Jump to content

U-17 WCQ Jamaica vs Trinidad/Tobago


jagum

Recommended Posts

U17 is our boys first real world competition. Its obvious that along with Hart, Ray Clark of player developement isn't getting the job done as well. By the time we are at this stage (u17 wc) we should be there along side of the USA. Its time for some radical changes in the CSA. Get rid of Hart, Clark, Kevin Muldoon and a couple of others. Just because some of them have been there since dirt was invented shouldn't give them job security. Does anybody ever really get fired in the CSA? Don't we just give them another team to coach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the overall sentiment posted here. Hart has had 3 chances to qualify our U17 boys with 3 failures. Each time the excuses are the same .... we outplayed them badly but just ran into some bad luck. Having Haiti, Honduras, T & T and Costa Rica go to the U17 WC and not us is very disappointing.

Congrats to the boys who, I am sure did their best, but we need some results at this stage and we are 0 for 3. Need some new blood, maybe Dasovic or Watson if we are going to stay Canadian?

Hart should be removed from consideration for the NT coach position. He can complain all he wants, but where else would he have received the opportunity he had here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's tough to evaluate his work since we haven't seen his teams play. The important thing at this level is to give those kids much needed international and CONCACAF experience.

I couldn't care less about Hart staying or being fired since I have a tough time evaluating his work. I'm not sure "results" is the best way to evaluate a coach at this level....just look at the french coach who won the U-17 WC in 2001 and where are his players right now (none is playing in a premier league at the moment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by loyola

It's tough to evaluate his work since we haven't seen his teams play. The important thing at this level is to give those kids much needed international and CONCACAF experience.

I couldn't care less about Hart staying or being fired since I have a tough time evaluating his work. I'm not sure "results" is the best way to evaluate a coach at this level....just look at the french coach who won the U-17 WC in 2001 and where are his players right now (none is playing in a premier league at the moment).

I agree, I'm starting to empathize (am I spelling the word I mean?) with Hart cause it must pretty friggin stressful to have your job in the hands of kids under 17, the kids do there best but I doesn't really bother me to have failure at this level, there are world powerhouses that fail at the U-20 level even and that doesn't necesarily hint a decline in that nations footballing ability. Afterall Mexico didn't even qualify for the U-17 and If anything Mexico seems to be on the up in recent years as far as talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I think part of the problem with the results is the way they've been achieved. Is it just me or do we always seem to start off strong, put ourselves in a good position to qualify & then somehow miss out?

In 2003 (Mexico beat us in our third game after we won against CR and Cuba, if you ask me, loosing 2-0 against Mexico isn't something that shocks me at that level...) and 2007, it's true. In 2005 we lost our first game.

If we truly dominated the game against T&T and had 3 balls off the woodwork, what can we say? Unlucky? Badly prepare? I honestly don't know.

Maybe Hart is part of the problem, maybe he isn't. Maybe we should not care that much about the results of such a young group age as long as they aren't outclassed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The positives:

When Fresh thumped the home team and drew with C/R.

Played the US tough, a poor first half was followed by a very strong second half.

Outplayed T & T apparently (but lost).

The Negatives:

Did not qualify

Finishing, other than Jamaica, did not materialize.

We had a tough schedule and showed decently well. I do not know the quality of this team relative to the rest of the confederation, nor do I know the player pool. So it is hard to judge the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by loyola

If we truly dominated the game against T&T and had 3 balls off the woodwork, what can we say? Unlucky? Badly prepare? I honestly don't know.

But we conceded 2 goals to a team that could not score against either US or Costa Rica, and only scored once against Jamaica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Ivan

But we conceded 2 goals to a team that could not score against either US or Costa Rica, and only scored once against Jamaica.

