Rosenlund Heading to Europe

[Cheeta]

Yes and no.

By intensity I mostly mean just that. Some might disagree, but you can not seperate mental intensity from the physical fact. To do so is to accept make believe. The test is in the physical intensity and the ability to maintain that mental intensity, that focus, that delivery of quality, under physical trial. I don't know if the way I'm expressing myself makes any sort of sense, but I hope I'm making the point.

And in CONCACAF, all you need to do is win at home to go through. To the HEX, the WC or at worse a playoff spot. September/October in Vancouver (or for future refernce, Toronto) isn't Houston in June, July or January for that matter.

Bit off topic but I've brought this up before and since the door has been left open I'll bring it up a-gin. Why would we, Canada, want to play a style of football our CONCACAF rivals are familiar with and comfortable playing? Especially, when our strengths aren't magnified by playing this style?

Wouldn't we much rather play to our strengths, in a style and system which our CONCACAF enemies wouldn't otherwise encounter, and therefore be the least prepared to deal with, as opposed to playing a brand of football that they ARE more familiar with?

Keeping in mind that all we have to do is win-at-home.

9 points last go around got you through to the HEX. We got 1 point at home, and gave up 7. That, is rubbish.

[Start fan in exile]

quote: Originally posted by Grizzly

Poz is a bad example in that he played quite successfully in the Swedish top tier but did not re-sign because he was unhappy with the contract offer. I think he is someone fully capable of playing in the top tier of Scandanavian soccer but got a better monetary offer to play for a 2nd tier club.

Well...actually, Haugesund is not a rich club, and there must be a good 15-20 teams in Norway able to pay as good or better salaries. Something else must have drawn Poz. I am pretty sure no top tier teams showed any interest in Poz when Haugesund were relegated to the 3rd tier - if they had, he'd have transferred.

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

Reda considered a top player in Norway, but unable to make an impact in Denmark. How they perform in MLS will be interesting to watch.

Sorry, but Reda was never considered at top player in Norway - a solid defender, yes, but not a top player. There was one season Sogndal were challenging for a medal in Tippeligaen and Marco and the entire team overachieved. (the following season they were relegated) After his failed stint in Denmark, Reda did not attract much interest in Norway outside of Sogndal.

*edit* - not saying these guys were not valuable to their teams because they were, absolutely.

[Grizzly]

When Reda was in Norway the Norwegian national coach stated that if he were Norwegian he would select him for the Norwegian national team which I think one could equate with being a top player.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Yes and no.

By intensity I mostly mean just that. Some might disagree, but you can not seperate mental intensity from the physical fact. To do so is to accept make believe. The test is in the physical intensity and the ability to maintain that mental intensity, that focus, that delivery of quality, under physical trial.

Have you ever played in the middle of the afternoon when it is approaching 40 celsius on the Humidex scale? That can be much more of a physical trial than playing in near freezing conditions in my experience and given that you need to let the ball do the work by maintaining possession and can't play a British kick and rush style if you want to last the full 90 there is plenty of mental intensity involved. People in and from Northern Europe often equate the tempo a game is played at with skill level. That can lead to very misleading impressions when applied to what happens within CONCACAF and Latin America.

When I watch MLS (and I was watching web streams on mlsnet.com most weekends this past summer) I see teams that can maintain possession and string a lot of one and two touch passes together but who at the same time have a much more physical edge to their game defensively than most Latin American teams. The league is developing a style all of its own in other words and from what I see the days when any League Two level sort of player from England could come over and play at the top level here because he's better than all the players who came through the North American system are long gone.

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Bit off topic but I've brought this up before and since the door has been left open I'll bring it up a-gin. Why would we, Canada, want to play a style of football our CONCACAF rivals are familiar with and comfortable playing? Especially, when our strengths aren't magnified by playing this style?

Wouldn't we much rather play to our strengths, in a style and system which our CONCACAF enemies wouldn't otherwise encounter, and therefore be the least prepared to deal with, as opposed to playing a brand of football that they ARE more familiar with?

I would dispute most of that. Maybe in BC there is a British 442 sort of culture because they can play a winter season but in southern Ontario the climate and summer season often dictates a style that is not so very different from the rest of CONCACAF. Bob Lenarduzzi used to ignore a lot of talented players who could play that style of game and favoured a BC clique with a British 442 sort of mentality. Under Osieck things got better and I hope the new guy whoever he is will be more in the Osieck sort of mould.

