Daniel Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 In 2000: 1 win (once we were eliminated), 2 draws, 3 losses; home record of 1-1-1. In 2004: 1 win (once we were eliminated, 2 draws, 3 losses; home record of 0-1-2. Similar story as 2000: our home form was unconvincing (not even a win this time!!!) and with 1/9 points at home, you can't make it out of the group. Sketchy decisions cost us in 2 games against Honduras and Onstad gave up two bad goals at crucial moments against CR in those 2 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 And the only game we won wasn't even on TV...Enough said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David C. Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 My take on the 2004 campaign: game 1 loss to Guatemala: lack of preparation (time/money), underestimation of a well-prepared oponent (remember Cuba?), sketchy medical evaluation of DeVos game 2 tie with Honduras: poor officiating, a well-played game game 3 loss in Costa Rica: Tough road loss to a slightly better team game 4 tie in Honduras: more poor officiating, a well played game game 5 loss to Costa Rica: Another tough loss to a good team, deflated team morale game 6 win in Guatemala: Great road win by a young B-Squad but meaningless game Final result: same old (as 2000), too late of hiring Yallop (although other teams had same position), live and die by the Euro pool (long travel/time zones), poor CONCACAF officiating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownaguy Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 I don't know what you mean by sketchy decisions but I thought we played great the first Honduras game, it was some very sketchy Concacaf reffing, and a horrible back pass by Jazic (who played very well despite the pass) that cost us the win in that game. I agree about Onstad, certainly hurt us with two bad goals but at the time he was pretty much our only experienced choice to go with (as Lars was giving up goals galore in his brief stint as a starter in Scotland) , he didn't live up to expectations. We definitely need a good goalie for the future to build along with this great young core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 18, 2004 Author Share Posted November 18, 2004 We didn't rise up to the occasion in the first 5 games while making crucial mistakes. Except for that first half against Cuba at home, didn't show we deserved to pass from the group. Offense dissapointing like in 2000: 4 goals in 6 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownaguy Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 I know a lot of the results are disappointing, but I actually thought we played pretty damn well games 2 thru 6 minus the half at home to Costa Rica, where we fell to pieces after Onstad let that crappy goal in. I think we all know we should of beat Honduras here at home if not for getting robbed on two calls. We also went toe to toe on the road with very good opposition in all 3 games coming out with a .500 record. The results weren't there but I thought we certainly played much better then the year 2000. The crucial point was getting off on the wrong foot game 1 vs the Guats do to lack of preparation time, compounded by the fact that we had a new coach only on the job 7-8 months that players weren't really familiar playing with yet. Hopefully the CSA has learned a tough lesson from this and arranges a few quality friendlies before the next qualifying starts in 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 quote:Originally posted by kelownaguy I actually thought we played pretty damn well games 2 thru 6 minus the half at home to Costa Rica, where we fell to pieces after Onstad let that crappy goal in. With that mind set, 5 points out of 18 ain't bad either. Fell to pieces, meaning we were once a whole. When were we a whole?? The CSA doesn't let that hapeen. A team must play regularly to be a team...preparation lacked once again. Point Finale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 We played better than in WCQ 2000, but didn't offer better results. Lots of promise with the amount of talent, but lack of resources provided limited prep time and games. And sh*tty luck in some cases. Looking forward to : newer and younger players to step up, the older ones to swallow pride and gradually step aside, CSA to provide better resources to develop a team with more friendlies and tournaments, rather than just a "team concept." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownaguy Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Massimo, you misunderstood what I'm saying, I meant fell to pieces that game once Onstad let that goal in. That first half at home against Costa Rica was one of the best halfs I've ever seen us play. Onstad lets that goal and its pretty much lights out after that. If you choose to think that us going into Costa Rica and Honduras and playing them toe to toe is a bad thing cause we didn't get the win then thats your own opinion, maybe you were one of the many people that were guaranteeing we would win this group and go on to the Hex before qualifying started, I certainly didn't , maybe its cause my expectations were too low...who knows??? As I stated before, after that first game, we were in every game in by far the toughest group...5 pts could easily of been 9 with a little better luck and half decent officiating. Maybe I choose to look at the bright side of things here but oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 quote:Originally posted by kelownaguy Massimo, you misunderstood what I'm saying, I meant fell to pieces that game once Onstad let that goal in. That first half at home against Costa Rica was one of the best halfs I've ever seen us play. Onstad lets that goal and its pretty much lights out after that. If you choose to think that us going into Costa Rica and Honduras and playing them toe to toe is a bad thing cause we didn't get the win then thats your own opinion, maybe you were one of the many people that were guaranteeing we would win this group