Gordon Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Re: Cann, the fans of th Rapids forum anticipate that he will be part of the final roster for that team - and there doesn't appear to be too much debate about that. Let's hope Occean can stick as well (he is young enough to qualify for a "Transitional International" (at least I think that is the term) so may have a better chance of sticking around thanks to that). Has anyone called for him (Cann) to be capped yet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildboutCdnScr Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Let's see, he plays central defence and there have been postings galore looking to stick anyone from Stalteri to Hutchinson in that position next to de Vos. If he makes the Rapids and actually sees time, the call will come soon enough. Make that Cann-do.[] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Ed I would say that Canada does in fact need a foreign coach more so than England for example. Too many old boys with little to offer in terms of technical excellence both on and off the field for my tastes. A fresh wind is EXACTLY what is required, but the CSA has chosen the safe route with Yallop. I wish him success but I am not very confident. Absolutely Ed, it's too bad the CSA opted to "miss the boat" again. Hopefully the ramafications for our program and for Yallop's career are as positive as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Marc Absolutely Ed, it's too bad the CSA opted to "miss the boat" again. Hopefully the ramafications for our program and for Yallop's career are as positive as possible. I agree with you two as well, though it does seem to be a minority opinion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I for one think Yallop fit the bill nicely. Since he is not going to put on the number 10 shirt for Canada I could care less about his technical ability on the field. His technical ability off the field has met the test as far as I am concerned. If Canada plays anything close to the style San Jose played count myself satisfied. He is a young ambitious manager, his playing pedigree is superior to many successful managers and he has had the opportunity to train with a gaffer or two who knew their stuff. As far as I can see, the only thing anyone can legitimently point to as lacking in Yallop would be experience. I'd rather Yallop, than some putz from Europe or South America - and boys, all Canada could attract are putzes at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gordon I'd rather Yallop, than some putz from Europe or South America - and boys, all Canada could attract are putzes at this point. Disagree - I'd rather have a putz from Europe or South America based on the fact that they aren't a former piece of the CSA puzzle. The CSA settled for the putz that would rock the boat the least, the putz that would bring the least amount of freshness to the program, the putz that carried the lowest expectations, the putz that brought the fewest foreign ideas to the program, the putz that was the most well-known to the CSA insiders as possible (outside of James, Mitchell, and Twamley.) With all due respect to Yallop (I think he might make a good Canada manager - just not now, for CSA reasons) we chose the putziest of the putzes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 PS - I don't think Frank is naturally a putz. He's simply a putz in the sense that the CSA still hasn't cleaned out their own lots of putzes, and bringing in someone who reinforces that puts him, unwittingly, in a position of putziness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungey Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I think the CSA chose Yallop because he is the anti-Holger, the bizarro Holger. Where Holger was beligerant, Frank is benign. Holger demanded his players leave their clubs for every friendly or camp, and Frank says he'll respect players club commitments. He's the warm soft fuzzy bear the players wanted. But he's proven he can turn around a weak team, and I'm sure the players will respond to him. I expect short term success with Yallop, hopefully qualify for 2006. Don't know how long he'll be effective, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Oranje Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 The real question is respect and credibility. If players feel they know better than the coach, the team has a problem. If Frank can have the respect of some of our top players (Radzinski, Stalteri, De Guzman) and is viewed as being credible, he should be fine. As soon as questions arise about tactics or lack of player management ability, it's over for him. The advantage a name foreign coach has is instant credibility. I emphasize name because a foreign coach without that is no different than a domestic coach in that they too will have to earn respect and credibility with the top players playing with top clubs. I will add that Frank's credibility for the knowledge of the game comes from his time as a player at Ipswitch. Add to that time coaching and he has something to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I'm with Gordon. I guess it all depends on what you're looking for out of a coach. Is Yallop really the guy that would rock the boat the least? Would he really be the guy that would bring the least amount of freshness to the program? I can only take it that you are defining 'freshness' as new ideas? Freshness is a bit of a slippery concept. In hiring FY is the CSA really exhibiting low expectations? My only response is that each statement is debatable. But even if the answer is in the affirmative I'm not certain that it will hinder the MNT's ability to play to their ability. I can agree that he will bring in fewer foreign ideas than a foreign coach, but you imply that 'foreign' ideas are superior to domestic ideas and I don't think that's a value judgement that can be successfully argued. If the idea is to have a foreign coach bring enlightenment to the moribund CSA executive, I'd say forget it. Those guys are like large