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...
Gordon Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Marc 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. See, now I've always struggled with the guilt by association thing. Especially because my experience is that the people who most know what is wrong with an organization are the people associated with it and but in a position to effect change. The irony here is that, since Yallop's only previous association with the CSA is playing for the national team, by being Canadian and turning out for the national team he has rendered himself unsuitable for the job in the opinion of some on this board. If he had played for Multinovic and Sampson and had the same results as San Jose coach what would the verdict be? Now I might think there was some merit in this guilt by association theory if Yallop was 55 years old and had coached in the system for 10-12 years and this was basically the end of his career. But since he is young, ambitious, and has his eyes on advancing, I am inclined to think he likely does not want to stick with a program proven unsuccessful. But perhaps I am letting reason get in the way a good rant/hate on for the CSA? When I look at this argument, I see that the knock against Yallop is that he turned out for Canada when called and nothing more. So frankly, I find the preference for a second tier "foreign" coach unsettling. A problem with his lack of experience I can see and agree to disagree with. But to point to the fact that he played for Canada as the basis of failing to be a suitable candidate is startling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted February 26, 2004 Author Share Posted February 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by The Ref 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. Thoughts on two points you raised. Firsty the money issue. I do not believe that we have any hard evidence to support the fact that the CSA is at any kind of significant disadvantage financally in relation to any other soccer asociation arround the globe and especially within our region. I don't know how this legend started but it has been mentioned on many occasions. Maybe we are at a disadvantage but, lets not forget that we are a developed industrialized country who plays in a sport where there are many third world countries can real hand our butts on a platter. We are in the same region as Haiti afterall. Those who were with us in Miami when we played Haiti at the GC will know what I mean when comparing the CSA to the Haitian soccer association in the the living conditions of the Haitian were noticable different from the Canadian players . The differences were quite glaring. Many of the carribean and central american countries can't possibly be in any better state financially. Yet Honduras can go out and hire Bora Milutinovic. Look at our womens game in realtion to or regional rivals and isn't there a significant gap in development that could easily be traced to financial resources. Plus there are nearly 800,000 players in canada who pay regisration fees ( in canadian dollars)and there are corporate sponsors backing the CSA of the size that cannot be found in may third world countries or even within successfull world powers like Cameroon. So here is evidence here that maybe we $$$ is not really the issue that we may think. I am sure we can't rival the US or the European superpowers but aybe it comes down to priorities and how you spend your money as an organization. The second point that I would like to elaborate on is the bit about Staleri. I think that much of the past criticism on Stalteri can be trace to one or two persons individal campaign and the rst jumping on the bandwagon. Noticed that that person was never heard from again on this board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonfan Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Off the topic a bit but i was wondering around how much Frank Yallop get paid per year? Also, how much do other national teams coachs get paid like the USA, England or Italy? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Free kick Thoughts on two points you raised. Firsty the money issue. I do not believe that we have any hard evidence to support the fact that the CSA is at any kind of significant disadvantage financally in relation to any other soccer asociation arround the globe and especially within our region. I'm not sure I'd compare Haiti with Honduras when it comes to what the teams can afford, nor Costa Rica (notice that they weren't in the same hotel we were). It's true we are better off that the likes of Haiti, or say Belize, but amongst the top teams in the region I don't think we are. Mexico & the US (or their respective federations) have more money to spend than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gordon Especially because my experience is that the people who most know what is wrong with an organization are the people associated with it and but in a position to effect change. The irony here is that, since Yallop's only previous association with the CSA is playing for the national team, by being Canadian and turning out for the national team he has rendered himself unsuitable for the job in the opinion of some on this board. If he had played for Multinovic and Sampson and had the same results as San Jose coach what would the verdict be? Now I might think there was some merit in this guilt by association theory if Yallop was 55 years old and had