Yallop: Stay or Go?

[Vancouver Fan]

quote:Originally posted by Paddy

Yes, as a better coach would not make the player selections that Yallop made.

When a team fails to acheive their goal it's always easy to say that the coach used the wrong players.Yeah,I would have liked to have seen the likes of Brennan,Menezes,Bircham,Klukowski,Nsaliwa,Bent and Hirschfeld a few others used but none of those players are going to put the ball in the net.Prior to last night we had the best goals against of all the teams in the group.But 3 goals for in 5 games(1 by a stiker)suggests to me that we were let down by our front line players.Yallop used all of our top ranked strikers and none of them produced.Who,other than an injured McKenna could have made a difference up front?

[Massive Attack]

Yallop should be fired. We should not reward failure. Quite simply, Frank Yallop failed at his stated goal. Sure, he didn't have a very long time to prepare, but that's too bad. It was quite obvious that he was making so many blatant mistakes. These are my main beefs:

1. Onstad should have been replaced after the Belize series. Failing that, after the Guatemala match. It's pretty obvious that Yallop made sure his old buddy continued to play despite not warranting it.

2. Onstad as captain. I think most people know who are caption should be, I don't need to say more.

3. Piss poor player selection. I know I'll get laughed at for this, but the exclusions of Aguiar and Nsaliwa from the start should have triggered alarm bells. As the World Cup qualifying progressed, Yallops crazy selections just got crazier (ie. Corrazin).

4. The old boys network. This is self explanitory.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

Yallop should be fired. We should not reward failure. Quite simply, Frank Yallop failed at his stated goal. Sure, he didn't have a very long time to prepare, but that's too bad. It was quite obvious that he was making so many blatant mistakes. These are my main beefs:

1. Onstad should have been replaced after the Belize series. Failing that, after the Guatemala match. It's pretty obvious that Yallop made sure his old buddy continued to play despite not warranting it.

2. Onstad as captain. I think most people know who are caption should be, I don't need to say more.

3. Piss poor player selection. I know I'll get laughed at for this, but the exclusions of Aguiar and Nsaliwa from the start should have triggered alarm bells. As the World Cup qualifying progressed, Yallops crazy selections just got crazier (ie. Corrazin).

4. The old boys network. This is self explanitory.

I agree with most of what you say, and especially about the alarm bells with Aguiar being left out. In the end Aguiar was dead right, the system has coaches regularly calling up guys who fail for us, and that is part of old-boys networks, coach's insecurity or lack of experience.

But in the end I don't mind if Yallop stays, at least he'll get a chance to rectify. Let him take the flack al the more if he does not change his ways. He deserves to be in there to try to alter his ways.

[Massive Attack]

The problem is that Yallop won't have to change his ways. All of his old-boys network players will now retire from the international scene. The decision about those players has been made for him.

[DJT]

Originally posted by Blackdude - 10/14/2004 : 20:08:17</u>

He'll get a 2nd chance

He will stay but he will need a good result for the Gold Cup. If he can't go through the 2nd round, he could be fired. Now he has to prepare his team to win the gold cup next year.

Give Yallop a 2nd chance and after we'll see.

[Guest Ed]

quote:Originally posted by Vancouver Fan

......... Who,other than an injured McKenna could have made a difference up front?

He could have started with someone used to playing on the flank, who could actually cross the ball to the far post, like Brennan.

[Ivan]

MHO is give him some time. He seems to have a good rapport with the players and deserves a chance.

Lets see what he does with the next generation of players over the next few years. If results don't come, then let him go in 2006.

[Cheeta]

I'll go on a bit more.

It is not for WCQ to act as a venue for Frankie Yallop to learn his craft. This isn't earn while you learn.

A program for good or bad was interrupted 6-8 months before WCQ and a new one intruduced. I don't think this was done to give us a head start on 2010. There were a lot of concearns back then about the timing. There were also some concearns about a player mutiny having forced Sharpe to act dramaticly. A supposed mutiny which re-introduced Pesch., Watson, Aguir and Bircham into the program. And opened the door for the domestic players who'd quality had been previously discounted by Holger.

