Jump to content

Yallop: Stay or Go?


RS

Recommended Posts

quote:Originally posted by 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.

*How many times does Onstad have to be shaky before he is shelved? He was shaky against Belize. He's been shaky since the last WCQ run.

*Calling up Carlo Corazzin over others at his age and fitness level? If that isn't oldboyism, then it is ignorance.

*Leaving Brennan (twice a scorer against Belize) at home over Simpson?

*We have a defensive crisis as he calls on Mark Watson (who admitedly played above the expectations I had for him) over Aguiar, Nsaliwa, Klukowski, or even Reda or Gervais?

*On one hand we're calling up old hands, on the other, we're giving games to 17 year olds without clubs. Is this a true run for the World Cup, or are we breeding a squad for the next time? Yallop did neither as he seemingly couldn't make up his mind.

No manager will be perfect. All managers will have their favourites. None of our past managers have had tonnes of prep time either. We've had bad calls against us in rounds past as well. As a third world soccer nation we will not have a perfect coach, but that doesn't mean we should feel the need to excuse large errors in judgement. A coach's job is essentially to judge (the best players, combinations, tactics, etc.) and Yallop's judgement has come up short. Not in one isolated instance, but in multiple ones.

It's nice that the players like playing for him. But he's hired to get the best results out of them, not to make it the most fun. If he can do the latter in process, then all power to him. But the former has not been achieved.

We have come in last in our group. We have blown three leads. We are not calling up our best players. This is our worst qualifying run in ages, with arguably more skillful players.

How many mistakes can one make in a qualifying run before they are accountable? For how long can we harp on about 'potential' and 'promise' and 'patience' and 30 minutes of isolated brilliance here and there?

Seeing the big picture is indeed a useful analytical skill, unless one keeps expanding the big picture to suit their own feelings/desires/needs. I think the Canadian soccer community (myself included many a time) has done this on a continual basis.

Maybe Yallop will craft a fine squad and qualify for WC 2010 ('cos we all know he won't be fired and won't quit.) And if so, all credit to him. And I'll give him his due then.

Yes, he wasn't hired to get us, specifically, to WC 2006. But he wasn't hired in an overarching building/technical development Holger-esque mandate either. He was the manager who was going to get our boys, young and old, to gel, combine our overall superior talent (as compared to past squads) and play to the potential which Holger never consistently found because it was a pain to play for him. Which didn't happen. He wasn't hired to make all these mistakes and have us come last, blowing three leads (which we never have!) in the process. Will another four years of scattered games under Yallop truly make a positive difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Originally posted by 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."

Moosehead, mi amigo, I just want it to be clear that I am not making excuses at all. And though I DO think we have a brighter future with a young crop of players developing in Euro leagues (and one or two in South America), I can't see how chopping Yallop at this point will do anything positive at all.

"The fact of the matter is the team should have been good enough to at least get to the next round."

That is simply conjecture and counts for little when it comes to reality. Sure, you may have felt this way--many of us did--but that does not mean it was true. Plus, I think too often we have very unrealistic expectations. High standards are good to have, but lets be frickin real. We needed to play a handful of friendlies before our first game, and because of logisitics or laziness or whatever, those games never happened. The Guats, for instance, played five or six friendlies prior to their game with us.

"WCQ is no time for experimentation."

Exactly--so how can you ask for Yallop's head when he himself was an experiment in the position?

"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."

Really? What community exactly? The community at large does not care if we take soccer seriously--to be honest, they aren't interested in the men's program unless it is winning. (Look at the attention the women's team has garnered.) And really, what does the soccer community--a bloody vague term, mind you--have to do with our winning key games?

"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."

This is, finally, a good point, though I'm not sure you meant it to be: In essence, what will we deem a successful stint over the next few years for Yallop? Does he need to win all the friendlies we play? Do we need to play in the top 3 or 4 at the Gold Cup? What are realistic expectations? We need real benchmarks. (Though, to be honest, we can agree to our own benchmarks for success, but in the end we do NOT make the decision).

I think Frank MIGHT have the ability to be a top-notch international coach, I really do. I also think that Mitchell's involvement with the team cannot be overlooked. He, too, is essentially learning his trade at this level, and he'll have the great benefit of learning from Frank's mistakes as well as his own. This is not a futile experiment.

Moosehead, I appreciate your views and think this is a very positive discussion. We disagree in a number of areas, but we want the same results. Peace.[^]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Marc

*How many times does Onstad have to be shaky before he is shelved? He was shaky against Belize. He's been shaky since the last WCQ run.

