume.. You don't make it to the QF with just one quality player.

[Gian-Luca]

Perhaps its not so much that Dale Mitchell was the coach, but that Paul James wasn't? Or a bit of both.

Yes, the team wouldn't have been as proficient without Hume, but if you take the star player off every team you could probably say the same thing. We have a good squad coming up for 2005 & maybe we won't have somebody who is proficient at Hume in scoring, but it should still be a good team. If the German-based boys continue to progress with help from the Lombardo's & Lalli's I expect we will still see some goals in 2005.

[Gian-Luca]

Perhaps its not so much that Dale Mitchell was the coach, but that Paul James wasn't? Or a bit of both.

Yes, the team wouldn't have been as proficient without Hume, but if you take the star player off every team you could probably say the same thing. We have a good squad coming up for 2005 & maybe we won't have somebody who is proficient at Hume in scoring, but it should still be a good team. If the German-based boys continue to progress with help from the Lombardo's & Lalli's I expect we will still see some goals in 2005.

[Free kick]

The problem with the 2001 team is that even to this day ( ie.: in Olympic qualifying), they cannot score because they do not have high quality/gifted forwards in that age group( ed.: US Virgin Island do not count). I think all us here got a false sence from that team in the qualifying tournament in Victoria. Our perspective was tainted at the time by the recent failures from our national team in WCQ where we only scored 2 goals in 8 WCQ matches and saw the 2001 team go undefeated in Victoria. Problem is, our U20 team was helped by the fact that the qualifying tournament was played on home soil and within a much weaker group than the other concacaf U20 group at the time. Plus, when you think about it, scoring two goals in three games is really not that fantastic. Especially when you consider that both goals came from the same player ( DeGuzman); An offensive MF rather than a striker. The current U20 players who were on that 2001 team were too young and not ready at that time. They were probably there because of our lack of quality and depth at the time

Having watched the 2001 team in Victoria and in Argentina compared to our current U20 play Spain and the USA, I would say that the differences are like night and day. Even when I look at game stats of the matches versus Australia, Brasil and Burkina Faso you see numbers that reflect the fact that we were at least in the game. For example, I saw nothing from the Aus-Can match stats and summaries that say that we couldn't have earned a result without a bit of luck. Now compare that to our 2001 team's games against Iraq and Germany. We were down 3-0 at the half against Iraq. In that game, As I recall, we hardly ever established any possession and couldn't complete hardly any passes. We had no space to move and our opponents had a ton everytime they had the ball. It was pretty much the same against Germany where I saw men playing against boys. IMO, the current team had more scoring chances against Spain than the 2001 team had in the whole tournament.

That 2001 team had two quality players in Klukowski and Deguzman. Two or three more are still hopefulls and the the rest, IMO, will not amount to much as soccer prospects. Their professional progression is pretty much reflective this. Aside from the achievments of DeGuzman and Klukowski, there hasn't been anything to really get exited about. I also thought, in retropect, that that 2001 made more defensive blunders than the current team did in Friday. So what did the 2001 team have? two decent MF's and little else. This team was much much more solid in goal, on def, and at fwd ( with a much more mature HUme). The only ingredient that I thought was missing from this team on Friday was a Midfield distributor and creator. This was shown by the fact that compared to Spainards we didn't string together many passing combinations in the final third of the pitch. But I'll bet that would have been different if Hutchinson would have been left in MF instaed of having to be moved back on D. Chin just doesn't have it IMO. He looked more like the kind of numerous players we had in 2001.

So I disagree that preparation or coaching or any other kind of excuses had anything to do with it. They both had almost identical preparation time. The 2001 team was poor. simple as that. I took me a long tim to reach this conclusion but compare the results:

2001 WYC Cnd team 3 gp's, 3 losses, 0 Goals for, 8 Goals against, diff -8, last in 24 team competition.

2003 WYC Cnd team 5 gps, 2 wins, 3 losses, 4 goals for, 6 goals against, top eight in the world.

[Gian-Luca]

Sorry, but all you need to do is compare the organization of the 2003 team to the completely disorganized 2001 team that took the field against Iraq to see that coaching had a HUGE role in the difference of the two teams. That's not an excuse, its a big factor. Compare the teamwork vs. Spain to the lack of marking and continual futile solo-efforts vs. Iraq - that's the sort of thing a coach is supposed to get the players to work on. The players have the individual skill, the coach is supposed to get them to work together as a team. James didn't do that, Mitchell did. You have to remember that Paul James started Bernard Oussa at right back, then realized he'd made a coaching mistake & pulled him off after 20 minutes of the first match, with the player never to be seen or heard from again. That's a sign of great coaching, is it?

