Canada's Next Manager?

[nedved9]

Nothing against Stephen Hart. But we need a expierenced Manager.

Names I Have heard from looking at other websites are John Van't Ship,

cURRENTLY an Assistant with Holland, who was actually born in Canada.He would be good choice. But could we afford him. We will see.

Bruce Arena, I hope not, Maybe Phillippe Troussier formaly of South Africa in 1998, and Japan in 2002.

[masster]

Stephen Hart was on Sportstalk Weekend on CKNW in Vancouver and pretty much said that he is not interested in the job for the long-term. I kind of took from the interview that he is just hoding the spot for Dale Mitchell

[Kurosawa1555362267]

That would'nt be a surprise.

[RJB]

To have Dale Mitchell appointed would be a shocking move. That would just confirm the fact that the CSA is an old boys club. From Lenarduzzi, to Yallop, to Mitchell. That would be a shame.

Furthermore, we should be talking about why Yallop quit. Are they the same reasons why Holger Osieck quit? This is a wee bit troublemsome to have coaches leave, and give practically no reason why.

Dale Mitchell being hired would be wrong. But alas, I expect it to happen.

[analyst]

quote:Originally posted by RJB

To have Dale Mitchell appointed would be a shocking move. That would just confirm the fact that the CSA is an old boys club. From Lenarduzzi, to Yallop, to Mitchell. That would be a shame.

Dale Mitchell being hired would be wrong. But alas, I expect it to happen.

Based on Mitchell's poor performance with the U20 team in Holland last year, I agree with you. That was a poor defensive team. Mitchell's team relied on David Edgar in central defence and neded Ryan Gyaki to score goals all by himself. Their performance against the Colombian U20 team showed that Mitchell and his team are not up to snuff. Mitchell picked the players and he trained them, and the CSA gave them lots of friendlies to play and gel as a team and they still played poorly.

[The Beaver]

Mitchell is doing a fantastic job, and he did as well as he could--at the time--during the last WYC. Colombia was simply a far superior side. Please tell me who else Mitchell could have selected other than the team that he took to Holland? Maybe he could have made one or two changes, but I doubt these would have affected the result.

Though I, too, question why Yallop left, it is important to note that Osiek did not quit.

Mitchell could be an excellent senior men's coach, but I don't think he's got a lock on the position necessarily.

[El Hombre]

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

Mitchell is doing a fantastic job, and he did as well as he could--at the time--during the last WYC. Colombia was simply a far superior side. Please tell me who else Mitchell could have selected other than the team that he took to Holland? Maybe he could have made one or two changes, but I doubt these would have affected the result.

Mitchell could be an excellent senior men's coach, but I don't think he's got a lock on the position necessarily.

I think I have to agree with Analyst's post somewhat. I don't think there were questions of mis-selection (outside of 1 or 2 subjective opinions) but more of implementation.

I thought our last WYC team was far too talented to go out in the first round. With guys like Ledgerwood, Hainault, Gyaki, Rosenlund, De Jong I was expecting big things. Yes, we did really well in qualifying but that seemed to be because we surprised Mexico and Gyaki was on some sort of a tear.

Other than that, I don't see what Mitchell has done that makes him a good candidate for the Senior job. It seems to me that he's been riding the success of UAE 2003 for a little too long when in that tournament we were fortunate to make it into the second round and fortunate yet again to be drawn against Burkina Faso.

I'm not trying to say he's a bad coach, I think he's alright where he is. However, I don't think he's the right man for the senior job. It would be nice if the CSA actually did their due dilligence and interviewed some people outside of their little cache of coaches. If none of them are affordable or want to do the job, then give it to Mitchell.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by RJB

To have Dale Mitchell appointed would be a shocking move. That would just confirm the fact that the CSA is an old boys club. From Lenarduzzi, to Yallop, to Mitchell. That would be a shame.

Furthermore, we should be talking about why Yallop quit. Are they the same reasons why Holger Osieck quit? This is a wee bit troublemsome to have coaches leave, and give practically no reason why.

Dale Mitchell being hired would be wrong. But alas, I expect it to happen.

From reading between the lines it pretty safe to say that Osieck was pushed out as opposed to quiting.

For the same reasons that you mentioned, I have some concerns about Mitchell as well. Namely, I am not sure that he represents a new direction, fresh set of ideas or a risky bold move. You can make a good argument that a risky bold move ( eg.: Troussier or another high profile foreign coach) is what the program needs.