--As a few here have said, he was actually quite good in a couple of games. Hard to pull him when he's shown well. I am not a fan of Onstad's, would have hoped Lars was ready to play, but don't fault Yallop for making a tough decision.

*Calling up Carlo Corazzin over others at his age and fitness level? If that isn't oldboyism, then it is ignorance.

--It was a poor choice, yes. It need not be "oldboyism" and it may have been his playing a hunch. Had Carlo scored, we'd all be singing a different tune. Frank took a risk, and he missed. The real error he made was pulling Hume.

*Leaving Brennan (twice a scorer against Belize) at home over Simpson?

--Brennan isn't even playing regular football with his club. I like Brennan a lot, but scoring twice against Belize is not much of a claim, now is it? I wish Brennan was in form and on the squad. Jazic, god love him, does not have the pace anymore. brennan, Kluka, Simpson and deguzman will own the left side over the next many years. this is a good bunch with decent pace and good skill. Can't wait to see what frank does with them. [8)]

*We have a defensive crisis as he calls on Mark Watson (who admitedly played above the expectations I had for him) over Aguiar, Nsaliwa, Klukowski, or even Reda or Gervais?

I hope to see Kluka and Nsaliwa and Reda become part of the core. Not sure that any of them were ready--at this point--to play the role we needed.

*On one hand we're calling up old hands, on the other, we're giving games to 17 year olds without clubs. Is this a true run for the World Cup, or are we breeding a squad for the next time? Yallop did neither as he seemingly couldn't make up his mind.

-- Well, he also selected some guys in their mid-twenties. Damn, with most of you guys it wouldn't matter who he selected, he'd still gotten shat on. He gets knocked for playing young guys and old guys, for not selecting guys who were injured, healthy, active or not even playing regularly, for picking guys in Europe, MLS, A-league. I mean, who can't make up their mind, Yallop or us?

No manager will be perfect. All managers will have their favourites. None of our past managers have had tonnes of prep time either. We've had bad calls against us in rounds past as well. As a third world soccer nation we will not have a perfect coach, but that doesn't mean we should feel the need to excuse large errors in judgement. A coach's job is essentially to judge (the best players, combinations, tactics, etc.) and Yallop's judgement has come up short. Not in one isolated instance, but in multiple ones.

It's nice that the players like playing for him. But he's hired to get the best results out of them, not to make it the most fun. If he can do the latter in process, then all power to him. But the former has not been achieved.

We have come in last in our group. We have blown three leads. We are not calling up our best players.

--Really? So does this mean that none of the 18 he selected should have been there? I assume what you mean is that he did not call up SOME of the players who YOU think are our best.

This is our worst qualifying run in ages, with arguably more skillful players.

How many mistakes can one make in a qualifying run before they are accountable? For how long can we harp on about 'potential' and 'promise' and 'patience' and 30 minutes of isolated brilliance here and there?

Seeing the big picture is indeed a useful analytical skill, unless one keeps expanding the big picture to suit their own feelings/desires/needs. I think the Canadian soccer community (myself included many a time) has done this on a continual basis.

Maybe Yallop will craft a fine squad and qualify for WC 2010 ('cos we all know he won't be fired and won't quit.) And if so, all credit to him. And I'll give him his due then.

Yes, he wasn't hired to get us, specifically, to WC 2006. But he wasn't hired in an overarching building/technical development Holger-esque mandate either. He was the manager who was going to get our boys, young and old, to gel, combine our overall superior talent (as compared to past squads) and play to the potential which Holger never consistently found because it was a pain to play for him. Which didn't happen. He wasn't hired to make all these mistakes and have us come last, blowing three leads (which we never have!) in the process. Will another four years of scattered games under Yallop truly make a positive difference?

-- Well, your final question is an easy one, and I'll answer it with a rhetorical question? "Really, will another four years of scattered games under ANY COACH truly make a positive difference?" Of course not!

I know you guys are angry and sore etc--I am too--but get realistic and stop scapegoating so readily. None of us have even half the information and knowledge we'd need to assess Yallop at this point. It is simply too damned early. If he fails to make good strides over the next couple of years, then by all means, let him go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beaver, you're doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I'd like to help out by changing the subject to realistic expectations: I say Gold Cup, then Copa America. It would be huge for our ranking which must mean something for 2010 qualifying.