Wonderful.

Then Yallop hitched his pony to the Pat Onstad show, gave him the captains armband and decided that Canada could play a certain style of football which he himself prefered over Holger's system.

And that's were Yallop has failed miserably in my estimation. He put his blinders on, looking forward into a future which his player pool couldn't deliver. Then he went scrounging looking for players who he hoped could fit into his mold.

He didn't assess where we stood. He didn't look at what tools he had to work with. And didn't institute a system which would use what he had not what he wished he had. And that is a failing which will cost every manager their job.

This isn't club football. He didn't have 6 games to get his act together but he was managing like he did.

Best half we've played in years I read here more than once. That's what people have been writing about yesterdays test at Swangard. A whole lot of direct run and kick there was. More than we've seen in the 1st 4 matchs. And it had the Tico's backing up. Just didn't have a 2nd wave to support.

But how mutch can you really ask of Grande and Imhof?

Yallop's got to go. What we've seen,,,that's all he's got. A pretty shallow bag of tricks.

[Gian-Luca]

I've mentioned this elsewhere but I guess I might as well repeat it in the thread it belongs - I would give him the 2005 Gold Cup to show that he can learn from his mistakes. If we don't win that tourney or if it is held in Mexico, don't come close to winning it, then I'd be in favour of a change. A new coach can be introduced in the fall of 2005 and have a wopping 3 years to prepare a new team for qualifying in 2008, including another Gold Cup (hopefully in Canada) in 2007.

I think Yallop made some rookie international coach mistakes, but if we fire him now we'll never know (or give him an opportunity) to learn from them. Without a bevy of capable and interested replacements apparent, I think we can afford to give him 1 Gold Cup. But if I see Corazzin replacing Hume ever again I reserve the right to change my mind about that.

[Gordon]

I think Yallop has made a lot of mistakes, especially in player selection. But I also think that he has shown enough that he should merit two years to put his stamp on the program. We have made a huge investment in Frankie now - were out of the WC - and it would seem a tragedy if that investment was lost. I think it is premature to cut out on Yallop. I'd like to see Frank get at least 20-24 games or so, over the next 2 years, never dressing anyone older than DeVos (you need some vets for leadership and experience) and evaluate how he is moving that team forward. If he is not progressing, then cut him loose and give the new guy 2 years to get ready for Qualifying.

Look at Honduras's experience with Bora. They did squat while he was there, and ultimately seem destined to join us on the sideline - and would already be there if not the beneficiary of 'questionable' reffing.

I'd say can his a$$ if he had a decent lead in to this round. I am not saying give him a blank cheque, I am saying give him a decent run at it, and pull the pin in plenty of time to give the next guy a good go if he isn't up to it. I'd like to see the CSA to give any coach a fair shot at getting a team into the World Cup and let him if he fails.

Quick fixes are not the answer. And bailing on a coach this soon after the Holger process isn't likely to lead us to attract decent candidates anyway.

[Moosehead]

Go, he was hired to get us to the world cup and not only did we not get us to the next round we are last in the qualifying group. There was lack of proper preparation, scouting was left to Twamley and then the selection decisions and poor result against Guatemala. We need to send a message that Canadian soccer means business and thats it, nothing personal and I wish him the best in his career. I fail to see how even a postive result in the Gold Cup would show anything on whether he is qualified to do another world cup qualifying campaign.

[Moosehead]

Go, he was hired to get us to the world cup and not only did we not get us to the next round we are last in the qualifying group. There was lack of proper preparation, scouting was left to Twamley and then the selection decisions and poor result against Guatemala. We need to send a message that Canadian soccer means business and thats it, nothing personal and I wish him the best in his career. I fail to see how even a postive result in the Gold Cup would show anything on whether he is qualified to do another world cup qualifying campaign.