coached in the system for 10-12 years and this was basically the end of his career. But since he is young, ambitious, and has his eyes on advancing, I am inclined to think he likely does not want to stick with a program proven unsuccessful. But perhaps I am letting reason get in the way a good rant/hate on for the CSA? When I look at this argument, I see that the knock against Yallop is that he turned out for Canada when called and nothing more. So frankly, I find the preference for a second tier "foreign" coach unsettling. A problem with his lack of experience I can see and agree to disagree with. But to point to the fact that he played for Canada as the basis of failing to be a suitable candidate is startling. Re: those from who have seen the inside can affect change better: I think that is a valid point, it may be true, but with the CSA's stagnance, that might have already happened by now, by BL, no? Re: him being rendered unsuitable by responding to his country's calls: I think that's a twist on what I'm trying to get at. I might have lacked eloquence, but I'm trying to make an effort to say that I don't really have a problem with FY himself (other than his inexperience.) It's not that his own good merit of playing for Canada automatically rendered him unsuitable. It's suiting up under the BL era with a stagnant CSA that renders him unsuitable at this time, since those people are, in the most part, still there. It's more about who is around him, less so about him directly. If he had played under Bora and Sampson, my reservations would be more tempered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Marc It's suiting up under the BL era with a stagnant CSA that renders him unsuitable at this time, since those people are, in the most part, still there. It's more about who is around him, less so about him directly. If he had played under Bora and Sampson, my reservations would be more tempered. How about Bobby Robson? The CSA is not the sole influence on Mr. Yallop, and indeed, his Canada appearances are dwarfed by his club appearances. He is not an "Old Boy" simply because he played for Canada. And if what you are worried is true - that the old boys network is impregnatable, how is a foreign coach going to effect change anyway? This is my problem with the whole thing: Yallop is more ambitious - at least publicly - than Canada. I am sure he sees it as a stepping stone, so why would he come in to be a yes man for a tired, ineffective federation? Its a career killer. I was young and ambitious once, and I have to wonder why Yallop would sacrifice his coaching career at a young age simply to manage Canada for up to 6 years. Looking at his team, San Jose - what in their style of play or operation suggests that Yallop subscribes to whatever you attribute to the CSA old boys? If you could point to some evidence, any evidence, then perhaps I could see where you are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gordon How about Bobby Robson? The CSA is not the sole influence on Mr. Yallop, and indeed, his Canada appearances are dwarfed by his club appearances. He is not an "Old Boy" simply because he played for Canada. And if what you are worried is true - that the old boys network is impregnatable, how is a foreign coach going to effect change anyway? This is my problem with the whole thing: Yallop is more ambitious - at least publicly - than Canada. I am sure he sees it as a stepping stone, so why would he come in to be a yes man for a tired, ineffective federation? Its a career killer. I was young and ambitious once, and I have to wonder why Yallop would sacrifice his coaching career at a young age simply to manage Canada for up to 6 years. Looking at his team, San Jose - what in their style of play or operation suggests that Yallop subscribes to whatever you attribute to the CSA old boys? If you could point to some evidence, any evidence, then perhaps I could see where you are coming from. Of course I don't have any evidence - it's a worry, that's all it is. And to re-iterate, I am not against Yallop's hiring because I solely think he's going to be some CSA yes-man. My only point re: the CSA part, and it's only part of my argument, is that with FY there is a more likely chance of that happening. It may be 10%, it may be 0.10%, I don't know. I'm not worried about him going and calling up Bunbury, I'm worried how the CSA might view this hiring, that he might get stuck by the CSA old boys club, if they'll treat him differently than an outsider, or how his relationships with the few Nats who were around in his time will affect things, if at all. He might not, it might not happen, it might happened even with a foreign coach. However, I think this is less likely with a foreigner. I also don't like the fact that this was the best decision in a CSA ass-covering sense. That being said, that is only a minor part of my argument. The CSA old boy bias is just a small worry with a small likelyhood that's getting blown out of proportion in this discussion. Heck, it's a criticism against the CSA, not even him really. The main reasons I have/had against him are -the abdication of the system revamp -the lack of a technical director -his lack of experience coaching a national team -his lack of coaching experience in general -that the argument of him having excessive knowledge of the current players enough to just jump in the fray and have it make a difference is largely bunk (his player connections of any depth are few and limited to