BTW, is Reda a defender? He's seems to score a fair number of goals in Norway. Why has he never been capped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One good thing is that I sense that Yallop has gotten players 'wanting' to play for Canada. Yes, I know, much of that owes to the chance to qualify for 2006, however, what really needs to happen is a regular tweaking of the starting side with the slow entry of new faces that can make the cut. Three additional friendlies (in response to El Hombre above) would have been needed in addition to the Belize games, Wales and San Jose, in order to get that starting 11 settled. I never had the sense that we were clear on that starting 11 - Pesch was there, and then not, Peters there in game 1 v. Guatemala, Simpson, Serieux...and on and on.

In hindsight, that would have made a bigger difference than any one personel change (Onstad v. others, Watson v. others) I wouldn't single out any guy. They did as well as they could. With a better understanding of the system, and more games together, Onstad would have communicated better with his defense and probably improved our team to the tune of 2 or 3 goals against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Paddy

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.

Agreed. Strikers need support. Radzinksi is a proven finisher. Bunbury was a proven finisher. We can't expect our strikers to run through entire teams. They need support and they weren't getting it!

db

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he needs to go. Not only has he had some absolutely terrible results, but he's made poor personnel decisions. Let's be honest, to only beat Belize 8-0 in two home games is not impressive. Our poor offense was and continued to be intolerable.

When Dwayne DeRosario said after the Costa Rica game that defense is a problem I scratch my head. He's been lucky if he was mediocre, scores one goal, and blames the defense. The fact is, that we let in no more goals than any other team, and that it's GF that have been the problem.

That being said, Our defense IS suspect, and I blame that on Yallops insistance on Mark Watson. Is he serious? Furthermore, he leaves out top notch players like Jim Brennan, in exchange for A-leaguers who are poor quality.

And Onstad. Wow. He let in a number of poor goals, but Frank refused to take him out and give either Hirschfield or Sutton an opportunity.

Other dissapointments like Peschisolido, took too long to be left out of the side.

Ultimately, though, I look at Jamie Peters. Surely a talent, for the future, he had no business being on this team. Frank, What were you thinking? Against Guatemala, when we needed a goal, he puts Peters on for his first cap. He's only 17! Then against Honduras, he wastes a sub by putting him on and then taking him off. He's showing his lack of orginization and preperation. There have only ever been two 17 year olds to deserve a spot on any national team. One of them is a single named legend, and the other is currently recovering from drug problems in Cuba.

And also, let's ask ourselves: What has Frank done to have deserved this position in the first place? He was succesful in USA for three years? Hardly a padded resume.

Alas, if he turns the program around, I'm sure I'll rave about his ability, and what a great job he's done, but the point is, I don't think that he will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I posted on the lineup for Guatemala thread I was dissapointed and pessimistic with Frank Yallop's comments and now I am dissapointed with Sharpe's as well. At some point someone should take some responsibility and show some leadership. I have said myself that I think Yallop should be retained for the moment. My personal opinion is I am not yet convinced that Yallop is a bad coach but I am convinced that he did a bad job in the situation he was placed in (admittedly not a good situation). Nevertheless, he could have done a good job in a bad situation or a bad job in a bad situation and he did the latter. Were I Sharpe I would have said we will give Yallop a chance but not write a blank check as if I was satisfied with his performance. Were I Yallop I would take more personal responsibility for the failure.

As far as DeRosario goes he is the first one I have heard speak publicly with a bit of honesty. He may not have performed super himself but he is a striker playing out of position like several other players (in fact he was playing where DeGuzman should play). Yallop needs to realize what DeRo's abilities are and play him appropriately and devise his tactics accordingly. DeRo is a striker and should play there as we have enough offensive midfielders. Radz was our best striker and our offensive plan should have been centered around him. If DeRo could compliment Radz he should be a starting striker but if not he should be our striker sub. It is interesting DeRo made these comments even though he is Onstad's teammate in San Jose (and thus the one person on the team who had the most to lose by making such comments) but Yallop never commented on the goalkeeping. I at least appreciate DeRo's honesty and wish it was coming from some other people a bit higher in the organization.

I am someone who thought it was time for Ossieck to go and supported Yallop's hiring but am now realizing this was a mistake (not Ossieck's dismissmal but the hiring of Yallop). However, I am willing to keep an open mind and if things improve in the next year maybe I will get back on the Yallop bandwagon. However, the recent comments from Yallop and Sharpe don't make me optimistic. I am willing to wait and see but things will definitely have to improve within the next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.
quote:Originally posted by jonesy55

"Frank will be the coach, as long as I am here"......Andy Sharpe.

Andy Sharpe put all the rumours to rest on "Inside Soccer Show" tonight.

