Jump to content

Dale Mitchell, I'm starting to worry


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply
quote:Originally posted by loyola

As for Hart, I think he's done a pretty good job in 10 games. I only thought the Guadeloupe game was badly coached, I think he was fine in the other games I've seen including Hungary and Jamaica in MTL.

Come on. A lot of us were at the Jamaica game in Montreal and it consisted of 10 field players running in 10 different directions. Many posters commented here about how bad we looked against Jamaica particularly those at the game where the total disorganization was more apparent than for those watching on tv. This was a distinctly B team for Jamaica full of domestic players while we had our A team and we came very close to tieing them at home and could have even lost based on the run of play. Subsequently we lost to a slightly stronger Jamaican team in Jamaica.

Hart had a mediocre record against mediocre opposition before the Gold Cup. I didn't see the second Jamaica game or the Bermuda one but in the other games we looked very poor. In fact, I would say we looked even worse than we did under Yallop which coming from me is saying a lot. Even in the game against Venezuela we looked very poor and disorganized despite the decent result. This was probably due to lack of team practice before the game and not Hart's coaching but let's not describe the game as other than it was because of the result and a few good results subsequently.

I am willing to give Hart credit for the good performance in the Gold Cup. However, I don't understand how this performance is causing many here to revisionist history regarding the team's performances under him before that tournament. Up to the Gold Cup we had not performed well under Hart at all. At the moment we do not know the reason for the improvement (Hart improved rapidly as coach? team coached itself? a lucky run of results?) or whether we can consistently produce such results under him. Even including the Gold Cup we only faced one team that was significantly superior to us during his whole reign that being the US, which was a loss though a controversial/unfair one. We also played one of the worst games in national team history under him against Guadeloupe. In this game we played an inferior opponent with a too defensive strategy and no passion or urgency, the exact same criticism Mitchell is getting when playing teams better than us.

Let's not forget that we had an even better performance in the Gold Cup 2000 under Ossieck. Everyone thought that we would then qualify for the World Cup but I don't think I have to repeat what happened. Even though Hart was missing quite a few starters in this Gold Cup, he still had a much more talented team than Ossieck's 2000 team. At some point, one of our coaches is just going to benefit from the increased playing level of our players regardless of his coaching abilities. One good run in a tournament does not make a coaching genius or mean that a team is world class. Look at Greece winning the Euro and then not qualifying for the World Cup, a similar experience to ours under Ossieck.

I think the jury is still out on the abilities of both Mitchell and Hart. In evaluating them we have to look fairly and accurately at all of their results over a long period. We can't just let a good run in one tournament totally influence our evaluation of Hart's performances up to now. Nor should we let two disappointing performances of the U-20 team be the sole measure by which Mitchell is judged. I am disappointed in the U-20 tournament up to now and the tactics Mitchell has used. I was impressed by Hart's Gold Cup run although nothing previously had impressed me about him. If I was the one choosing the senior team head coach I would still probably go for Simoes. Mitchell does deserve his chance but he is under pressure to perform. If team performance declines under him then the CSA should replace him fairly quickly. We need a good number of friendlies to evaluate him as soon as possible and if he fails then Hart is waiting in the wings and it will not be like bringing in a totally new coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

At this point, I feel the worst thing that can happen is for Mitchell to take over the Senior team and the senior team qualifies for 2010 on its on merit without much input from Mitchell. Then the CSA will pat itself on the back and NOTHING will change because as far as they are concerned, 'there's no problem since we qualified didnt we?'

The best thing that can happen is we qualify for the World Cup 2010 regardless of who is coach. I don't care if Kermit the Frog is coach or who is in charge of the CSA if we qualify. Qualifying for the World Cup will do far more for Canadian soccer than anything even a competent CSA could achieve. Also if the results are there and consistent it doesn't really matter if it is due to coaching genius or the player's ability and that goes for both Hart and Mitchell. Qualifying us for the World Cup is what any national team coach is hired for so I don't see in any way how this could be a bad thing if he succeeds in this goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three questions:

How much of player skill development is a national team coach responsible for? Because especially in the Chile game, the U-20s were beaten at just about every position (especially in the midfield, and Begovic was an exception) Chile was just a much more skillful team.