[DoyleG]

The problem I had with Yallop was that his appointment seemed more of knee-jerk reaction in the fallout from Holger's departure. It seemed that Frank went back to the old boys network made things harder to swallow.

Frank should be canned. The next coach should be someone who doesn't have a link to Canadian soccer.

[An Observer]

I agree. If we are a serious soccer nation, he must go. Its as simple as that. We have 0 wins, 2 ties, 3 losses and bottom of our group. Guatemala has qualified for the next round and it is clear that they have no where near the talent we do which means they have qualified on the basis of better preparation and coaching.

Furthermore, he should go for these reasons:

He was hired almost a year ago and what did he do to prepare the team? We never played a match until June against Wales. He then made a number of significant changes to the player personnel after the Belize series before qualifying began based on Canada B matches. This turned out to be a disaster as we lost our first match as we were not prepared. At this level, you cannot make such preparation mistakes. He should have been evaluating players last january and february and we should have played 6 to 8 matches prior to the Belize series with the core of the side that was to take us through qualifying.

Player Selection: Leaves alot to be desired. Onstad over Hirschfeld has proven to be a disaster. I would player a premiership second stringer over a player that has never even in his prime been of that quality. In my opinion, based on Hirschfeld's previous matches with the World Cup side, it would have been his position to lose. He should have also known that Watson was not the man for the position at the back and that this would not get us through qualifying He had other options that he could have tried if he played a number of warm up matches (possibly Gervais the A-league defender of the year, Hutchinson who proved at the U-20 level he could do it at this position, Aguiar who was as recently as last season playing for Benefcia, or Nsaliwa who is playing that positon now and has played it before, or even Stalteri who has proven he can play almost anywhere). Again, a mistake that has cost us dearly. Finally, I find it rather amazing that we have players like Brennan, Kluklowski, Bircham, Nsaliwa, and Aguiar that are all playing at a high level in Europe who never even got a look in while players such as De Rossario was playing out of position on the left side (and frequently lost the ball all qualifying), we obviously had a crisis a central back without De Vos and these players were not tried (what about Hutch in the centre with Nsaliwa at right back). What about Brennan or Kluklowski in for Jazic who I thought was frequently getting beat, making poor passes, and glaring errors? Or even Simpson for that matter, at least for De Ro who loses the ball. The player selection was baffling to say the least. He drops Pesch who is at least playing in favour of Corrazin who hasn't played for a month. If you want a target man, what about Friend? or McKenna who at least was coming back to fitness and could give you 20 minutes at the end. Very baffling selections.

[Marc]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

The problem I had with Yallop was that his appointment seemed more of knee-jerk reaction in the fallout from Holger's departure. It seemed that Frank went back to the old boys network made things harder to swallow.

I dont' think I've agreed with you, but I said the same thing when he was hired as well. Maybe we agreed back then?

[Ruud]

True True Preparation for these qualifyers was poor. Other coaches in the group recognized the need to get games in before qualifyers...so either Yallop didn't recognize this, or Yallop's hands were tied. Here's my question: can a Canadian coach ask players to train and play friendlies during the off-season, or miss a significant part of their club training camps in Europe? In my view, that is what it would have taken to prepare this team. The obvious other decisions that fall back on the coach is 1. allowing Radz to miss the Guatemala game and 2. allowing Hume to get that second yellow in Kingston and not sub him off.

Three additional warm up games against El Salvador, Panama and T&T would have given this team the preparation they needed, and I doubt anyone on the team would deny that. But without a league in Canada that can delay the start of the season (as they did in Guatemala), Canada's hands are tied again. Yallop or otherwise, it doesnt' change.

[footballer]

Does anyone know what Bora Milutinovic is doing?

He may be expensive, but he's been successful wherever he's coached. Possibly someone for the CSA to consider?

I feel for the group of players that have missed this opportunity, and I'd like to thank them for their efforts!