But on the other hand, Mitchell will have coached the best prepared group of U20 players. So he will have a very good read and understanding of the assets at his disposal if and when he takes over senior team duties. Knowing the talent has to help a great deal considering that Canada ( unlike most other national teams) has its talent scattered throughout so many different corners of the globe making the proper scouting job very expensive, if not impossible.

Holding the seat warm for Mitchell also has its benefits in that, you will get a good assessment of his abilities in how he does at the next U20 without having it cost you anything. If he really impresses, then you can offer him the job. If not, the CSA can look in another direction. With WCQ more than 2 years away, whats the rush in naming a coach right now

[The Beaver]

I fully agree that the CSA need to take proper time and effort to fine the best coach possible. And I'm not saying that Mitchell is the best we can do (but maybe he is). To be clear, I think he's doing very well with the U20 program, despite the results of the last tournament. And, as talented as the last group might have been, we were still woefully behind most every other team in the tournament when it come to skill and technical proficiency and sheer quality experience. When we field a team made up enitrely of young men plying their trade with pro teams, then maybe we can expect to advance from the groups. Until then, it will be bloody difficult to advance. I am hoping we do so in 2007, especially at home, but let's be realistic: getting out of the group will be a feat onto itself for us.

[youllneverwalkalone]

Syriaa made it out and they were crap. We should have beat them. I think you're overstating the quality at this tourney. Anything less than quarters in '07 will be a huge failure. Maybe we should wait to see if Mitchell meets this test. A technical director who could also manage might be a the thrifty solution we need.

[Winnipeg Fury]

I'm on record from before stating that DM would get the job, and I'm sticking with that assessment.

I think DM has done a great job for Canada at the U-20 level, but I must admit, I was hoping for a coach with a proven international record at the highest level.

That said, I'm prepared to give DM the chance to prove himself with our senior squad. He has coached many of the players and it would not surprise me if he did a solid job at the position.

[Cheeta]

Can't argue much against the DM theroy. Seems to hold water from my end even if it is going to be a bit of a wait. But that's my guess of the priority the senior MNT is getting from the CSA these coming days.

Of course that being said, two virgin managers for the senior program? A historicaly unsuccessful program at that? Shooting for the stars on the cheap if you ask me. With predictable results.

And as much as I agree Mitch has done a pretty good job with the youth side, I'm afraid I have to side with the more critical fellows in their views of the last WYC and Mitch's performance during it.

[matthew]

sorry about the length . . .

We should have beaten Syria. In fact our whole tournament struggled to come back from that horrible slip by Wagenaar. But Syria did beat Italy 2-1 and were knocked out of the tournament by Brazil 1-0. Not shabby. We out-played Syria for that match and were maybe unlucky we didn't get Italy earlier as they clearly got better as the tournament went on. I thought we were overly defensive against Colombia, but it's worth remembering that they were South American champions and had been killing teams. They lost out to eventual champions Argentina and didn't meet their lofty expectations, but we were awfully close to holding them as much as I didn't like the tactics.

People have been talking about how talented this 05 team was, but look back at the talent on 01, 03 and 05. Which was the better team? We won't be able to say definitively for a while, but I'll say right now I think it was 01 and will be viewed as such in the future. DeGuzman, Dunfield, Klukowski, Nsaliwa, Pozniak, Williams, Hume, Canizalez and a 17yo Hume and a 17yo Hutchinson. That's not counting Ngon/Gerba who didn't go and Oppong who I felt was pretty good at the time plus a 17yo Belotte showing flashes. Yeah we had a tough draw, but compare that group to 05 . . . . Ledgerwood was our best player. Hainault and DeJong were also strong and though Wagenaar wasn't great, he seems a legit prospect. After that our best players were all 17 — Peters, Johnson and Edgar. Will Peetoom, Rosenlund or Gyaki become steady internationals and have long careers? Maybe. Too early to say. I still think 01 will stand up better as a class than 05.

03 had two great players (Hume and Hutchinson) having great tournaments and Simpson had a breakthrough but I think by and large a lot of the core of that team are struggling to make an impression at the next level, but every guy played well and that was a fantastic *team*. You look at some of the teams we played against and some of the players we played against and really look at that 03 team and I think it was a great team, with great togetherness, but not a lot of great individual talent. I think Mitchell deserves more credit than he gets for that team. Sure we squeaked through our group and we lost to Brazil who won the tournament and to Australia — the only team to beat Brazil. Then we beat the Czechs, BF and lost in extra time to Spain who were runners up. And we did that Karim, Marshall, Harmse, Arango, DiTullio, Chin, Lemire, Asante, Matondo . . . this was a not a team with high expectations, but they did very, very well.