pieces of furniture in an apartment with a small door, you might be able to move them a little bit, but getting them out is next to impossible. We've really only had two MNT coaches since the era where the majority of our players play for overseas clubs. BL's era began with a team largely formed by CSL players and then he had to adjust to the fact that there were going to be club/country conflicts; I think it's safe to say that by the end of his tenure, he had developed his favourites to the detriment of the performance of the team. The HO's entire tenure involved dealing with club/country, and I think he did well enough in dealing with that issue. But the foreign HO also developed favourites (basically anybody who would still answer his phone calls). All I'm looking for is a guy that can field our best possible team. By the end of both the previous tenures, you couldn't say that about either coach. Is an under the radar foreign coach going to be better at doing that than FY?...maybe. But not necessarily. I don't think that the CSA had to take on a wild card coach. I think that the other issues that exist are (and should be) largely beyond the scope of responsibility for our MNT coach. Blair quote:Originally posted by Marc The CSA settled for the putz that would rock the boat the least, the putz that would bring the least amount of freshness to the program, the putz that carried the lowest expectations, the putz that brought the fewest foreign ideas to the program, the putz that was the most well-known to the CSA insiders as possible (outside of James, Mitchell, and Twamley.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 A question to consider heading into qualifying is whether having a foreign coach with no experience in playing against (or coaching against) Concacaf opposition would have been better than somebody like Yallop who does have that experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Grasshopper I don't think foreign ideas are necessarily superior. They might be, I don't know. All I meant to imply is that they're bound to be different and foreign to the CSA. You imply that transforming or changing the CSA isn't within the scope of a MNT coach. I agree. However, I say that the MNT coach is the only hope we have of this. Unless we hire a technical director (which I am 100% in favour and would 'mitigate' Yallop's hiring for me), who else will do it? We went out and got it after BL. Reverting to a homely name the next coach after seems a little band-aid to me. All of a sudden we don't need a foreign-influenced technical director anymore? All this pre-HO talk of needing to change soccer, reform the systems, etc. - that's complete after one coach, we don't need that anymore? I say we do. You're right, freshness, expectations, etc., are all a slippery argument. However, I think it's very hard to argue against the notion of FY's hire being the safest decision the CSA could make with themselves in mind. FY might be wildly successful on-the-field and I'm all for that. I'm not against him as coach per se. I say FY as the next coach (after this term's guy) might be a great selection, if he was still available. I'm against his hiring at this point in time in regards to the CSA and needing new blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Marc, I think you have some good points. Especially about our need to have someone with a global vision of the program. Mind you, I think Holger has left us a positive legacy in this regard, which we'll need to build on. Perhaps we should have someone to run the overall program, and maybe think about an outsider. Only that we don't have the money to pay anyone with serious experience or aspirations. The problem for the nat coach is a question of timing, and Canada in late 2003 was hard pressed. Indeed until we got the bye in qualfying we were thinking we'd be in a round right now vs. some lesser team. Meaning that we needed someone who could step in easily, not like just after failing a WC qualifying attempt. Someone who knew a lot of the players, had an idea of the Canadian system, also realized the enormous limitations we have in terms of decent stadiums, no powerful pro league and so many players vying their trade in so many different places, with troubling club committments. It was virtually impossible to ensure that a foreign coach would have assimilated all that in a few months, so that there was a big risk of him clashing with Canadian invariables for their unreasonable nature, when we in Canada know we have to be used to working in unreasonable conditions as a given. Apart from this Yallop has a few things going for him. Certain Holger errors were so obvious that he understands we have to alter them, such as discriminating certain players and ostracizing others. Another is his apparent fast work rate. At Earthquakes he turned them around basically in the 1st pre-season, so that from day one of official play they were a different side. Another thing going for him is the way he got good results even when the team was seriously altered by injury or national call-ups (reverse situation to what club committments mean to a national side). Subs gave him good results as starters. A third thing that I like is that the team was generally entertaining, maybe a bit volatile but goal-scoring and dynamic. This made him the best choice for us in this critical moment. In the end the process is going to be quick, if we fail to get past semis he'll immediately be put in doubt and we'll have to start again. We'll know before the end of the year. But obviously if we can even make the HEX his signing will have been the right one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Georgio Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I don't see why Yallop caoching would ever be an issue. Here is an excerpt from the US times article on the commonly known criteria for selecting their coach: When the search for a new head coach began at the conclusion of the 1998 World Cup, some of the criteria that kept popping up included, among other