And I think you are doing some players on that 2001 a great injustice. For example, Nsaliwa starting regularly in the 2nd Bundesliga at such a young age (21) isn't noteworthy for a Canadian, or something to get excited about? He is playing at a higher level than most of our "regular" senior team starting defenders. And Hume & Atiba were also on the 2001 team. If you want to argue that the 2003 teams was better - and I think it is - I would do it from the point of view that there was no room in the starting line-up for 17 year olds in the 2003 team (like the 2001 team had), and that Hume & Hutchinson were two years better this time round. I certainly wouldn't do it on the basis that there was no difference in the coaching!

The other thing to remember is that the coach selects the players - how did we go from Ngon as a first-choice starter to not making the team in favour of Belotte, who then didn't even start any of the matches? Paul James also did the "brilliant" move of stripping Oppong of the captaincy in favour of Dunfield, who prior to that hadn't played in the qualifiers because he hadn't "chosen" to play for Canada at that point. I don't know if that made any difference within the squad or not, but I think its a bush-league move for a coach to make.

Its not quantity of preparation we are talking about, its quality - although the 2003 team had far more preparation to begin with since they had to prepare for the tournament twice (with the first tournament being postponed late in the day)so its erroneous to state that the preparation was "identical" - the quantity & quality (ie. Mitchell instead of James) for the 2003 team can't compare in the slightest to the 2001 team's.

Yes, the 2003 team was better, but I maintain the biggest difference was in coaching, rather than in skill & talent on the field (though there was a slight overall improvement in that area as well).

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Sorry, but all you need to do is compare the organization of the 2003 team to the completely disorganized 2001 team that took the field against Iraq to see that coaching had a HUGE role in the difference of the two teams. That's not an excuse, its a big factor. Compare the teamwork vs. Spain to the lack of marking and continual futile solo-efforts vs. Iraq - that's the sort of thing a coach is supposed to get the players to work on. The players have the individual skill, the coach is supposed to get them to work together as a team. James didn't do that, Mitchell did. You have to remember that Paul James started Bernard Oussa at right back, then realized he'd made a coaching mistake & pulled him off after 20 minutes of the first match, with the player never to be seen or heard from again. That's a sign of great coaching, is it?

And I think you are doing some players on that 2001 a great injustice. For example, Nsaliwa starting regularly in the 2nd Bundesliga at such a young age (21) isn't noteworthy for a Canadian, or something to get excited about? He is playing at a higher level than most of our "regular" senior team starting defenders. And Hume & Atiba were also on the 2001 team. If you want to argue that the 2003 teams was better - and I think it is - I would do it from the point of view that there was no room in the starting line-up for 17 year olds in the 2003 team (like the 2001 team had), and that Hume & Hutchinson were two years better this time round. I certainly wouldn't do it on the basis that there was no difference in the coaching!

The other thing to remember is that the coach selects the players - how did we go from Ngon as a first-choice starter to not making the team in favour of Belotte, who then didn't even start any of the matches? Paul James also did the "brilliant" move of stripping Oppong of the captaincy in favour of Dunfield, who prior to that hadn't played in the qualifiers because he hadn't "chosen" to play for Canada at that point. I don't know if that made any difference within the squad or not, but I think its a bush-league move for a coach to make.

Its not quantity of preparation we are talking about, its quality - although the 2003 team had far more preparation to begin with since they had to prepare for the tournament twice (with the first tournament being postponed late in the day)so its erroneous to state that the preparation was "identical" - the quantity & quality (ie. Mitchell instead of James) for the 2003 team can't compare in the slightest to the 2001 team's.