So I'm not sure how it can be argued Mitchell has underachieved. This is a tough tournament and though it easier to qualify for than the World Cup, we shouldn't be too complacent and think it's our right to be in a U20 WYC. How consistently we do so surely must be a positive endorcement of our development program that seems to be so maligned. We're not developing reams of world class talent, but we are developing some very strong players who can excell at the U20 age group and are competitive with anyone.

So given all of that I think Mitchell is a strong candidate. Certainly if we want a Canadian man in charge he's the best candidate. Everyone mentioned has positive and negatives and while I don't want to be defeatist I have to wonder, what exactly do you want? I thought van't Schip might be a good balance of someone we can afford who seems attractive. That being said, he's never managed a national team, he inherited a European team in FC Twente and guided them to a 12th place finish the next season, his only season in charge. I can only imagine what would happen if we hired Sturrock . . . the moaning about another Brit, one who has 11 games in the Premiership under his belt.

McCarthy? Craig Brown? Raddy Antic? I'm sure the former can make more than we can offer doing punditry or something similar given their fame. Then the really big names . . . La Volpe, Metsu, Vennebles, Scolari, Sacchi, Pekerman, etc, etc . . . yeah it would be great, but why would they? The only reason would be money we don't have.

No matter who we hire we could shoot holes through their CV pretty easily because the sad reality is we're a nation that hasn't been to a World Cup in 20 years, we don't have a league, we have very specific problems that almost every other country in the world doesn't have (and in addition to infrastructure and all that, how about plain geography), we're not a rich federation and we're in a FIFA backwater. There is precious little appeal to an established name manager.

So approaching the idea of Mitchell as I do from that angle, it's not bad. He understands CONCACAF qualifying. He understands playing in Central America. He's young and was a very good player. He's been a successful club coach (I know it was only the USL, but success is success) and he's done well IMO at the international with a youth team. He knows our pool, has worked with a lot of the young players and has been around the older guys as an assistant. There's negatives too, but I'm not bad with those positives. You put him up against a Sturrock or a van't Schip and it's not a pretty good argument either way, but I hear a lot of people asking "can't we do better" and I think the sad truth is that the answer is no.

You can say that's settling for mediocrity, but it may also reality. We have a good team, but they're not world beaters. We have potential and the CSA makes a lot of mistakes, but that doesn't mean we don't have some good programs, we aren't developing good players and that doesn't mean that if the CSA was run perfectly we'd suddenly be able to hire Scolari or something. I just don't think it's reasonable.

Why did Yallop quit? He's young, he misses having a game every few days and after going from player to coach to manager without a break, I think he missed being around the team and having stuff to do on the field every day. Ask any player who retires from almost any sport and they'll tell you one of the biggest things they miss is being around the guys. So he missed that day-to-day stuff, got a good financial offer from LA and his wife likes California. That doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. No sinister plot. I'm disappointed in is commitment if that's the case, but I don't think the CSA was dissatisfied with his work despite the prevailing opinion on here.

cheers,

matthew

[canso]

cheers matthew. well said. Mitchell is the man.

Still think he's got to prove himself under pressure next year but he'll rise to it I'm sure.

[The Beaver]

Matthew--well in, lad! And, for those who think that in 2007 anything less than a quarterfinal match should be considered a failure, go get your frickin head checked. The quality at this tournament is damn good! We should be lucky to get out of our group. I am as optimistic as ever, but I know how tough it will be for us to advance.

Were we not the only team from our group that did not advance last go around? We had a tough group. Even Syria proved surprising, though we outplayed them for 83 minutes. We needed the win, but one error cost us. And yes, as Matthew pointed out, we never seemed to recover.

As for Mitchell, I think it would be idea that the CSA hired a quality international coach--somebody with experience--for the next manager, and make Mitchell his assistant. Groom Mitchell deliberately for the position. Like England has done with their next gaffer.

[El Hombre]

Won't we be seeded or something when the teams are actually drawn this time around unlike every other WYC we've been to? I completely forget how they do this. If so though, that should help in keeping us away from a tough group again.