Frank Yallop will be back with full support from Andy Sharpe.

The real question is how long will Andy be around??

All Andy is saying is that they don't have money to pay a severance if they can him. And Yallop is not going to stay with us anyways if he gets a half decent club offer before next summer. Which I think could easily happen with an MLS side, hell, they may even pay better.

Most coaches get bored only playing a few games and training little. Especially one that is young like Yallop. Indeed the whole B team idea in Vancouver was in part killing the coach's boredom.

So, perhaps the real question in this thread should be how long with Yallop hold out with us, because for sure, unless we win Gold Cup and can entertain him with Copa America and Confed Cup, he has no intention of sticking around four more years until next WC qualifiers come around. I have no question that we'll have another coach by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by jonesy55

"Frank will be the coach, as long as I am here"......Andy Sharpe.

Andy Sharpe put all the rumours to rest on "Inside Soccer Show" tonight.

Frank Yallop will be back with full support from Andy Sharpe.

The real question is how long will Andy be around??

This is good and bad news. Good because it recognizes there is a problem with Yallop, otherwise Sharpe wouldn't have to say that. Bad because Sharpe shows he is just as blind as Yallop. This kind of dictatorship deserves to be stoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happier than heck that I don't work for some of you. It is a basic tenant of management/supervision that you do not hold an employee acountable unless they have been given the resources to do the job.

Issue</u>: Oh yes, all of us - myself included - were whinning about our pre WC qualifying style, but when the coach tries to chance that style, he is lambasted because 1) it doesn't recognize our talent pool 2) he didn't have the players together to work on it long enough 3) we suddenly think that we would have won something using the old style despite the fact that we played some pretty decent - not excellent but decent - soccer in qualifying.

Reality Check</u>: 1) I have as many questions about selection as the rest of you, but Frank did go out and have a look at a pisspot full of players in a short period of time 2) he may not have had any control over how much time he had with the players 3) we were going nowhere with the old style and it had as much to do with style as talent. 4) As frustrating as I found it losing these games, only the Guatemala game, and the second half of the last Costa Rica game was disappointing in terms of the way we played: compare that to the 12 months prior to Frank's appointment.

Issue</u>: Frank didn't get us past the Semi-final and should be fired for the results.

Reality Check</u>: Fine if that is the clear standard, but when you hire a coach with two years of Head Coach experience, none of it with a national team, this seems a little unrealistic and hardly something that will endear you to the international coaching fraternity. It should be obvious to everyone that the CSA had a longer term view of Frank when they hired him. It seems clear that Frank also had a longer term view, although some of you have convinced yourself that he will bail too. Hey, I'd be happier than a pig in shyt If Canada adopted a standard of four year contracts that expire at the end of a World Cup cycle - that won't solve the sudden departure issue, but at least everyone would know what the ground rules were. And if the CSA continuall failed to establish enough friendlies, camps etc. etc. Then we would get crap coaches and forever wallow in failure.

Issue</u>: Player selection was questionable

Reality Check</u>: you bet your a$$ it was. And when I talk of a huge investment in Frank, that is exactly what I mean. But lets look at the observations of this board collectively: Criticism of untested young guys being selected (Peters, Gervais, Pizzolitto etc. etc.) from some, while others are criticizing the selection of "old boys" (Watson, Onstad, Corrazin). While I am one who think that all six of the identified players should have been omitted (or at least not starting), this is one area where a coach can figure it out, especially if he has some time to look at the various players in game conditions, rather than camps and games against grocery clerks and/or vacationing pre-season teams. This is why I advocate giving Frank 2 years and 20+ games, and perhaps a few camps in Europe and North America. Then we can judge his player selection. Some players are gamers, and some are camp players. Two years should give Frank some time to figure out who is who.

I will admit that I can not, for the life of me, figure out the exclusion of Brennan and Nsaliwa. It makes no sense, given the inclusion of players like Peters and Pizzolitto. But I want to see if this is an abberation due to inexperience or a true blind spot before calling Frank to task on it. And I am not so sure that their inclusion would have changed the results. It was clear to me that Canada was the least organized of the four teams in the semi-final group and that we have a lot to learn about supporting the ball on offence and defending against a team that does support the ball in their offensive attacks.

So, in truth, how many people think that Frank was given the resources, or had suffieceint at his disposal to do the job that we asked of him? I don't think he was. So while I have some questions, I think he warrants more time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I've given this thread a few days to gauge everyone's reactions, and I've (very quickly) scanned through the last 3 pages and came up with a rough tally.