Yes, the 2003 team was better, but I maintain the biggest difference was in coaching, rather than in skill & talent on the field (though there was a slight overall improvement in that area as well).

well I certainly won't argu the point about giving the captaincy to Dunfield ( BTW, I thought It was deGuzman who wore the arm band in qualifying). I said so at the time that it was bush league to do so given that the same player only came back to the canadian fold after realizing that he wasn't at the same level as Hargreaves do what hargreaves did and play for England.

your quote " If you want to argue that the 2003 teams was better - and I think it is - I would do it from the point of view that there was no room in the starting line-up for 17 year olds in the 2003 team (like the 2001 team had), and that Hume & Hutchinson were two years better this time round". That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make in that Paul James didn't have the same quality to work with as Mitchell. That is why I am saying that its not the coaches fault. I will not suggest that Paul James didn't make any mistakes. But I could also quibble with why Gordon Chin played every single game and was given the captiancy. Maybe its unfair on my part to single him out given that I did not see any of the other WYC games other than Spain. But from what I saw in that game versus Spain, he looked like our weakest link out there and and wasn't subbed off. I couldn't help but think that the only reason he was given the captains arm band and played so much was because he plays for the whirecaps where Mitchell is the coach. Plus unlike most other A-leaguers on this U20 team, Chin hardly stepped on the pitch this summer in the A-league. Because we did so well this time, we will overlook and forget these things and compliment Mitchell for doing a great job. But in truth, regional or club favortism is the thing that bothers me more from coaches than anything else. I sure hope that Chin was better in the other matches because from what I saw, THERE IS NO WAY THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREFERRED OVER BLICHARSKI.

The point I am making is that there will always be questionable decisions that coaches will make. But Ultimately its comes down to the squad that you have. James did not have the same quality and

unfortunately he paid the price for that. You have to consider who the coaches have available to them in order to pass judgement on them.

Regarding preparation, you can often see things that suggest lack of preparation. For example, a side a that weakens latter on in the game or a side that plays inconsistantly thoroughout or where there is a lack of cohesion where players can't find each other on the pitch. But not lack of talent. Deguzman decsided to do too much in 2001 because he realized that there was no one of his quality that he could play off of. Untill belotte came on in 2001, I didn't see anyone take anyone on and beat them one on one. These are the things that are not a coaches fault.

[strobe_z]

I agree that the coaching was superior. It's easier to coach well with better players, but we had a couple of players of "standout" quality in 2001 too. The coaches job is to build a system around his key players' strengths.

One thing that stood out for me in the Spain game was that we played very very little of the dump and chase long ball game. Our players consistently played the ball out of trouble. A couple of times I was wishing they'd just get rid of it - especially when they lost the ball in a bad area, but all in all I was impressed with our whole style of game.

The coaching style is evident throughout the game, we came out early looking for the lead, something I was hoping they'd do as we typicaly take teams like Spain a bit off guard at first. I think that has to do with them taking those silly FIFA rankings to much to heart. When Spain started to turn up the pressure, we maintained our defensive shape, but there was no bunker-style mentality to be found. We came out swinging in the second half and once we had the momentum it was obvious Dale was playing for a win.. not just "a good showing".

From what I remember of the 2001 games... 'system' was not a word I would've used. I remember the game against Germany being disjointed and akward.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by strobe_z

I agree that the coaching was superior. It's easier to coach well with better players, but we had a couple of players of "standout" quality in 2001 too. The coaches job is to build a system around his key players' strengths.

One thing that stood out for me in the Spain game was that we played very very little of the dump and chase long ball game. Our players consistently played the ball out of trouble. A couple of times I was wishing they'd just get rid of it - especially when they lost the ball in a bad area, but all in all I was impressed with our whole style of game.

The coaching style is evident throughout the game, we came out early looking for the lead, something I was hoping they'd do as we typicaly take teams like Spain a bit off guard at first. I think that has to do with them taking those silly FIFA rankings to much to heart. When Spain started to turn up the pressure, we maintained our defensive shape, but there was no bunker-style mentality to be found. We came out swinging in the second half and once we had the momentum it was obvious Dale was playing for a win.. not just "a good showing".

From what I remember of the 2001 games... 'system' was not a word I would've used. I remember the game against Germany being disjointed and akward.

Perhaps but I think that we will see very soon that it wasn't primarily Paul James' fault. Lets see in two years and compare how many of the current crop have pro contracts with decent clubs compared to where the 2001 side are at now. Aside, from the a-leageurs, james did not have any players with pro contracts (ie.: Hutchinson, Hume). Even Klukowskiand Deguzman were playing for youth sides. Plus look at the remanents of that 2001 squad that is now involved in Olympic qualifying. They still have trouble scoring goals and barely squeaked through el salvardor. So are we going to put all the blame on Twamley this time? Look I am not saying James and Twamley are fantasic coaches. But you have consider who they have to work with. The entire US U23 side is composed of MLS players and may include potential stars as Donovan and beasley. Who does twamley have? Meanwhile many of those 2001 players are either out of sight or still in reserve sides. Hell, Oppong just started his first pro game. Plus look at the change with with pro player like Masciantonia and Placentino. Would we stand a chance in olympic qualifying by playing the same team we had in argentina?

