Jump to content

Players unavailable for WCQ Games


Isbrant

Recommended Posts

Off the top of my head:

Game 1 - Hume suspended

- Radzinski injured

- McKenna injured

- de Vos injured according to CSA quack

Game 2 - Stalteri injured

- McKenna injured

Game 3 - Stalteri suspended

- de Vos suspended

- Serioux injured

- McKenna injured

Game 4 - Stalteri suspended

- McKenna injured

Game 5 - Stalteri suspended

Game 6 - Stalteri suspended

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mckenna should have been called into the side sooner! he came off the bench for Hearts in a crucial uefa away match in Portugal! I can't understand why he wasn't at least on the bench in costa rica! Bircham was also available after the first home game against guatemala! Yallop clearly dropped the ball in player selection in my opinion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question, Big Kev would have made a more reliable partnership with DeVos, and could have switched to attack when needed. He is now the captain for the future (one of the better Yallop decisions).

Bircham was injured those first three games, not selected when healthy. He and Brennan could have made a huge difference as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i couldn't find it in the QPR archives but i'm sure Bircham eas playing 90 minutes by the home game with Honduras! i think the midfield sure could have used him, and Brennan! Is it just me or did anyone else think DeGuzman was for the most part dreadful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by gator

i couldn't find it in the QPR archives but i'm sure Bircham eas playing 90 minutes by the home game with Honduras! i think the midfield sure could have used him, and Brennan! Is it just me or did anyone else think DeGuzman was for the most part dreadful?

Nope, Bircham played his first full match Sept. 11th after resting for both international dates.

And I don't think Deguzman was any worse than anyone else out there. The thing is he was always the one everyone would look to pass to. Therefore he had the ball a ton and if he connects with 4 out 5 of his passes, fans will only remember the 1 that didn't work. Just my take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

And I don't think Deguzman was any worse than anyone else out there. The thing is he was always the one everyone would look to pass to. Therefore he had the ball a ton and if he connects with 4 out 5 of his passes, fans will only remember the 1 that didn't work. Just my take.

So true about De Guzman. He's very skilled, Hannover fans love him,

and yet many on this board think he's useless. But I don't think so,

he's probably the most skilled one we have.

Personally I would preferred if Brennan played at back, Stalteri at mid, and Big Kev up front with Radzinski. And yes, Lars or Sutton in goal. And also lots of friendlies to make them click.

Everything in hindsight of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by jonovision

I am of the opinion that the absence of McKenna in the 1st 4 matches is the biggest factor in Canada being unable to qualify. He, along with DeVos, brings maturity and stability to the backline, and a set-piece threat.

Comments?

I think you need to go back and watch some tapes of the games McKenna has played as a defender for Canada. He's slow, makes clumsy mis-timed challenges, and gives away the ball a lot. I love McKenna as a striker, but I get edgy when I see him on the back line. I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the line up (he's no worse than Watson or Jazic), but to say he was the biggest factor in Canada being unable to qualify is ridiculous.

Stalteri was the biggest loss, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt McKenna was a big loss on the backline because I don't think Yallop would have started him there instead of Watson who seemed to be a guaranteed starter like Onstad. Personally I think Nsaliwa would have made a bigger impact at the back being technically much stronger, faster and currently playing defence at his club. McKenna definitely would have given us a stronger bench (Yallop's bench was incredibly weak) and could have been an injury replacement at the back or subbed in at striker when we needed a goal. Say what you like about his speed and technique, McKenna can score as he has proved both for the MNT and Hearts. Certainly a better sub than Corrazin. To be fair though, McKenna was rushed into service with Hearts before he was match fit because they had huge injury problems with their strikers at the club. Reda, Klukowski and Pozniak were also available defenders who were not called. Would have been nice to have at least one of these available when DeVos went out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like McKenna a lot, but I am also not convinced he's our best bet at centre back. His pace and gangliness are detriments, for sure. However, I love the idea of him up front for a spell. He doesn't have the legs to play up front for a whole game, it often seems, and we are starting to find some decent depth up front with Ocean and Hume and DD coming along nicely.

I sort of like this line-up for the future:

Lars (or Sutton)

Nsaliwa Hutch Kluka Simpson

Stalteri Grande DeGuzman Brennan

Hume DeRosario

Subs

Ocean, McKenna, Serioux, Bernier etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think even I could make the case that McKenna is a first-choice centre back, but I think he brings a certain mojo to the team. He scores very well for a part-time striker, and he plays with a lot of heart. He's also been part of the squad a fair bit for someone who is still pretty young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah,the question of center back is a big one. Wouldn't be entirely surprised to see Yallop use big Kev, though I wish he'd take a look at Reda, too.

Though it may seem a waste, a beefier Hutch would be a great center back. We'll see what unfolds.

And yeah, McKenna does have some sort of mojo--he's a very intense player, very devoted to our team. he's sort of like Stalteri in that regard, but perhaps a bit more in control of his emotions. They are both good Catholic lads, are then not? (Okay, maybe not "good," but Catholic nonetheless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...