Matthew you make some good points and I get where you are coming from. I'm confused about the 01 comparison though as Paul James was on the bench for that one and I don't think anyone is championing his cause. For the two WYC that Mitchell has been in charge for, I think 05 had a better individual talent pool on the whole. I think that's what I was getting at.

One thing that I've noticed with Mitchell's teams over the years is (and I realize he's not the only Canadian coach with this problem) that the offensive side of things is lacking. Prior to the Brazil friendlies, we were at a Porto tournament where we didn't score a single goal over three games (we did only let one in as well though). Prior to that we scored 4 times in 7 games going all the way back to just after qualifying in Honduras. It would seem to me that with Peters, Lombardo, Johnson, Edgar, Jackson, Lensky etc. this team is built for speed and should be putting up some good numbers.

Yes, he has his upside but I also think he has a bit of a downside. What I worry about was that he was the de facto choice after Yallop left. I just want some due dilligence done by the CSA. Maybe try something new? Of course, I'll never be privy to their goings-on and how high and low they actually searched for a new coach so this is really neither here nor there.

And canso, before you anoint Mitchell our soccer saviour, remember that he was on the bench when Yallop decided to sub in Corrazin against Costa Rica in WCQ. He must've had some say in that decision.

[The Beaver]

the problem with our scoring goals has more to do with the fact that we have some professionals but not enough. And, if our offensive stars do not get good distribution--our tragic flaw--then it is difficult to get on the scoreboard. If DeGuzman decided to join the U20s, then that would help a good deal in that it would add another pro to the team, one that is known for good distribution. We need a Zidane or Pirlo or Riquelme: we need a general in the midfield who settles the game, distributes well and leads the team. Edgar can do some of this, but he'll be at centre back and won't get forward that much.

[El Hombre]

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

the problem with our scoring goals has more to do with the fact that we have some professionals but not enough. And, if our offensive stars do not get good distribution--our tragic flaw--then it is difficult to get on the scoreboard. If DeGuzman decided to join the U20s, then that would help a good deal in that it would add another pro to the team, one that is known for good distribution. We need a Zidane or Pirlo or Riquelme: we need a general in the midfield who settles the game, distributes well and leads the team. Edgar can do some of this, but he'll be at centre back and won't get forward that much.

Nunez impressed me in this role but you are right we're still missing that top-tier player. Maybe his time at Lyn will polish his skills help him develop.

Is there any qualifier on your term of "Pros"? What I mean is, both Jackson and MacCallum are technically pros but they are playing in pretty low level leagues. Including them, there are quite a few professionals on this team.

Realistically, I think not getting out of our group will be pretty disappointing. For once, there has been preparation, our skill level is acceptable and we're playing in front of (hopefully) a supportive crowd. So long as we don't get lumped into a group with three powerhouses, I think not advancing would be a failure. If that happens, will your assessement of Mitchell change? Is this an adequate test?

[canso]

Yes Mitchell was on the bench during that moment of shame when it all went pear shaped, literally, for Canada's hopes in the WCQ but if you recall his contribution to the whole sad event was to have a quiet word in the ear of a frustrated and furious Iain Hume and calm him down. "Don't worry son, this nimrod is going to bugger off back to MLS soon enough and when I'm in charge I can guarantee there will be no way I'm taking you off when we need a goal and subbing in some portly meatball has been just because he bought the last round yesterday."

As for the comparison between the 01 and 03 generations the point was that James did less with more while the Mitchell teams always seem to well prepared, disciplined and organized and he has the ability to make the most of what he has to work with and build a great team spirit. James dropped Ali Ngon-Gerba and brought in Dunfield which backfired but overall the team seemed like they weren't ready to play for each other. Results have varied for Mr.Mitchell but his lads are up for it every match and at least fight for each other.

[Daniel]

Pros play and train every day and live soccer. College kids don't.

As for success, IMO: Being seeded and playing at home, not going through is a failure, the quarters are kind of expected, depending on the opponent and anything after is a bonus.

[The Beaver]

I like Nunez and hope he can do well professionally. Yes, we have a number of players playing professionally, but we've also got a good many college kids.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by canso

Yes Mitchell was on the bench during that moment of shame when it all went pear shaped, literally, for Canada's hopes in the WCQ but if you recall his contribution to the whole sad event was to have a quiet word in the ear of a frustrated and furious Iain Hume and calm him down. "Don't worry son, this nimrod is going to bugger off back to MLS soon enough and when I'm in charge I can guarantee there will be no way I'm taking you off when we need a goal and subbing in some portly meatball has been just because he bought the last round yesterday."