Was the U-20 team over-hyped? Jaime Peters plays for a mid-table Championship team. David Edgar broke into Newcastle United this year due to a run of injuries. Andrea Lombardo is playing at the bottom of the MLS. Will Johnson's team were just promoted to the top division om Holland. Were expectations too high?

Does the team have the talent to play an attacking type of football, and, I suppose this is question four,... have other teams figured out that they can be beaten in the midfield and their lone striker isolated?

If the answers are "a little", "yes", "no" and "yes", then it doesn't say much about Mitchell as a coach, one way or the other. Different answers would of course lead to different conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're sort of broadening the discussion regarding exactly how much can a coach do or not do on the international stage I think it's important to keep in mind that pretty much the rest of the footballing world attaches huge importance to the value of their national team coaches.

They don't shrug and say, "Ah, well. We just didn't have the talent this time. But you did a good job, Coach!" Least not very often and almost never from the nations with ambition.

Have to remember that Mitch came into his position not without some very heated public debate. Not a great 1st step, and given the disaster which this tourny is becoming for Canada his 2nd step into the new senior MNT job has been even worse. Nothing like introducing your World Cup squad to their new boss under unfavourable recent history. Oh yeah, we're on our way to South Africa now, boys.

P.S. I don't think Canada was over-hyped at all. They went into this well prepared playing under the best circumstances which the CSA would allow (still believe splitting the games was a huge mistake but whatever) with a good core of players and haven't performed. The players have a share of the responsability but when under-performing is occuring on the team scale there's a larger responsability directed at the coach. His job is to get them to perform in spite of themselves.

P.S.S. Anyway, hope Mitch can turn it around against Congo and at least get a decent showing out of the lads in the round of 16 so we can all lament how it was only that "slow start" which killed us in this tourny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Mitch has had everything his way leading into this tourny. Everything. No Canadian team ever has been given what this squad has in order to prepare to succeed. And this bunch aren't getting it done. Not even close.

But it's not Dale Mitchell's fault?

Well if we go 3 & out Dale Mitchell will have to accept some of the blame. But would it really be entirely his fault to the point that we turf him from the senior team prior to his first game?

The optics would be bad, certainly, I'm not convinced. I think skill & player execution are playing a larger part in what has happened thus far.

But we have one more game.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by john tv

Well, Mo Johnston is doing an alright job thus far. That still leaves the youth academy option open though. However, the youth academy will have more than just one coach. As for who this mystery man is, are you talking about Dick Advocat? He's a good coach even if people called for his head after Netherland's gutless performance against Portugal in the semis at EURO 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Macksam

As for who this mystery man is, are you talking about Dick Advocat? He's a good coach even if people called for his head after Netherland's gutless performance against Portugal in the semis at EURO 2004.

Dick Advocat is currently coach at Zenit St. Petersburg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think in another country a coach who completely tanks with his U-20 team (in the most important football event the country has ever had) would walk into the senior team with his job secure? REALLY?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Soju

So you think in another country a coach who completely tanks with his U-20 team (in the most important football event the country has ever had) would walk into the senior team with his job secure? REALLY?!

I don't think his job is secure. Mitchell needs to produce some results with the senior team in the short term and show that the recent improvement in play is still on track. If the senior team goes backwards under him I would hope that he will be fired before WCQ and replaced by Hart. Of course the key to this is playing a decent number of friendlies so his work can be evaluated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I don't think his job is secure. Mitchell needs to produce some results with the senior team in the short term and show that the recent improvement in play is still on track. If the senior team goes backwards under him I would hope that he will be fired before WCQ and replaced by Hart. Of course the key to this is playing a decent number of friendlies so his work can be evaluated.

Have we settled the question of how many matches we will have before WCQ?

This does raise an interesting question: are there any opportunities for a change of coach in the middle of the qualifying campaign?

In the semis, last time around there was a two month lull between games 3 and 4 and again between 5 and 6...if we had to turf Mitchell after 3, the new coach would also have the GC to familiarize himself with the squad.

If he starts WCQ and it goes wrong, are we stuck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by gkhs

Have we settled the question of how many matches we will have before WCQ?

This does raise an interesting question: are there any opportunities for a change of coach in the middle of the qualifying campaign?

