Too little, too late ?

[Mighty_TorontoFC]

quote:Originally posted by stacks

Frank Yallop should have been fired on the simple fact that Pat Onstad was in goal. He single handedly cost us the Qualifying.

Who else would you have had in goal? Onstad was quilty of the goals

conceded against Gutalemala in the opener but he had help the team in front of him were utter useless, and when that happens a keeper

usually has no chance!!

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by Mighty_TorontoFC

Who else would you have had in goal? Onstad was quilty of the goals

conceded against Gutalemala in the opener but he had help the team in front of him were utter useless, and when that happens a keeper

usually has no chance!!

The only goal Onstad was guily of was Costa Rica's goal in Burnaby. I just don't see how this is still discuss, Onstad was the only decent keeper we had at that time playing at a good level. Hirsch was without club and had played 5 competitives games in 2 yrs, Sutton had 0 or 1 cap with Canada at that time. It was a no-brainer.

Of course, with more friendlies maybe we would've have the chance to see a real battle for the #1 spot but in that situation Onstad was the logical choice being in-season in the MLS.

[Grizzly]

Hirschfeld was our number 1 keeper when Yallop took over and had played well for us. It was apparent right from the first practices one of which I attended that there was not going to be a competition for the job. Onstad was shaky in practice, looked poor on the few shots he had to deal with against Belize and in my recollection was less than stellar on several goals in WCQ not just the Costa Rican one. The fact of the matter is if your number 1 keeper is not getting the job done a good coach tries the other keeper, in this case a much more talented keeper regardless of how many games he was playing. Everyone except Yallop seemed to know Onstad was going to screw up because he had screwed up so many times for us before. This is precisely why Ossieck never had Onstad as the 1st keeper because everytime he played him he screwed up. I never understood why loyola is such an Onstad fan since he critiques the technical ability of so many other keepers. Onstad has a natural shot stopping ability but has a large number of technical weaknesses which is why he has never had success beyond a 2nd tier level. His flubs don't get punished by the MLS strikers like they would in a top league or in international play. Even the arrival of the less spectacular but more secure Sutton to the national team settled our defence down immensely.

The fact of the matter is there was no competition for the keeper spot just like there was no competition for several other spots. This was the main problem of our WCQ, Frank playing the guys he personally liked. The most notable example being Watson for whom he didn't call any decent competition. Thus, we had a predetermined backline of DeVos and Watson and noone decent to give either of them competition or injury cover. It was not Yallop's fault that DeVos was misdiagnosed as injured before the Guatemala game. It sure as hell was Yallop's fault that we didn't call someone like Nsaliwa or Aguair who could have replaced him and had to play a third rate player like Pizzolito. The lack of a fair competition for positions based on merit is why Yallop succeeded in alienating so many players so quickly, far faster than even the very difficult personality of Ossieck.

SJ while I agree the CSA could give our coaches better preparation, once again the primary factor in us not qualifying for the WC has been poor, incompetent coaches. Since Waiters we have had only one coach I would call competent in Ossieck. Note that Ossieck I am only calling competent, he wasn't spectacular or world class or as good a coach as many other teams had and he had a difficult personality but at least he had some level of competence. The rest were far under the international coaching standard. Of those coaches Yallop had by far the best talent pool at WCQ yet performed worse than any of the others.

[loyola]

Wow, just because I agree with a decision doesn't mean that I'm an Onstad fan. Of course I could start the speculation arguments but I'll restrained myself to my previous comment: I thought that was a logical choice.

BTW, I've criticized Onstad as much as other keepers when I see them making mistakes. Hirsch, Sutton and even the great Craig Forrest. I just don't think that Onstad wasn't at fault before the CR game in Burnaby. Of course, I think some goals looked weird but I felt that was the result of crazy defending by Pizzolito, Watson and Hutchinson and Onstad was exposed on those.

[Grizzly]

The logical choice would have been to have a fair competition for the job and a change of keeper when the current one was not performing up to par. Admittedly the lack of fair competition for the defenders jobs didn't help Onstad either yet a shaky keeper often has the effect of making the defence shaky. Regardless, the main reason for our terrible WCQ showing was poor squad selections not based on personal relationships not on players' abilities.

[sj]

I agree that Holger was the best of the bench and The CSA did not give him the tool and support needed to get the job done.

he did critise the CSA, the quality of theirso called training centres and theway there were being run and at times did not like the lack of disciplines of his players,

He like to say it like it is and it did not bode well with the CSA brass and to some extent to some players ther was no buddy buddy with him.

when he said what he thought of Onstad a lot of people got upset

he spoke his mind.

when they hired Yallop they made sure that ther wont be any public outburst and to keep everybody happy dont rock the boat like Holger did.

you simple cannot look and make a proper evaualation of the players in the pool in just two or three games

it takes at least two yrs and tons of contacts and interaction with the players to build cohesion and understanding

two or three exhibition games in WCQ yr is simple inadequate for any coach of any level.

you have to already know the core of your roster comes jan 1stof the WQC yr and use the tune-up game to really tune up your team not to evaulated and keep looking at players at the expense of robbing first team players valuable playing time with their teamates thus potentailly destroying any chemistry that is already there.

bottom line is you need to have access to the players and tons of friendlies without these the coach will only have to resort to bandiad solutions.

CSA wasted time and two games that was handed out to Miller by not hiring Yallop sooner.

remember after febuary most of our key guys are tide up in Eufa cup spot, promotion playoff or relegation battles with their respective club team thus rendering any player availability impossible and CSA did not take that into consideration during the hiring process too naive or are completely clueless.

[The Ref]

I agree SJ with all what you said above, except the part where you say 'you simple cannot look and make a proper evaualation of the players in the pool in just two or three games'. A coach needs only minutes to assess the quality of a player. I am not referring to Holger in particular, just to any good coach. I would agree to the length of two or three games if there were so many players in the Pool that in order to see all of them it would take that long.