[redhat]

quote:Originally posted by footballer

Does anyone know what Bora Milutinovic is doing?

He may be expensive, but he's been successful wherever he's coached. Possibly someone for the CSA to consider?

I feel for the group of players that have missed this opportunity, and I'd like to thank them for their efforts!

Bora is coaching Qatar. Bora's not the answer, ask Honduras. Or China.

[footballer]

Bora may not be the answer, I agree, but what I do think is imporatant is to hire a foreign coach. We need someone to have an external view of what is ailing Canadian soccer. Those within will not be able to see the problems (like reading your own essay).

It is frustrating when we don't see any improvement year after year (not in playing style or results).

The program had some success when Holger was in charge, but they still did not play an attractive or effective brand of football. Not sure if its a coaching issue or a personnel issue, but the entire system needs to be addressed, not just the coach.

[redhat]

Wasn't Holger a foreign coach? How about Tony Waiters or Tony Taylor?

Or Even Pellarud? The fact that he is foreign may seem to be a plus, but it's 50-50.

Costa Rica found that out with Steve Sampson. Is he another candidate?

I think giving Yallop until the Gold Cup to prove himself has more merit than going through

another coaching merry-go-round evident in many countries. Like Scotland and Honduras.

But to say the "entire system needs to be addressed", I certainly AGREE.

[Paddy]

quote:Originally posted by Vancouver Fan

When a team fails to acheive their goal it's always easy to say that the coach used the wrong players.Yeah,I would have liked to have seen the likes of Brennan,Menezes,Bircham,Klukowski,Nsaliwa,Bent and Hirschfeld a few others used but none of those players are going to put the ball in the net.Prior to last night we had the best goals against of all the teams in the group.But 3 goals for in 5 games(1 by a stiker)suggests to me that we were let down by our front line players.Yallop used all of our top ranked strikers and none of them produced.Who,other than an injured McKenna could have made a difference up front?

Up front is not necessarily the problem. As someone who has played forward for years it is important to get good service and not be constantly chasing down lost cause balls. Therefore the inclusion of the likes of Brennan, Menezes, Bircham, Klukowski, Nsaliwa, Bent would have, IMO, produced a better platform to attack off of. World class forwards with no service are not likely to score.

[The Beaver]

Gordon, Ruud, G-L et al, nice to see some rational criticism and a good understanding of the very real contingincies of coaching our National Team.

The entire "old boys" argument baffles me. Yes, Onstad was shi.te in the last game, but Watson played well over the course of the 4 games I watched. He's not a brilliant player, but he and Devos did well together. In the abscence of McKenna--who was injured, if any of you've forgotten--I think Watson did okay. I want to see some new blood, but we don't really have much of a choice, do we? Anyhow, the rest of the team was NOT part of the "old boys club." Even Pesch, who is arguably one of the "old boys" was gently dropped from the team because he wasn't up to par at the time.

Bottom line: Yallop was NOT hired with the expectation that he'd get this team into the World Cup. He promised to do his best in short time, and he make mistakes, but if he learns from these errors--which he showed evidence that he WAS learning--then I think it'd be a waste to toss him too soon. Truth of the matter is that we should have had 3 or 4 friendlies prior to our first game versus Guatamala. Look at how well the team was playing by the fifth game. Guatamala, after four friendlies, would have been our fifth game. We would have been in much better shape, Frank would have shaken out some of the rookie coaching mistakes and figured his team and players out better, and I feel this round of qualifying would have run a more positive course.

Patience is needed at this point, but I do not feel that anyone here feels that Yallop has fully proved he should stay, so let's see what he does over a good couple of years.

[El Hombre]

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

Truth of the matter is that we should have had 3 or 4 friendlies prior to our first game versus Guatamala.

I fully agree with you Beaver except we played Belize twice and Wales (and San Jose sort of). Do you mean we should have had 3 or 4 more?