On the only need to win the home games thing to qualify. No offence meant but I personally see that as almost prehistoric thinking belonging to the era of people like Tony Waiters who came over from the UK and were never really fully able to adapt to their new environment and move beyond British thinking. The Central Americans can cope with big centre forwards like John Catliff at set pieces now so CONCACAF has moved on.

For the other four teams in the hex anything gained in the games against Mexico and the United States is a bonus. The key is what happens home and away against the other three. Countries like Panama and Trinidad & Tobago need to be beaten both times in other words and Costa Rica probably needs to be a win and a draw.

[Cheeta]

Add a couple of things in responce since we're light years off topic.

Re;Climate

We'll have to get to the HEX before we have to start worrying about summer conditions in CA or the West Indies. Half our matchs will still be in Canada and by then we only need to finish 4th.

Won't argue that climate effects the way the game is played in warmer climes out of necessity. But I also don't ignore the fact that players accustomed to playing at a certain marathon pace can be put off by playing the game in a higher gear than they are familiar with.

Call it what you want but it's still absolutely true. Steal what you can on the road but if we win at home, we go through.

Kick & Run

Does anyone play the 70s style of kick & run people seem to use as a frame of reference? Has anyone done it (outside of the WNT) for the last 10-15 years? Advicating a simple, easily managed 442 (or 4-4-1-1 for that matter) isn't saying go out and pretend we're playing in the old English 1st Division. It's recongnizing that the 20 days our NT spends together spread over 6 matchs and 12 months doesn't realy allow us to play anything else.

And the CA teams are not comfortable in the air. Ask Brian McBride. Maybe not the best example but excepting for DDR's cross/flukie goal weren't all our goals in WCQ scored in the box from set plays? Including that called back goal in Edmonton. We already put them off if we force the CA teams to adjust their 1st choice line ups to account for an air war so why not do it?

[Cheeta]

Add a couple of things in responce since we're light years off topic.

Re;Climate

We'll have to get to the HEX before we have to start worrying about summer conditions in CA or the West Indies. Half our matchs will still be in Canada and by then we only need to finish 4th.

Won't argue that climate effects the way the game is played in warmer climes out of necessity. But I also don't ignore the fact that players accustomed to playing at a certain marathon pace can be put off by playing the game in a higher gear than they are familiar with.

Call it what you want but it's still absolutely true. Steal what you can on the road but if we win at home, we go through.

Kick & Run

Does anyone play the 70s style of kick & run people seem to use as a frame of reference? Has anyone done it (outside of the WNT) for the last 10-15 years? Advicating a simple, easily managed 442 (or 4-4-1-1 for that matter) isn't saying go out and pretend we're playing in the old English 1st Division. It's recongnizing that the 20 days our NT spends together spread over 6 matchs and 12 months doesn't realy allow us to play anything else.

And the CA teams are not comfortable in the air. Ask Brian McBride. Maybe not the best example but excepting for DDR's cross/flukie goal weren't all our goals in WCQ scored in the box from set plays? Including that called back goal in Edmonton. We already put them off if we force the CA teams to adjust their 1st choice line ups to account for an air war so why not do it?

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

We already put them off if we force the CA teams to adjust their 1st choice line ups to account for an air war so why not do it?

Picture Ned Braden towards the end of Slapshot when Reggie Dunlop says "scouts?". That's pretty much my reaction to that. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

We already put them off if we force the CA teams to adjust their 1st choice line ups to account for an air war so why not do it?

Picture Ned Braden towards the end of Slapshot when Reggie Dunlop says "scouts?". That's pretty much my reaction to that. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

[Start fan in exile]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

When Reda was in Norway the Norwegian national coach stated that if he were Norwegian he would select him for the Norwegian national team which I think one could equate with being a top player.

I've followed the Norwegian leagues and national team pretty closely for more than three decades now, I can't recall that (but nor can I claim total recall []). However, former NT coach Nils Johan Semb was prone to offering superlatives about many players to the local media whenever he came to observe a match, so perhaps it was in that context it came up. Reda was certainly a capable defender with Sogndal when they were in Tippeligaen, but not a top player by any stretch.

Perhaps it was his work ethic the coach was praising him for? The Sogndal fans certainly loved him for that.

[Bill Ault]

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

On the only need to win the home games thing to qualify. No offence meant but I personally see that as almost prehistoric thinking belonging to the era of people like Tony Waiters who came over from the UK and were never really fully able to adapt to their new environment and move beyond British thinking. The Central Americans can cope with big centre forwards like John Catliff at set pieces now so CONCACAF has moved on.