In the semis, last time around there was a two month lull between games 3 and 4 and again between 5 and 6...if we had to turf Mitchell after 3, the new coach would also have the GC to familiarize himself with the squad.

If he starts WCQ and it goes wrong, are we stuck?

The alternative at the moment would be Hart who has coached the team already for a year so there wouldn't be much problem with unfamiliarity. It would probably be a mistake to change the coach to a foreign coach with the limited time for preparation if Mitchell would get fired several months before WCQ. Thus, we are stuck with only one alternative to Mitchell being Hart but since he has had some success with the team it may not be a bad situation seeing whether Mitchell is up to the task and having Hart as an emergency replacement if he is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by gkhs

Have we settled the question of how many matches we will have before WCQ?

Well Mitchell has two games to work with, one next month against Iceland then in Toronto in September against Costa Rica. There is also a second friendly against Iceland to be played in Canada in 2008.

I hope there will be many more friendlies besides that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why go with the unknown we know what Hart can do and what MItchell could not do with the u-20.

so why waste a few precious exhibition to test a coach

was the U-20 debacle good enough to realise he does not have what it take to bring chemistry into a squad what can he teach the mens that he could not teach the boys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, unfortunately so. Though to his credit Mitchell has not shied away from pointing to a need for the Canadian program to improve (and I didn't see any "except for me" statements). However, I think my argument that a coach can not execute on the field on the player's behalf only strenghthens after that Congo game. If ever there was an example of a case of not being able to execute, that was it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by gwallace76

http://www.slam.canoe.ca/

There's a Poll on Slam...

"After his failure at the Under-20 World Cup, is head coach Dale Mitchell the right man to lead Canada's bid for a 2010 World Cup berth?"

These are the options:

Yes, you can't judge him on one event

No, his offensive system is a joke

Bring back Bob Lenarduzzi

This debate has gotten so ridiculous that bringing back Lenarduzzi is given as an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With these kinds of polls I often find they put in a "humourous" third option & I suspect the bring back Lenarduzzi option was meant to be that. Granted, if they wanted people to take the poll more seriously they should have included a "I don't know, let's see how he does with the national team first" option, as that is the one I'd be most likely to choose.

There's been a lot of media discussion about Dale Mitchell and while I don't agree with everything that's being said, I do think it's good that this discussion is occurring in the media. After this tourney, Mitchell must produce from the get-go. I just wish that we had some more sophisticated writers/commentators that could make these discussions a little more intelligent & informed. Reading Cathal Kelly's article you get the sense that Mitchell has never been capable of coaching successfully at any level while Hart is a coaching god, and fails to take into the account the small possibility that the players they each have at their disposal might have something to do with their respective results. George Gross meanwhile laments the fact that Holger isn't the U20 coach! No offense to Holger, but he's now ancient history. You might as well complain that Tony Waiters wasn't the coach while you're at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for dismissing Mitchel or asking for his resignation. The man screwed up the biggest soccer event in our own soil. We know he had good players, they proved themselves many times over and some are good enough for European teams. So it was not the players or their consistency as some use it to excuse the coach. This coach not only lost all games, but scored no goals, had a goalkeeper ejected and received numerous yellow cards. Was not able to change his strategy from one poor performance to another. Mitchel doesn't even look and act like a coach, hard to get messages across to players.

Sometimes past performances tend to influence our present judgment. In all fairness Mitchell had a good past, which is all very nice. But his present is not acceptable. I don't believe that someone, a coach, can go from good to bad in an instant. His coaching 'style', whatever that is, must have been there for a while. How come nobody noticed its deficiencies? The funny thing is that the CSA once again will do nothing about it. Linford can talk all he wants, but nobody is listening, he lost all credibility. I am still waiting for Nykamp to start pounding the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

There's been a lot of media discussion about Dale Mitchell and while I don't agree with everything that's being said, I do think it's good that this discussion is occurring in the media. After this tourney, Mitchell must produce from the get-go. I just wish that we had some more sophisticated writers/commentators that could make these discussions a little more intelligent & informed.

And to be fair to the media, when I typed the above I hadn't read this article by Richard Starnes, which is the best one that I've seen post-tourney:

http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=43567&sc=92

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...