As much as the B team tournament was a good idea and the benefits are evident, I think it misguided Yallop's judgement a bit and he got high on players who played well against off-season club teams. I think he put too much stock in the players from this tournament. This and a few injuries prompted him to change his team from the friendlies listed above.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

[Moosehead]

Patience is needed at this point, but I do not feel that anyone here feels that Yallop has fully proved he should stay, so let's see what he does over a good couple of years.

I have run out of patience and tired of excuses and statements like we have a great future are we going to say that for the next 20 years that we are on cusp of something amazing. The fact of the matter is the team should have been good enough to at least get to the next round. Sure there was some terrible calls that went against but that happens. Maybe qualifying for the world cup was a long shot but we came last in this qualifying group. Not a question of blame, its a question of moving on. WCQ is no time for experimentation. I think working on Yallop and giving him a 2nd chance will just show to the soccer community that we don't take the game seriously. If we finish 3 or 4th in the Gold Cup is that good enough for him to stay? The fact is I see it that he could turn out to be a decent coach but based on the peculiar decisions made to date I fail to see a brilliant national team coach in the making.

[beachesl]

quote:Originally posted by Ruud

Here's my question: can a Canadian coach ask players to train and play friendlies during the off-season, or miss a significant part of their club training camps in Europe? In my view, that is what it would have taken to prepare this team. The obvious other decisions that fall back on the coach is 1. allowing Radz to miss the Guatemala game and 2. allowing Hume to get that second yellow in Kingston and not sub him off.

Three additional warm up games against El Salvador, Panama and T&T would have given this team the preparation they needed, and I doubt anyone on the team would deny that. But without a league in Canada that can delay the start of the season (as they did in Guatemala), Canada's hands are tied again. Yallop or otherwise, it doesn't change.

This is true, but Yallop and the CSA administrators seem to lack the smarts, the organization and the will to use the difficult system to full advantage.

The rules are in FIFA's "FIFA Regulations for the Status and

Transfer of Players", Articles 36 to 44.

http://www.fifa.com/en/regulations/regulationlegal/0,1577,2,00.html

The rules are silent as to the off-season, but the players' contracts with the clubs usually specify restrictions that would prevent going to camps not within the release rules without permission.

This would have made the attendance of players for a friendly between the Belize matches and the August 18 Guatemala match very difficult, because there were no international dates in that period in which clubs could be forced to release players.

How were Costa Rica, Honduras and, especially Guatemala (who were able to play 7 friendlies during that period, a factor in their great success) able to do what Canada did not?

1. The Assciations were willing to go to bat against the clubs. Most of the players were with national leagues more subject to pressure, but there were sizeable proportions of the players, especially in

Honduras and Costa Rica, who played in the MLS and overseas. We are not privy to what went on between the Associations and the clubs, but you can be assured that they were not fooling around.

2. The players themselves were prepared to make extraordinary sacrifices to play for their country. I am not questioning the devotion of our own players, but I think that there is a fever there that is hard for us to comprehend. The players would not put up with being part of the Coleman/Radzinski nonsense, not just the Associations. Look at Mutu refusing to put up with the "injury" scam Mourinho proposed to keep him from going to play for Roumania this past week.

3. The Central American Associations, like Australia did last winter with Kewell and Vidulka, insist that the injured players attend and justify their abscenses, and also insist on their full player release times (5 days for competitive matches) under the rules (if Canada had done this, Radzinski and De Vos would not have played on the Saturday before the Guatemala matches, and the "reasons" for their absences would not have occurred). Because this is part of the standard, it is not questioned. They are business like. CSA does not play hardball, and there is no evidence Yallop tried to get them to play hardball.

4. When there are dates on the international calendar allowing for friendlies, our competitors almost always took advantage of them. Of the 3 international friendly dates occuring in February, March and April this past year, Canada played no friendlies, and had but one camp, even though the players have to be released for these dates if asked under the rules.