I am not on pro-james or pro-twamley crusade here. Yes, overall, mitchell did a better job. But all of them have their faults and the main reason for the difference from 2001 and 2003 youth sides is the players. Its just too easy to blame the coach every time.

[An Observer]

Freekick, you state "The problem with the 2001 team is that even to this day ( ie.: in Olympic qualifying), they cannot score because they do not have high quality/gifted forwards in that age group( ed.: US Virgin Island do not count).". This is exactly my point, without Hume on the 2003 we would have had difficulty scoring and that is why I believe he made such a huge difference on this side.

Also you state: "Having watched the 2001 team in Victoria and in Argentina compared to our current U20 play Spain and the USA, I would say that the differences are like night and day. Even when I look at game stats of the matches versus Australia, Brasil and Burkina Faso you see numbers that reflect the fact that we were at least in the game". I agree although I watched the matches in Argentina and the one against Australia where I gave a game report on this site. What I noticed was that we played solid defensively and man marked well. We then scored on the counter. More importantly, as the tournament went on the players started to believe in themselves and played with more confidence. But this I put down to coaching, and not the team. I really don't think there is much difference between the two sides with exception of Hume. And I would say, having a scorer makes a huge difference to a side.

At the end of the day, I would not be surprised to see as many national team players from the 2001 side as from the 2003 one. But time will only tell

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

Freekick, you state "The problem with the 2001 team is that even to this day ( ie.: in Olympic qualifying), they cannot score because they do not have high quality/gifted forwards in that age group( ed.: US Virgin Island do not count).". This is exactly my point, without Hume on the 2003 we would have had difficulty scoring and that is why I believe he made such a huge difference on this side.

Also you state: "Having watched the 2001 team in Victoria and in Argentina compared to our current U20 play Spain and the USA, I would say that the differences are like night and day. Even when I look at game stats of the matches versus Australia, Brasil and Burkina Faso you see numbers that reflect the fact that we were at least in the game". I agree although I watched the matches in Argentina and the one against Australia where I gave a game report on this site. What I noticed was that we played solid defensively and man marked well. We then scored on the counter. More importantly, as the tournament went on the players started to believe in themselves and played with more confidence. But this I put down to coaching, and not the team. I really don't think there is much difference between the two sides with exception of Hume. And I would say, having a scorer makes a huge difference to a side.

At the end of the day, I would not be surprised to see as many national team players from the 2001 side as from the 2003 one. But time will only tell

Observer, you raise some valid points but I would strongly argue that Hume was the only difference between this squad and the 2001 squad. I watched that qualifying game we played against the US where we won 3-2. Hume was terrific as was Godfrey and Belotte. We looked so much more offensively potent in that game than we did in the entire qualifying tournament in Victoria. WE were only potent from a defensive standpoint in Victoria where we completely shut down our opposition. In truth the opposition at that time looked pretty brutal. The qualifiers from the other concacaf pool did much better in argentina. But scoring chances? not that many were created in Victoria.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

Regarding preparation, you can often see things that suggest lack of preparation. For example, a side a that weakens latter on in the game or a side that plays inconsistantly thoroughout or where there is a lack of cohesion where players can't find each other on the pitch.

[Guest Ed]

Free Kick posted:

"Observer, you raise some valid points but I would strongly argue that Hume was the only difference between this squad and the 2001 squad. I watched that qualifying game we played against the US where we won 3-2. Hume was terrific as was Godfrey and Belotte. We looked so much more offensively potent in that game than we did in the entire qualifying tournament in Victoria."

Godfrey must have been outstanding as a cheerleader, as he never saw the field. Belotte was not 'terrific' in that game.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

Free Kick posted:

"Observer, you raise some valid points but I would strongly argue that Hume was the only difference between this squad and the 2001 squad. I watched that qualifying game we played against the US where we won 3-2. Hume was terrific as was Godfrey and Belotte. We looked so much more offensively potent in that game than we did in the entire qualifying tournament in Victoria."

Godfrey must have been outstanding as a cheerleader, as he never saw the field. Belotte was not 'terrific' in that game.

Fair enough, them substitute the name of Lemire with that of Godfrey in my quote. But I'll disagree on your assessment of Belotte