After watching the Canada v Honduras game a half a dozen times in the last few days thanks to our new video project I think this kind of statement does a great dis-service to Tony and the Canadian players of the day.

I had forgotten how good this team was - what many forget is all that Canada needed in this game was a tie - but watching the game Canada played a very attack minded 4-4-2 and I must say played with much more patience and build-up through the midfield than many a Canadian team I have seen in the intervening twenty plus years. It was not kick and thump but a very structured, and well played 4-4-2 that supported our players abilities well with the wing backs coming forward often in support and Vrablic causing havoc up front.

Successful international coaches build their system to suit their players because in the most part without a national system or vision of development to do otherwise is counter-productive. To my knowledge the words "system of development" and / or "vision" have not been used often in context with the CSA or our national team programs (not entirely the CSA's fault but that's another rant).

To call the Tony unsuccessful as a coach is silly - he accomplished what no one has done since in Canadian soccer or looks to do in the near future qualifying with a bunch of unemployed pros or indoor players and then leading them to a respectable performance in Mexico.

Before anyone jumps all over the last sentence - yes I realize we lost all three games and failed to score but it was not the worst performance by a CONCACAF country before or since at the World Cup and although the soccer gods smiled on us that day holding the reigning Euro champs and eventual 1986 semi-finalists to a 1-0 scoreline and losing 2-0 to another eventual semi-finalist, the U.S.S.R., was not accomplished by playing random, throw it in the mixer football.

Okay now for the first coffee of the day

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

At no point did I call Tony Waiters unsuccessful as a coach. What I pointed out is that CONCACAF has moved on since then and that as a result there is almost nothing to be learned from that Honduras game beyond the fact that it helps to have a league like the NASL or MLS providing a place for top Canadian players to play in North America. The days when El Salvador could qualify and then go on to be beaten 10-1 by Hungary in Spain at the 1982 finals are long gone.

[Bill Ault]

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

At no point did I call Tony Waiters unsuccessful as a coach. What I pointed out is that CONCACAF has moved on since then and that there is almost nothing to be learned from that Honduras game.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I'm afraid there are still things we could learn on and off the field from that era and that I suppose is the final damnation at how little progress has been made in twenty years.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

OK, I'm interested. Name them. You should note that I mentioned John Catliff above from the CSL era as what I had in mind was the problems subsequent to 86 (as the CONCACAF teams outside of Mexico moved beyond the 10-1 defeat in Elche sort of era) that ultimately led the CSA to learn a few lessons from history and go a different direction under Osieck. That may not have translated into success in a World Cup qualifying context but it did in the Gold Cup.

[Free kick]

But the kick and run style that was employed by Lennarduzzi and Waiters isn't suited to playing in this region where the Qualifier are primarily played in the summer and, at times, in places of high altitude like Azteca. You just run out of gas and eventually get eaten alive. In the last two WCQ efforts this factor was not noticeable. But prior to that it was definitely a problem. That is a lasting image that I have about our WCQ's of past. Namely, playing a positional game that involves many long balls to Peschisolido or some other target man to run down. Much like our womens teams currently play. I can count many occasions whereby throughout a game we were able to use our fitness level to survive for a considerable amount of time, but the goals would eventually pore in later in the game.

Another problem is that, in addition to a great deal of fitness, these stategies are predicated on successfull ball winning and tackling. And with the poor and inconsistent reffing in the region, this can be dicey in regards to the cards that you are going to face . Plus, you have the cultural factor that influences many of the refs in this region. At some point, you have to acknowledge that when you are in Rome, you have to do like the Romans.

Having said, unlike the past, playing styles are not as diverse as they used to be. Sides have all learned from each other and are moving toward a middle gound. To a point where you can now watch any Champions league, WC or Euro game and not really notice and difference unless you look very closely.

But on occasion or to a small extent, these divergent styes are still present. And when it comes to MLS this is another positive thing that I have noticed last year from the playoff games that I saw along with the odd other games. That being, that they are gradually developing their template based on their own unique conditions rather than copying someone else's without considering if its suited to the culture or type of player that you produce. What I noted from MLS playoff games that I saw, was a game is that it is quite agressive and at times vicious. But by same token, you dont really see the linear game that is synonomous with the UK and Scandinavia. Rather, you will see teams use the width of the field a little ore and patiently build up plays .