Yes, and conceded a big 0 against a team who got 3 past the American keeper....so what can we conclude? Apart for the obvious inconsistency of the results for all teams in this tournament (except Costa Rica), I won't pronounce myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the tournament is played every two yrs

which means we failed to qualify in six attempts

obviously our kids are not getting the quality of coaching required to one of the best age group in this region.

we had a 60% chances of going to South Korea, all we had to do is stay in the middle pack we could not even to that.

we have to have a good look at how soccer is being run at the grassroot level and at the provincial level as those kids are a pure product of the provincial program the same peoples that feels that a guy like Simoes and his expert team is not need for the benefit of soccer in this country.

most country in this region is setting up residency program which will obviously be beneficial to their kids.

our kid are already behind and will fall further behind unless soccer at the grassroot level is reformed.

we do better at the u-20 level simply because those kids has been in the college system in the US and at the youth systemwith European club teams they are the one that developing the players and bringing them to a level where we manage to compete in this region.

Simoes and his team of expert would have helped bridging the gap.

hope that Linford have a good look at that and start bringing some much need efficiency as far as the program is run.

6 failed attemped thats as bad as the men's team thats equals to 24 yrs if the criteria was every 4 yrs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

The question is why are our U20s doing so well (qualified 3 times since 2001 and 4 times in 5 editions), yet our U17s are not?

I think that you can sum it up quite easily to: the younger the age group, the more its about technical skills and less its about tactical elements. As you Progressively move to each older age group the tactical element becomes more important.

The teams that do well in U17 levels are the those that are reknowned for their technical / individual skills or athleticism. Further proof, look no further than the scores of int'l games at the younger levels versus the older levels. There are more goals at the youth levels.

Technical skills are very much self learned as oposed to acquired in an organized environment. The organized environment developes the tactical part. technical skills ( eg.: first and second touches ) has always been Canada's achilles heel at all levels. Its directly respeonsible for the fact that we dont score as many goals as we would like.

PS>: I have never coached or at any level. I am just applying common sence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by cndsoccer

coaching,coaching,coaching.

Yes, But I would say its coaching at the formative stages much more so than national team coaches. Though I am not necessarily exonerating the national team coach. I suspect that at the formative stages, the coaches are not instilling that passion. Perhaps they are too preoccupied with developing a their team rather than the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.
quote:Originally posted by Free kick

I think that you can sum it up quite easily to: the younger the age group, the more its about technical skills and less its about tactical elements. As you Progressively move to each older age group the tactical element becomes more important.

The teams that do well in U17 levels are the those that are reknowned for their technical / individual skills or athleticism. Further proof, look no further than the scores of int'l games at the younger levels versus the older levels. There are more goals at the youth levels.

Technical skills are very much self learned as oposed to acquired in an organized environment. The organized environment developes the tactical part. technical skills ( eg.: first and second touches ) has always been Canada's achilles heel at all levels. Its directly respeonsible for the fact that we dont score as many goals as we would like.

PS>: I have never coached or at any level. I am just applying common sence.

Just want to comment that technical skills are very much coached, 100%. You teach technique in training and you teach tactics in competitive matches where kids are motivated to win. But tactics are useless if they can't handle the basic technique.

You are right about age groups though. Technique is key for the kids, over and above athleticism for example. If you can pass well and then have the kids move positionally you eliminate a need for them to run like hell.

Since Canada will always find itself playing critical competitive matches at 35 degrees in humidity, it would not be bad for us to learn ball possession, slow build up, and a bit of acceleration in the last third. There is a reason for it.

Canadian players are usually not technical wonders, but neither are they tactically intelligent. We have no brilliant passers or dribblers, for example, but no creative mids to speak of either, guys who read a game. Noone reads the game for Canada, at least I have never seen it.

Our way is more like being aggressive tackling and in transitions, finding a way to get forward quickly, get a goal, hang back and defend, hopefully have a good keeper. That is how we normally play, and how we play if and when we win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spot on....

The success vs failure ratio has already been established. Has Hart as a coach been successful in the youth pgm? No. That does not mean he is not a good coach, just that he has not gotten results. However, this is what a coach is supposed to do.

How does he scout his players? This must be difficult as access to these teenagers is limited. So, who provides him with scouting reports? The NTCs? If there is to be a revamp or at least a review of the pgm, it cannot end with Hart, but go deeper to the NTCs and provincial pgms. Are the "right" players getting through? What means do they use to scout talent? Is it the same from province-to-province, NTC-to-NTC?

Inquiring minds need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...