STAY - 24 (57%)

GO - 18 (43%)

A fairly close set of numbers there, and this is surely to be a hot topic on this board for as long as Yallop is around.

I think I'll try to do another one of these in a year or so (if I remember) to see if opinions have changed. Assuming of course Yallop is still in charge in a year. If not, I'll just replace Yallop's name with that of the new coach :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all the regular scribes to this chat room should coach the next MNT, you obviously have enough time on your hands and the expertise to do so. Where's the guy who kept yammering on about Ante Jazic...he'd be the best coach of all. Our lack of cash and inability to get the team together for any meaningful prelude to qualifying is what caused the failure. Frank isn't to blame, and whether or not Brennan or Klukowski or any of the other host of solid but not international calibre players was called into the squad is inconsequential, we lost our first game about 12 minutes in, and that was about it.

Most of you are dillusional,

K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you must be from the csa or some sympathizer of same. Stop making ****ing exuses. Our lack of cash, how about the recently signed 1 million deal from CIBC or the money saved from not having any MNT friendlies in Canada for years or the cash made from the Libya game. How much cash does Guatemala have or Honduras. You, sorry to say are dillusional. Frank should have insured there was enough cash for preparation or he shouldn't have taken the job on in the first place. The CSA is flush with cash, it just spends it like srooge.

quote:Originally posted by gardencity

I think all the regular scribes to this chat room should coach the next MNT, you obviously have enough time on your hands and the expertise to do so. Where's the guy who kept yammering on about Ante Jazic...he'd be the best coach of all. Our lack of cash and inability to get the team together for any meaningful prelude to qualifying is what caused the failure. Frank isn't to blame, and whether or not Brennan or Klukowski or any of the other host of solid but not international calibre players was called into the squad is inconsequential, we lost our first game about 12 minutes in, and that was about it.

Most of you are dillusional,

K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yallop should be given until the end of the Gold Cup to redeem himself. I don't think that one year has given him the time to adjust from coaching at the club level with San Jose to the National Team. It is much easier to adapt and modify a team when one plays weekly then to do the same with a squad that only meets infrequently. Has he made some bad lineup decisions? God Yes, but I think I will chalk it up to relying on some familiar faces because it was the easiest thing to do with such little time. Maybe the lead-footed Onstad is good in San Jose because he has a good back-line. Maybe choosing a somewhat lost Pesch at the beginning of the campaign wasn't such a hot idea. Subbing Peters in and then out of the same game still continues to bother me.

What Yallop needs to do is to try and familiarise himself with his players, be it through video analysis, discussions, or even through writing. This way he can understand where a player's strengths and weeknesses lie and utilise the players to the best of their abilities within a semi-flexible system (does Yallop even have a system? he may have a philosophy about how to play, but does he have a system to implement it?)

Also, Yallop has to fix the central midfield, which was largely ineffective. Give him til the Gold Cup's conclusion to see if he can form a team out of the CDN players. If not, then tie him the can. But, if the sloth-like Onstad, bloated Corazzin, and erratic Watson still continue to make the squad, fire his sorry ass!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Moosehead

you must be from the csa or some sympathizer of same. Stop making ****ing exuses. Our lack of cash, how about the recently signed 1 million deal from CIBC or the money saved from not having any MNT friendlies in Canada for years or the cash made from the Libya game. How much cash does Guatemala have or Honduras. You, sorry to say are dillusional. Frank should have insured there was enough cash for preparation or he shouldn't have taken the job on in the first place. The CSA is flush with cash, it just spends it like srooge.

Out of curiousity, how do you know the CSA is flush with cash? (Honestly, I want to know.) Are you somehow affiliated with the CSA? Do you know somebody inside? If they are flush, then I find it ridiculous that they did not give Yallop the funds to make a few prep games possible prior to the Guatamala game. Another question? Are you positive that Yallop did NOT try to get money for prep games? Are you connected with his camp?