[Bill Ault]

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

OK, I'm interested. Name them.

The only one that matters:

Structure and organization - in those days the power structure fro soccer was much more centralized, for good or bad, but at least decisions were made at a national level for the national teams good not local level for the local good. The provinces, districts and clubs have since divided and conquered the power structure to the point that the game from a developmental point of view and decision making ability we reached stagnation long ago.

There is no leadership - and everyone blames the CSA for that - but the power brokers in the game lie much closer to home than Ottawa. Take a look at your local district and provincial organizations who actually control most aspects including governance of the game in this country.

Canada's success in 1984-86, losing in the Olympic Quarter-finals to Brazil, qualifying for Mexico, led to a feeding frenzy of the minor political players in the sport in this country who thought they were on to the next big thing and started to entrench the power (and the hoped for glory) to their own level within the structure and the game has paid the price ever since.

As for CONCACAF the only real changes that have occurred is the ascension of the Americans - the minor players below them and the Mexicans changes constantly with the rise and fall of the politicians and strong generations of players . (See Jack Warner and T&T or Jamaica for the player example).

The game I'm afraid to say, at the national team level, will continue to struggle until as someone already said we blow things up and start over.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Internal organization has always been Balkanized and probably always will be given the nature of Canada so I don't find the first part convincing. I think the key was the influence of the NASL in providing a place for players to play in North America. Disagree on the second part also. The Central American countries have benefited from having a few key top players playing in Europe and more recently MLS and a lot of the stuff that used to trip them up when they played outside their region first and foremost facing a tall and very physical centre forward at set pieces doesn't any more to anything like the same extent. Once that factor is negated they can use their superior ball skills to maintain possession and wait for a team playing a north European 442 style to tire. The larger ex-British Empire Caribbean islands (i.e Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago) have started to take soccer as seriously as cricket and are benefiting from FIFA's relaxed eligibility rules by using players born and raised in the UK based on a major wave of migration back in the 60s. Their recent success is not all down to Jack Warner and a cyclical rise and fall based on players developed locally.

I honestly don't think we need to blow things up. The Gold Cup success under Osieck shows what is possible when the national team can be together for a prolonged period and is not flying back economy class a couple of days before key qualifiers. With multiple MLS teams in future the nucleus of home based players required to make that sort of setup possible (as it was for Waiters due to the NASL) will be there again. A few key top stars can always be flown in first class from Europe as well. Already next season Onstad, Sutton, Braz, Pozniak, Jazic, Reda, Brennan, Serioux, de Rosario will be playing in CONCACAF time zones and I guess Stewart is available that way. Greg Kerfoot and Joey Saputo following MLSE's lead over the next 5 to 10 years would help even more. Get another talented coach like Osieck aboard who can create a tactical system that works for Canadian players in warm as well as cold weather conditions and I'm confident good things could happen from 2014 onwards. 2010 may be too soon.

[matthew]

Things we did right in the 1986 cycle that we haven't done since:

1. friendlies. We had quite and a few (23) and 11 of them came against CONCACAF opposition. That's more friendlies than in 90, 94 and 98. We knew the teams we were going to play and had faced them.

2. Quick decisions, maximizing those friendlies. Two of our best known players of that era — Wes McLeod and Robert Iarusci — got 2 and 1 cap respectively out of the 31 matches we played. McLeod was 29 and Iarusci was 32 at the start of 86 World Cup. Another veteran Peter Roe (31, with Tampa Bay Rowdies) got three caps. We're those the right decisions? Did these veterans have more to offer? Maybe, I don't know, but certainly Iarusci being out opens a door for Randy Samuel. Tony Waiters made tough decisions and stuck with them and decided who his team was early.

That leads to three . . .

3. Consistency. We played eight qualifiers and used 19 players. We used the backline of Lenarduzzi-Bridge-Samuel-Wilson six times and out of a possible 32 games (4x8) that group started 30. I don't think it's a shock with that consistency in the back we allowed four goals in eight qualifiers.

By contrast we played eight games in the 2006 cycle and used 27 players. 22 of those players were used in the first three games. Why? We weren't prepared, we didn't have the time to prepare and Yallop didn't know who his team was. I thought we had used a bunch of new faces in the nothing game against Guatemala, but we hadn't all, but two (Hirschfeld and Pozniak who got 15 mins) had already appeared at some point.

