Jarrek Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/fifau20/blog-forrest/2007/07/dont_blame_dale_mitchell_for_c.html The tournament so far has been a massive success. Talking to FIFA officials, not much could be better. Attendance figures over a million, well-behaved fans, that's no surprise to me. However, there is one thing: the Canadian team. FIFA would have liked to see the hosts get out of their first-round group. Mathematically it could still be done but what does coach Dale Mitchell do now? No goals, four against, only two shots on goal in two games. This team has played some terrific soccer in some of their warm-up games leading into this tournament. Goals and opportunities have now all but dried up. There is the pressure of playing at home and maybe it has been too much for many players. The team needs leaders and the lack of technical ability is evident. Many have questioned me about the coaching and what Mitchell could do differently. Mitchell is not the one to blame. The team's shape looked pretty good and he has given every player an opportunity to show what they can do. [Read More] http://www.cbc.ca/sports/fifau20/blog-forrest/2007/07/dont_blame_dale_mitchell_for_c.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrennanFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Forrest is getting to be a bit of a csa crony. he hurts his credibility and relevance with statements like this. As the coach, Mitchell should take the blame for his players failures. That is what coaches do. Yes the players could not finish and scoring chances were few. But when it comes down to it, our goal difference for the tourney is 6 against and 0 goals for - the coach is A HUGE part of that, theres absolutely no doubt about it. Mitchell, as a coach, is not very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 quote:Originally posted by BrennanFan Forrest is getting to be a bit of a csa crony. he hurts his credibility and relevance with statements like this. I couldn't agree more. Its getting to the point where I can't even listen to him on the broadcasts anymore. Continually complaining about the other team diving and how they should be booked. He is so repetitive its annoying. Him and Nigel are still the best we've got in this county, but still not great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Someone said in another thread that Nigel Reed gets a free pass from a lot of people because of his accent, and I tend to agree. A surprisingly bad duo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meteor Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 The coach is responsable for his team..that's the way it works in sports. Had Canada played well i'm sure they woulda been all over Mitchell's sack...they tanked and none of it is his fault? Bullocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadasBest Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Uggh... How can he defend Mitchell... The first 2 games were a tactical nightmare. Mitchell was out coached plain and simple. Game #1. Everyone knew that Chile would play a 4-3-3 formation. That is everyone except Mitchell. Result = 1 Shot on Goal. Game #2. Again we start a defensive 4-5-1 formation, rather than push the attack against a relatively weak Austrian team. Result = 1 Shot on Goal. Game #3. We come out with an offensive mindset. Once it's realized that we need to score 3 goals!!! We created chances the players unfortunately couldn't finish. The problem with this crap Forrest article is that it's written before game #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 quote:Originally posted by gwallace76 Uggh... How can he defend Mitchell... The first 2 games were a tactical nightmare. Mitchell was out coached plain and simple. Game #1. Everyone knew that Chile would play a 4-3-3 formation. That is everyone except Mitchell. Result = 1 Shot on Goal. Game #2. Again we start a defensive 4-5-1 formation, rather than push the attack against a relatively weak Austrian team. Result = 1 Shot on Goal. Game #3. We come out with an offensive mindset. Once it's realized that we need to score 3 goals!!! We created chances the players unfortunately couldn't finish. The problem with this crap Forrest article is that it's written before game #3. I've always liked Forrest, but you have to remember where he's coming from. He's not a career journalist. He's a knowledgable member of the Canadian soccer community that currently works in broadcasting. Since he doesn't want to damage his standing in that community, don't expect him to be overly critical of anyone in it. After all, the broadcasting gig may not last forever, but I think he's expecting to make a career of soccer in some form. That's the disadvantage of using someone like him for these games. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 quote:Originally posted by BrennanFan Forrest is getting to be a bit of a csa crony. I prefer "shill". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 quote:Originally posted by gwallace76 Uggh... How can he defend Mitchell... The first 2 games were a tactical nightmare. Mitchell was out coached plain and simple. Game #1. Everyone knew that Chile would play a 4-3-3 formation. That is everyone except Mitchell. Result = 1 Shot on Goal. Game #2. Again we start a defensive 4-5-1 formation, rather than push the attack against a relatively weak Austrian team. Result = 1 Shot on Goal. Game #3. We come out with an offensive mindset. Once it's realized that we need to score 3 goals!!! We created chances the players unfortunately couldn't finish. After attending game#1, I'm of the view that no amount of tactics by any coach could have produced a win for that game, given how flat our players came out (which to a man, they have all admitted). I think where Mitchell should be criticized is for not having the team mentally prepared for that first game, not tactically, because we don't know whether the tactics would have worked with a team that came out with the right frame of mind (and corresponding effort). Some have said that Mitchell shouldn't have to motivate the team. In some ways I can appreciate that point, that the players should be able to motivate themselves to get up for a World Cup, but I don't know it's that sort of motivation that was needed, but rather having the team more focussed and perhaps less nervous/over-awed. Not an easy thing to do for a coach, but nevertheless something which some have the ability to do, and something that a coach can be evaluated upon. A wise man with a moustache once postulated that there are essentially three kinds of coaches - a motivator, a teacher, and a strategist. (You could add a fourth category, the John Brophy category, for people who can't do any of the three). That's not to say that coaches will be feature the traits of one to the total exclusivity of the others, but it is a generalization. I have always gotten the impression that Hart was very much in the teacher mold, which makes sense for somebody at the U17 level. I could be wrong about that, but one hopes that is the case given the level he is coaching. I have gotten the impression with Mo Johnston that he is mainly a motivator. The style played by TFC isn't very sophisticated & I don't see a lot of tactics & strategy. He can see who is not pulling his weight & get them out of the line-up, but not much more than that. And I don't really see him taking the role of a teacher. Whereas I see plenty of motivation happening on the sidelines. With Mitchell, I think it is safe to say that he isn't a motivator. Neither in the Scotty Bowman style or the rah-rah "let's go boys" style. I don't know how much of a teacher he is either. I get the overwhelming sense that he lands in the strategist role. The problem is often the youth tournaments are less about strategy & tactics and more about player skills & technique and player mentality. In that sense, I can see Mitchell potentially being a better senior team coach than an youth team coach (though I know he's had success in the past here). The senior team should not need motivation so much, or to be taught things (unless they are a young team or lack international experience, which ought not to be the case for the team when Mitchell takes over, assuming he largely goes with the same personnel as I think he should). On the other hand, strategy & tactics can often win & lose a match where the opposing talent is just about equal or greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca A wise man with a moustache once postulated that there are essentially three kinds of coaches - a motivator, a teacher, and a strategist. (You could add a fourth category, the John Brophy category, for people who can't do any of the three). lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I have to give credit where it's due - it was Motor City Smitty himself, Brad Smith, who suggested that Brophy fit that category. I just named it after him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I have to give credit where it's due - it was Motor City Smitty himself, Brad Smith, who suggested that Brophy fit that category. I just named it after him. Holy crap, the Leafs made the playoffs with a 21-49-10 record? 2nd worst in the league, one point ahead of Minnesota! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Jason I've always liked Forrest, but you have to remember where he's coming from. He's not a career journalist. He's a knowledgable member of the Canadian soccer community that currently works in broadcasting. Since he doesn't want to damage his standing in that community, don't expect him to be overly critical of anyone in it. After all, the broadcasting gig may not last forever, but I think he's expecting to make a career of soccer in some form. That's the disadvantage of using someone like him for these games. Jason Forrest is playing Dickie Howard junior...its embarassing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.