things: a) an American coach, a coach with international experience, c) a coach that understands the American player, and d) a coach who knows how to develop American talent. http://www.soccertimes.com/usteams/roster/men/arena.htm Now substitute American with Canadian and we have almost identcal coaches and Yallop could be considered better in some regards. Arena won his two MLS championships in the infancy of the MLS when it wasn't as good a league and Yallop won just recently in the better developed league. Then compile all the problems Yallop faced in the onset of both the seasons he won. It is advantageous in my view, time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. Marc, I think you have some good points. Especially about our need to have someone with a global vision of the program. Mind you, I think Holger has left us a positive legacy in this regard, which we'll need to build on. Perhaps we should have someone to run the overall program, and maybe think about an outsider. Only that we don't have the money to pay anyone with serious experience or aspirations. The problem for the nat coach is a question of timing, and Canada in late 2003 was hard pressed. Indeed until we got the bye in qualfying we were thinking we'd be in a round right now vs. some lesser team. Meaning that we needed someone who could step in easily, not like just after failing a WC qualifying attempt. Someone who knew a lot of the players, had an idea of the Canadian system, also realized the enormous limitations we have in terms of decent stadiums, no powerful pro league and so many players vying their trade in so many different places, with troubling club committments. It was virtually impossible to ensure that a foreign coach would have assimilated all that in a few months, so that there was a big risk of him clashing with Canadian invariables for their unreasonable nature, when we in Canada know we have to be used to working in unreasonable conditions as a given. Apart from this Yallop has a few things going for him. Certain Holger errors were so obvious that he understands we have to alter them, such as discriminating certain players and ostracizing others. Another is his apparent fast work rate. At Earthquakes he turned them around basically in the 1st pre-season, so that from day one of official play they were a different side. Another thing going for him is the way he got good results even when the team was seriously altered by injury or national call-ups (reverse situation to what club committments mean to a national side). Subs gave him good results as starters. A third thing that I like is that the team was generally entertaining, maybe a bit volatile but goal-scoring and dynamic. This made him the best choice for us in this critical moment. In the end the process is going to be quick, if we fail to get past semis he'll immediately be put in doubt and we'll have to start again. We'll know before the end of the year. But obviously if we can even make the HEX his signing will have been the right one. I can agree with what you're saying. I think all of your posts on the topic in the past have been bang-on. Under the circumstances, he's an ok choice. It all depends on vision. And I say that not in the loaded sense. If one's vision is more long-term (which mine happens to be, at this time) then FY is a cop-out. If one's focus is short-term he's top of the class. I'm more worried where this will leave us eight to ten years down the road, whether FY is successful or not. And as much as I'm against his hiring, I don't think anyone can blame people for wanting to give on-field success a shot at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayWay Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Marc PS - I don't think Frank is naturally a putz. He's simply a putz in the sense that the CSA still hasn't cleaned out their own lots of putzes, and bringing in someone who reinforces that puts him, unwittingly, in a position of putziness. Thanks for clearing that up. It putz things in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 You're riding in the trunk next time for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Yallop has only been in the job for a couple of months during which the only result we can judge him on is a victory in a B friendly yet people are already complaining. Give the guy a break! We don't know who else was interested in the position and at what cost and I don't think anyone can say that Yallop was completely unqualified for the post. Noone on this board knows yet how successful he will be as a Canadian MNT team coach and a developer of talent nor what his relationship to the CSA will be or whether he will be a yes man. People on this board should support him until his results warrant otherwise and he should be given sufficient time to prove his capabilities. The last foreign coach started well but after a few years the results progressively got worse. The opposite is what is required, a coach who can steadily build the program over several years (although hopefully he has a good start as well). I don't think anyone of us starting a new job would appreciate having people calling you a yes man and saying you are not adequate before you have had any chance of achieving results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewsome Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Yallop has had the job how long? And already people are crucifying him? Can the man be given time to prove you all wrong first? I don't think playing ability should dictate coaching skill. One usually forgets that great players don't make great coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 To be fair, I don't think that I have seen anyone crucify or criticize him. BTW I am neutral on this one. I think that what some are questioning is whether or not he possessed the right background, at the time of his selection, to make positive longterm changes that ultimate improve canadian soccer. In my case, I wasn't sold on him either until he won his second title. Then I took note