As for the comparison between the 01 and 03 generations the point was that James did less with more while the Mitchell teams always seem to well prepared, disciplined and organized and he has the ability to make the most of what he has to work with and build a great team spirit. James dropped Ali Ngon-Gerba and brought in Dunfield which backfired but overall the team seemed like they weren't ready to play for each other. Results have varied for Mr.Mitchell but his lads are up for it every match and at least fight for each other.

As much as I agree with some of your sentiments, I think you should show Corrazin a bit more respect considering he was a pretty good player for us in his day. No he had no business being played in the last WCQ but don't blame him for that. He answered the call and I am sure did the best he could do. It is the person who called him and put him on the field taking off one of our few dangerous players in the process who should be blamed.

Whether Mitchell is the best choice or not, I do think he is a valid choice. I would be nervous because I also thought Yallop was a good choice at the time and don't want to be dissappointed again. I am a little more convinced by Mitchell in that he has more experience as an international coach and I have seen his teams play a lot more than I had seen Yallop's play. As you say I do like the team spirit and fight shown by his teams. I always remember Yallop stating before the first Guatemala match that whatever the result Guatemala was in for a war and the team would fight for every match. None of this was ever visible on the field and the problem with Yallop was always too much talk and not enough results (I am not one of the revisionists who seem to forget two years of failure based on one victory over a mediocre Euro team).

[matthew]

quote:Originally posted by canso

As for the comparison between the 01 and 03 generations the point was that James did less with more while the Mitchell teams always seem to well prepared, disciplined and organized and he has the ability to make the most of what he has to work with and build a great team spirit. James dropped Ali Ngon-Gerba and brought in Dunfield which backfired but overall the team seemed like they weren't ready to play for each other. Results have varied for Mr.Mitchell but his lads are up for it every match and at least fight for each other.

Right that was what I was on about. I think a QF spot is a reasonable goal depending on the draw for 07 given our talent. That will be another measuring stick for Mitchell. He's not my desert island top choice or anything, but I think he's not a bad choice. And I think he has achieved some good things at the youth level with not great teams. And teams that were inferior in talent to teams who recently failed to achieve much. The 05 qualifying performance deserves more credit than it gets I think. We were brilliant against Honduras and Mexico.

I agree his teams do have trouble scoring. Who as a men's coach in Canada has had a team that hasn't had trouble scoring? Anyone? Even in our 1986 qualifying campaign we played eight games and scored 11 goals. Gold Cup 2000? Seven goals in five games. And in both instances we road one or two guys (Mitchell had three in four in the first round in 86, Vrablic and Pakos had two in each in four in the last round and of course Corazzin had four in the Gold Cup and two in GC qualifying for that matter). I don't think you can coach your way into having a forward in good form.

cheers,

matthew

[matthew]

quote:Originally posted by canso

As for the comparison between the 01 and 03 generations the point was that James did less with more while the Mitchell teams always seem to well prepared, disciplined and organized and he has the ability to make the most of what he has to work with and build a great team spirit. James dropped Ali Ngon-Gerba and brought in Dunfield which backfired but overall the team seemed like they weren't ready to play for each other. Results have varied for Mr.Mitchell but his lads are up for it every match and at least fight for each other.

Right that was what I was on about. I think a QF spot is a reasonable goal depending on the draw for 07 given our talent. That will be another measuring stick for Mitchell. He's not my desert island top choice or anything, but I think he's not a bad choice. And I think he has achieved some good things at the youth level with not great teams. And teams that were inferior in talent to teams who recently failed to achieve much. The 05 qualifying performance deserves more credit than it gets I think. We were brilliant against Honduras and Mexico.

I agree his teams do have trouble scoring. Who as a men's coach in Canada has had a team that hasn't had trouble scoring? Anyone? Even in our 1986 qualifying campaign we played eight games and scored 11 goals. Gold Cup 2000? Seven goals in five games. And in both instances we road one or two guys (Mitchell had three in four in the first round in 86, Vrablic and Pakos had two in each in four in the last round and of course Corazzin had four in the Gold Cup and two in GC qualifying for that matter). I don't think you can coach your way into having a forward in good form.

cheers,

matthew

[analyst]

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

I like Nunez and hope he can do well professionally. Yes, we have a number of players playing professionally, but we've also got a good many college kids.

I wonder if the college route is good enough? How many college trained players turn out to be good pros compared to players who go overseas and sign with pro clubs?