Good, bad or irrelevant, Waiters got friendlies, he used them to figure who he thought we his best team, he built around a core group (especially his backline and his forwards . . . Vrablic played all eight qualifiers and Mitchell was on his way to doing the same until he injured his knee) while injecting young players into the lineup. They knew the system and they knew what Waiters wanted out of them and it was a style they seemed comfortable with.

Maybe the lessons of 86 aren't relevant in the modern game, but I still think that basic framework would serve us well coming up, It's too bad we're already behind.

cheers,

matthew

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Great post Matt, shows that it is not a question of chance, there is reason to the rhyming.

And no trick to winning and success, a defined squad with a bit of competition to keep players sharp, lots of friendlies to get ready, knowledge of our opponents. If you don't prepare right you can't just expect to qualify by the seat of your pants.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Bear in mind that it helped that Mexico became last minute hosts instead of Colombia and that the United States were still a joke outfit at that point. The real lessons to be learned in my opinion are in the contrast between 94 (would be a qualification now, the end of the era when tall centre forwards like Bunbury and Catliff could annihilate Central American teams at set pieces) and 98 (dead last in the hex as CONCACAF started to move on in a big way).

[Gordon]

Having attended the Guatemala and Honduras qualifiers last go around there is no question in my mind that with proper preparation and the absence of questionable selections by Yallop we would have made the hex and been in the running for the 3rd or 4th spot. In my opinion, neither Guatemala nor Honduras were any more or less imposing, improved, tactically proficient or adept at handling an arial game than they were in 1984 or '88. We were not properly prepared and it cost us.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Costa Rica are the main problem amongst the Central Americans these days in hex terms and have usually been the dominant team in that part of CONCACAF since 1990. Given the fact I'm Scottish originally I have a particularly strong awareness of their ability to deal with an aerial game and how it helped them advance as a soccer nation after a game played in Genoa in 1990 that led to the first ever qualification of a CONCACAF country from the first round of the finals due to Bora Milutinovic's expert coaching. My recollections of the 94 qualifiers revolve around goals by John Catliff where the Red Sea still seemed to part defensively every time a high ball was swung in from either wing on free kicks etc. By 1998 the old tactics of launching the ball at a tall target man (i.e. Alex Bunbury) in a British style 442 just didn't work any more leading to consequences described in detail by Free Kick above, hence finishing dead last in the hex and the need to go a different direction under Osieck.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

Costa Rica are the main problem amongst the Central Americans these days in hex terms and have usually been the dominant team in that part of CONCACAF since 1990. Given the fact I'm Scottish originally I have a particularly strong awareness of their ability to deal with an aerial game and how it helped them advance as a soccer nation after a game played in Genoa in 1990 that led to the first ever qualification of a CONCACAF country from the first round of the finals due to Bora Milutinovic's expert coaching.

Mexico actually qualified out of the first round both times they hosted the WC (1970 & 1986 - with the same Bora coaching the latter. Add Europe into your sentence however, and it is spot on.

Nitpicking aside, I agree with your general point - even the one game that Canada won in the 1998 hex, 1-0 against Costa Rica, we could barely hang on to the ball and were often hoofing it down the field out of desperation. Thankfully I do not think we will see a return to those days where Canada couldn't play anything remotely close to a possession game

[nhr57]

A few comments from the manager regarding Tyler (not the best of translations, but...eh):

"You can see that he has certain qualities, but for us to bring in a new player it would take a lot. We have always said that if we are to bring in a new player he would have to be a definite improvement, otherwise it's not interesting."

That doesn't bode well for Tyler Rosenlund. How do you view him at the moment?

"I don't want to comment either way right now. What a player shows in training doesn't necessarily mean too much. It's what happens in matches that matters and he will play matches, and then we'll see."

[Gaucho]

Below is a link to a photo gallery of a training match with AIK. Rosenlund is #15.

http://magnusneck.se/gallery2/v/AIK/Syrianska-AIK-2007-02-06/

[El Hombre]

quote:Originally posted by futbol101

I am a little confused.. who are you and have you ever played soccer before. Rosenlund has probably the best capability out of any Centre Midfielders I have seen play from canada. You must not have watched him play a real game or you just do not know what soccer is.

Please give a second to think before you open your mouth.

Actually, I feel the exact same way as Ed. I was hoping for big things for Rosenlund at the 2005 WYC and he left me pretty disappointed. He's definitely talented but he didn't show it on the world stage when he had the chance. And with the current pool of midfielders we have, he can't be much more than cover for the upcoming WCQ.