and realized that his short term chievements were too good to overlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 The time to criticize his qualifications was during the hiring process. In fact we had that debate at the time and many people were in favour of hiring him and some were opposed. We don't know if he was unanimously chosen by the CSA either and maybe they also mirrored the opinions of this board with the majority in favour but some favouring someone else (though many on this board were favouring people who would not be available to us anyway). Now that he has been chosen for the job it is time for real Canada fans (by which I mean those who put Canada's success above proving the validity of their opinions) to support him and wait for him to prove his critics right or wrong through his results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewsome Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly The time to criticize his qualifications was during the hiring process. In fact we had that debate at the time and many people were in favour of hiring him and some were opposed. We don't know if he was unanimously chosen by the CSA either and maybe they also mirrored the opinions of this board with the majority in favour but some favouring someone else (though many on this board were favouring people who would not be available to us anyway). Now that he has been chosen for the job it is time for real Canada fans (by which I mean those who put Canada's success above proving the validity of their opinions) to support him and wait for him to prove his critics right or wrong through his results. AMEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly The time to criticize his qualifications was during the hiring process. In fact we had that debate at the time and many people were in favour of hiring him and some were opposed. We don't know if he was unanimously chosen by the CSA either and maybe they also mirrored the opinions of this board with the majority in favour but some favouring someone else (though many on this board were favouring people who would not be available to us anyway). Now that he has been chosen for the job it is time for real Canada fans (by which I mean those who put Canada's success above proving the validity of their opinions) to support him and wait for him to prove his critics right or wrong through his results. This is just a discussion, which is the point of this forum. Just because some people are questioning the choice of Yallop as coach does not mean that they are not supporting him or the team. Considering the manner in which Ed and Marc (and I in agreeing with them) have expressed their opinions, I can't see why you would suggest otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 The discussion started out on the topic of whether a foreign coach helps our players get signed in his country which at least in the case of Osieck does not seem to have been the case (nor should we discount Yallop's connections in the UK and the US). It then changed to a discussion about whether we should hire a foreign coach in principle and to a criticism by certain posters of Yallop's hiring. Canada needs a good NT coach regardless of nationality. The view that Canada should hire a foreign coach because he is foreign when an equally good Canadian is available is pretty stupid in my opinion although I certainly wouldn't deny anyone the right to hold such a view. What bothers me is that many of the opinions expressed are very ignorant and will remain so until we see how Yallop performs. It is hard to knowledgably criticize his hiring because we have little idea of who else applied and what their salary demands were. Nor do we know whether Yallop will be a CSA yes man or not. Certainly being a Canadian does not make this any more likely than his being a foreigner and I have so far seen no evidence of this. I have actually seen a few positive developments in this regard, such as the training centre which the CSA may not have done on their own initiative. As far as whether he is a good NT coach we can not comment on this because he hasn't had any time to prove himself. If Canada has a bunch of poor results in WC qualifying and Yallop makes poor coaching decisions then go ahead and criticize as there will be grounds to do so. At the moment, however, some of the posts have the air of ignorant speculation trying to support a view that foreign coaches are superior to Canadian. It is a free discussion board and if people want to discuss that then that is their right but I don't think it is a particularly relevant discussion until Yallop has been in the job for a significant period of time and has some results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 This is what I think. If we start from the premise that a foreigh coach is more knowledgeable than a Canadian coach, I would say, yes let's get a foreign coach. However what I consider important is not whether the coach is foreign or not, but whether he has a proven record of success with national teams that rank way low like ours and even better if he has proven success with nations that lack a good professional league. Having said that, there is the question of remmuneration. We don't have much money, hence we have to compromise. I further think that what makes things harder is the tendency of the CSA to keep coaches for a time that is too long if there is no improvement within a reasonable amount of time. Without taking away anything from Osieck, I wonder if we would now be further ahead had he been relieved of his duties years ago and Yallop or somebody else would have taken over. As far as Osieck's influencing Germany to take on our players, I seem to recall that Stalteri was already there before Holger, although at the time we use to curse the poor guy's passing. I find it hard to measure Holger's successful influence at the senior level, it appears to be sporadic at best. On the other hand we appear to be more successful at the younger ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.