You sound like you have a good deal of inside information. You need not betray your sources, of course, but it would be good to know how credible they really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am unsure about the yallop situation. Changing your coach every five minutes can't be good for a squad but Frank Yallop is surely very much to blame for our being ousted this early. No matter what anyone says Pat Onstad was not the man for the job he was terribly shaky every time out. His distribution was abysmal for a professional as were his decision making, positioning and alas his hands. Perhaps Lars was not the man for the job (hard to tell as he never got a shot) But i've got to believe if not lars then sutton or kenny had to be better choices simply because they could not be worse. As for the argument about Brennan and lars not playing due to lack of first team club action how then can he select an unattached 17 year old for all 5 matches and put him on the field in three of them. Derosario could be a decent fit as one of our strikers but as a midfielder he was horrible, turn-over after turn- over and no defensive instincts it's not his fault his manager should know better to begin with and if not should have realized it quickly. Yallop can't be blamed for the lack of money or friendlies but he alone has to bear the blame for terrible player selection (pizzolitto, Corrazin,Pesch,Onstad,Even peters) and his bizarre substitutions (Corrazin-Hume????)as well as playing people out of position. I guess it can't hurt to leave him in charge for the gold cup as there is nothing to lose for another four years but if he doesn't start making sense in his choices that should be as far as he goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by hottoddy7

I for one am unsure about the yallop situation. Changing your coach every five minutes can't be good for a squad but Frank Yallop is surely very much to blame for our being ousted this early. No matter what anyone says Pat Onstad was not the man for the job he was terribly shaky every time out. His distribution was abysmal for a professional as were his decision making, positioning and alas his hands. Perhaps Lars was not the man for the job (hard to tell as he never got a shot) But i've got to believe if not lars then sutton or kenny had to be better choices simply because they could not be worse. As for the argument about Brennan and lars not playing due to lack of first team club action how then can he select an unattached 17 year old for all 5 matches and put him on the field in three of them. Derosario could be a decent fit as one of our strikers but as a midfielder he was horrible, turn-over after turn- over and no defensive instincts it's not his fault his manager should know better to begin with and if not should have realized it quickly. Yallop can't be blamed for the lack of money or friendlies but he alone has to bear the blame for terrible player selection (pizzolitto, Corrazin,Pesch,Onstad,Even peters) and his bizarre substitutions (Corrazin-Hume????)as well as playing people out of position. I guess it can't hurt to leave him in charge for the gold cup as there is nothing to lose for another four years but if he doesn't start making sense in his choices that should be as far as he goes.

Fair enough, but as for playing some guys out of their positions--something many of you have raised--I wonder how realistic this criticism really is. I mean, Hutch should never have had to play at right back, but what choice did Yallop have? Stalteri was hurt then suspended. He could have brought Nsaliwa in, but is it wise to bring in somebody who hasn't played a stitch with this group? Hard to say. DeRosario should not be in midfield, I agree, but who do you place there otherwise? Is Simpson ready? Was Brennan still too rusty?

Few, if any of us, have given Yallop his props for making good decisions in this area. Sandro Grande is a wonderful "discovery." No, he isn't Zidane, but he added some beef and some good skill to the midfield. Imhof was also very good. Hume and Radz up front make excellent sense to me. I know many of you love DeRo, and I am a big fan of his, but he's not a two-way player, he's not gritty and he's not fast. Yallop deserves some credit, come on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree that grande was a great find. I think I would have played brennan on left wing I certainly would have brought him in to see if there was alot of rust remember that peters was played and he didn't even have a club. I wasn't really refering to hutch as i thought he played quite well(also i've never seen him in midfield). I think hume will be great for us upfront I just thought that right now dero was a better option. Again not having access to those matches i've never seen hume play for his club but he definately seems to score some, he really should have converted a couple for us though. Don't get me wrong i dont mean to be down on him even with a couple of misses that was still the worst sub ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by hottoddy7

i agree that grande was a great find. I think I would have played brennan on left wing I certainly would have brought him in to see if there was alot of rust remember that peters was played and he didn't even have a club. I wasn't really refering to hutch as i thought he played quite well(also i've never seen him in midfield). I think hume will be great for us upfront I just thought that right now dero was a better option. Again not having access to those matches i've never seen hume play for his club but he definately seems to score some, he really should have converted a couple for us though. Don't get me wrong i dont mean to be down on him even with a couple of misses that was still the worst sub ever.

Yes, I can't really disagree with that--the Worst Sub Ever. Poor Corrazin. He's a great guy but I'm afraid his days on the MNT are long gone. (He really is a great guy--he worked with my uncles years and years ago and they had nothing but the highest regards for them, and they are tough sonsabitches.)

Yallop needed 3 or 4 games prior to the start of this campaign to see what some of these guys would do and to see how they started to gel etc. Onstad, in this time, may have been ousted by the fine play of Sutton or Lars. DeRo may have been crowned king of the strikers. Brennan may have shown why he should be a fixture on the left side. Who knows what could have happened? pointless to think about it now, I guess, though I hope that the CSA and Yallop have learned a bunch of things from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...