and go on to the Hex before qualifying started, I certainly didn't , maybe its cause my expectations were too low...who knows??? As I stated before, after that first game, we were in every game in by far the toughest group...5 pts could easily of been 9 with a little better luck and half decent officiating. Maybe I choose to look at the bright side of things here but oh well... I understand what you are saying, watching that first game was tough. Losing 2-0 to the Guats, I was deflated. We never really rebounded from that match. Overall we did not do what it takes to win matches internationally, some of that maybe Onstad's fault, some may be other's fault, the fact is we did not play the whole 90 minutes of the match, If we would have won in Honduras, That would have been huge, and it would have been another bowl of cherries. But 'if'...doesn't get us anywhere. I'm talking hard facts and we didn't cut it, because in my opinion there is no team, just individuals who play together...all the while these players who sacrifice so much all for the same goal getting to the World Cup. They mean well but, miracles don't happen on their own. I'll repeat once again, just like many others have said; Preparation Time is key to any succesfull soccer team, and ours didn't get that and that is why we are where we're at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Daniel wrote 1 point in 9 at home dosen't get you anywhere, and to me that hits the nail right on the head. Says everthing there is to say about this far too short campain in a nutshell. Yes, yes, we were hard done by but good, but I still believe we had the quality available for much of this tourny to have been able to go through. The talent was either not selected or improperly used. Frankie wanted to make Canada his team. He wanted to put HIS stamp on the team. Wanted to emphasis the differences between himself and Holger and boy did he do that. With the same wretched results. The bottom line is the World Cup Qualifying tournament isn't league football. You'll never have the prep-time you want, especially in a country like Canada which quite rightly relys on foreighn based players to field it's strongest squad. And it's the wrong theatre for a virgin national team manager to train up on. That's the bottom line. There. My anti-Yallop post for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 I just find it retarded that Dero was mispositioned by his former COACH OF THREE YEARS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 That coach had Landon Donovan on his team for those 3 years and two championships. It is no fluke that LD has been named USA's top soccer player three years in a row and MVP in the last MLS Cup. They fielded a B team yesterday (was it 6 guys got their 1st cap?) and still knocked Jamaica out of the show. At the risk of not being 'cool', I've got to say that my guarded optimism over FY's appointment has turned rather sour as I have seen absolutely nothing positive in this WCQ campaign. Anybody feeling good about our play and saying how we were better than in 2000 should have a good look at our roster in 2000. We have a much better player pool to choose from now and yet we failed miserably. To come last in our group is disgraceful. The CSA has to take the blame for this. Heads should roll. Of course, the bottom line is that few outside of this forum really give a rat's ass about our men's team and nothing will happen and people will come on here saying how we were jobbed by this or that ref and that we really are one of the top teams in CONCACAF. We aren't. We're a joke. We have players that can compete in CONCACAF but our soccer organization is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Ed That coach had Landon Donovan on his team for those 3 years and two championships. It is no fluke that LD has been named USA's top soccer player three years in a row and MVP in the last MLS Cup. They fielded a B team yesterday (was it 6 guys got their 1st cap?) and still knocked Jamaica out of the show. At the risk of not being 'cool', I've got to say that my guarded optimism over FY's appointment has turned rather sour as I have seen absolutely nothing positive in this WCQ campaign. Anybody feeling good about our play and saying how we were better than in 2000 should have a good look at our roster in 2000. We have a much better player pool to choose from now and yet we failed miserably. To come last in our group is disgraceful. The CSA has to take the blame for this. Heads should roll. Of course, the bottom line is that few outside of this forum really give a rat's ass about our men's team and nothing will happen and people will come on here saying how we were jobbed by this or that ref and that we really are one of the top teams in CONCACAF. We aren't. We're a joke. We have players that can compete in CONCACAF but our soccer organization is a joke. Curious. What does Landon Donovan have to do with any of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juaninho Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I think the CSA has to make a decision. Does it wish to continue to flounder, taking immense joy in the thrill of 'competing', 'showing-up', 'putting up the good fight', and all those other empty platitudes only designed to gloss over a program that hasn't seen much success -with the Gold Cup an aberration -since 86? Or, does it want to rise to the occasion, not settle for just 'being in the thick of it', but competing to place well or win? When will the CSA choose to rise to the occasion and demonstrate some accountability? The CSA should listen to what cayak/canoe athlete Adam Van Koeverden said at the Olympics, "just showing up isn't good enough". The CSA should change its standard of measure. 20 years without progress can't be anything but a sign of incompetence, misguided leadership, and abject failure. The CSA leadership philosophy is to 'Waiting for Godot' for my liking. Just can't figure out who is Vladimir and who is Estragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.