Onstad, DeRo, Corazzin, Dasovic, and Watson, and Fletcher, of whom only DeRo really has a future, maybe Fletch) -and, most importantly the so-quick forgetting of this new rebuilding approach that the CSA thought we needed oh-so-badly enough six years ago. (Either they were full of it then, or they're idiots now for being blind to it.) It just seems like a short-term decision to hire a coach whose limited success has brought him under the spotlight, whose hiring revives some nostalgia of bringing a Canadian back into the fold of MNT coach. It might do wonders on the field and for that I might even name a family pet after him. (I'm naming my first born after Fernando Fernandes of the Connecticut Wolves.) However, if we do suceed on-field, I just don't want it to be the start of another 20 year cycle of mediocrity because we failed to finish the foundations in favour of a potentially warm-and-fuzzy short-term decision. That's all. As I've said before, I'm not anti-Yallop, I'm just not for Yallop at this very moment. He's an up-and=coming coach and he's Canadian to boot. That's great! Just give both him and us some more time, that's all. I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree until, maybe, 2023. (PS-Give me a tech director and I'll be happy. Okay done now!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Please excuse the run on sentences and grammar. What's up with my font, why is it so darn huge? Jeez this format stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Marc The main reasons I have/had against him are -the abdication of the system revamp What abdication would that be then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca What abdication would that be then? Sorry, it should be with the lack of a tech director, they are the same point really. Does the revamping the system all of a sudden end with Holger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Marc Sorry, it should be with the lack of a tech director, they are the same point really. Does the revamping the system all of a sudden end with Holger? The question is though, was the system re-vamped (with the training centres put into place across the country, new additional youth teams on the men side, more focus on developing youth teams) and are those re-vamps still being put into place by the various people at the CSA. As far as I can tell that is still going on (ie. the U15 team hasn't been disbanded as far as I know). I'm not sure (nor do I know if anyone else on this board is) whether there were other "re-vamps" to be done in terms of the infrastructure of the men's programs. Maybe there was and is, I just don't know if any of us know what they are. That's not to say that more improvement isn't needed in the areas of coaching, marketing (though that isn't really up to the Men's coach or technical director) etc. But that's a different issue to me than the setting up of the system, putting the proper funding in place, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Big Nose Bilardo....now there's my idea of a foreign coach! http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=reu-bilardo&prov=reuters&type=lgns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 If Frank continues to call up old-timers he used to play with then maybe I agree there are some flaws in picking him. I don't think he will do so though. While I can see the point of people who think hiring Yallop is a sign of complacency in the CSA and the lack of tech dir. and vision another failing of the CSA, I don't think it's yallop's fault. Even if Yallop was the easy choice I still think it was the right choice. Is it an MLS bias that people think he can't coach? I think he's the greatest coach in MLS history. If you look at what Arena did he drafted a bunch of U Virgnia guys he knew well and made an absolute mockery of the league with his first draft (he had Agoos, Llamosa, Pope and Sanneh in his backline. The rest of the league let him take the US' starting backing four because they didn't know better). Yallop came in much later, took a struggling team and had to survive in an established league without the same ability to poach just anybody. He had to take what he could get and he still found enough diamonds in the rough to put together two very different in terms of players championship teams. I thought Bruce Arena was the best coach at WC02. He changed players, tactics and formations in nearly every game and with the exception of Poland, they worked every time. Usually against superior opposition. I think Yallop may be an even better coach and if he can put his stamp on this team the way Yallop put on San Jose we're in for a good summer or two. While he's not Holger, he's not the anti-Holger either. He called out Landon Donovan in the press for being too preoccupied with being a star rather than focusing of soccer at the start of last year. No one's too big for his team and while he's more diplomatic, I don't think he's going to be anyone's yes man. cheers, matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I'd just like to clarify that nowhere did I say Frank was a poor coach or even a bad choice. What I posted that seems to have started some of this was a response to the post that laid out reasons Canada should not hire a foreign coach. I found the logic baffling and said so; I can't think of many countries where you could make a stronger argument for hiring a foreign coach. I did say the CSA made the easy choice, no argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.