Jump to content

Nykamp: U20 Review Plannned


Gian-Luca

Recommended Posts

Canada U-20 team 'not good enough': Coach

Neil Davidson

Canadian Press

Canadian coach Dale Mitchell has offered a blunt assessment of his team at the FIFA U-20 World Cup, saying it didn't match up to the 16 countries still alive at the tournament and that most of his players were out of their depth at this level.

The host side exited Sunday after going 0-3-0 and failing to score a goal at the 24-team soccer tournament. The Canadians were outscored 6-0 in their three games.

"If people are honest, you can see there's a clear difference between the 16 teams that are playing right now and the Canadian team," Mitchell told The Canadian Press on Tuesday. "And not only the 16 teams that are playing right now, but some of them that have gone home, like South Korea who are clearly much better than Canada.

"So we shouldn't put our heads in the sand. We're disappointed that we didn't get out of the group, we had good preparation, we put everything we could into it. But at the end of the day we are not good enough for this level. And I think that that is why people want to analyse things and if something good comes because of it, then I think that's a positive."

The Canadian Soccer Association says it plans a comprehensive review of Canada's early exit. And that includes Mitchell.

"We're taking a very very close review of our performance through this tournament," incoming CEO Fred Nykamp said Tuesday. ``We're going to review everything."

Asked to assess his coaching performance at the tournament, Mitchell offered only: "That's for others to judge."

But he said he intends to carry on as planned, taking over the reins of the senior national team.

In a candid interview, Mitchell also said:

– Fans, the CSA and even the players got caught up with overly high expectations for the home side. And some forgot the difficulties Canada has had in the past at the under-20 championship (4-15-5 going into this competition with just 16 goals scored).

– The Canadian team found itself surrounded by a "negative vibe" after a lopsided 3-0 opening loss to Chile

– Canada was talent-thin and opposing teams had scouted the home side so extensively they were able to stifle the Canadian stars.

Mitchell still believes advancing out of the first round was an attainable goal, but one that required some "really good" performances." He says Canada was "clearly outclassed" against Chile but "the other teams on another day, I think we have enough to get maybe three or four points against them.

"But can we say that we're a better team than Austria or Congo, then no, we can't say that. For me we were close to those teams."

Instead, Canada's run at the tournament was all downhill as high expectations, coupled with a bad showing in the opening 3-0 loss to Chile, took its toll.

"It was probably to the point where the expectation was maybe a little bit too high," Mitchell said. "I think that after the first game, when it didn't go the way we expected, there was a huge negative surrounding the team that wherever we went – all of sudden there was a negative vibe around us and it was hard to overcome that within the group.

"We never dealt with that aspect of it particularly well and I certainly felt like the belief within the group, as much as we were all trying to do and say the right things, I think it took a bit of a hit."

Mitchell has plenty of experience at this level.

He took Canada to eighth at the 2003 tournament, when his side was one goal from reaching the semifinals. Mitchell's 2005 team went 0-2-1, was outscored 7-2 and finished 21st after failing to survive the first round.

In 2001, under Paul James, Canada went 0-3-0, was outscored 9-0 and finished last in 24th spot.

Mitchell said he knew a bumpy ride could be around the corner this time out.

"I always had it in my mind that it was possible and the reason I had it in my mind is because I've been to this tournament twice before," he explained.

"I know what the feeling is like. When it's two years between, sometimes those feelings fade. But it quickly comes back, when you're watching a game and you can see that your team is stretched in every department and you're looking at a game clock and it's only 10 minutes in.

"That is the reality of playing the best teams from the rest of the world."

While Canada had enjoyed success in friendlies, when little was on the line, Canada's players were found wanting on the real world stage.

"When we're talking about this level, I'm not sure about how many we've got really that are capable," Mitchell said. "I think this team at the end of the day ends up being like most of the other teams in our history that have been here.

"We have two or three players maybe in the group that looked comfortable, (who) may not have performed as well as we expected, but looked like they could handle the level – and possibly a few were good enough to maybe play on one of the other teams if they were surrounded by other good players.

"But I think individually we had a lot of players that were out of their depth for this level."

Stars like winger Jaime Peters and attacking midfielder Will Johnson were taken out of their game by the opposition, Mitchell said.

As host side, Canada did not have to qualify. Instead it played a string of friendlies, offering others plenty of opportunity to check out the home side.

"Because we were the host team . . . people knew us inside out. And you could clearly see that whenever Jaime was in possession, there were two, three guys around him very quickly. I think certain teams went out of their way to put Will off his game, and get round him and frustrate him, he's a fairly volatile player as well."

The other players were unable to step up or help break down the other team and create opportunities.

"The only real simple answer, I think, is the core fact and that is the team wasn't good enough, for this level," Mitchell said.

"Perhaps Game 2 and 3 on a different day might have been a little bit different. But can we say that we were as goods as the 16 teams that are still in the tournament? The answer is no."

Asked if the performance of the U-20 team could affect the future of Mitchell as national coach, Nykamp said: "We'll have to see what the entire review indicates. I really want to become familiar with what was all done over the past 24 months. It really is too early to say anything like that."

So does the association have full confidence in Mitchell?

"As I said, we're going to review the entire U-20 performance," said Nykamp, who officially assumes his new job Aug. 1. "And upon review, we'll probably make some statements on that. I haven't had a chance to consult with everyone in the decision-making capacity around the CSA as yet.

"(CSA president) Colin (Linford) and I have been speaking and we've decided that a full review is certainly in order. And what the outcomes of that will be, we'll certainly announce as soon as they're done."

Told that does not sound like a vote of confidence in the coach, Nykamp said:

"The review is through the entire team, it's not just the coach. It's how the training is planned, how the investment was planned, how the schedules were approved, from the CSA's point of views. What all other factors were involved through the last 20 months.

"I want to familiarize myself with all of that and I really haven't had the opportunity to do that and that's really what it means, it really doesn't speak to the confidence level of the coach at all."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I feel Mitchell should be given his chance, I do like the statements by Nykamp and his candour discussing the situation. There is a difference between sounding good and taking action but still I can't remember statements like this from the CSA in the past. Hopefully failure will not be considered acceptable like it seemed to be under Pipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Mitchell basically offers a no comment to his own assessment (not surprising given that he's about to start with the senior team), his comments suggest once again that motivation/proper mental state of the player is not really a strength of his with players at this age group.

I think at the end of the day, no matter what happens at the senior level, it was time for a coaching change at this age level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am posting my first reply.I think the u20's lack of success at the world cup lies with the coaching and the fact that we keep picking players for the Canadian teams based on size and speed and not on technical ability and vision of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate Mitchell's candour. Though I know many here are still deluded into thinking we'd the talent to do much better than we did, I believe Mitchell's assessment is spot on. A better coach may have done marginally better, and maybe Mitchell needs to add motivational instruction to his repetoire, but I thank him for his honesty and hope that Nykamp listens closely. Change is required, and changing the coach will do diddly compared to what we really need to do.

As for scouting players, footie, please name all this technically sound players you know of. The only ones, as far a I can see, that did not make the team decided not to play for us ie. Vittoria, Lensky and DeGuzman. All are skilled and technical. All did not choose to play for us.

Even more encouraging is Nykamp's approach--very Canadian--to review our failure here. I think on deeper investigation, he'll see that Mitchell is indeed correct in what he's said here, and he'll also see that we had decent prep, decent funding etc. So what is the problem? What is the failure?

Put it this way: When we qualify for South Africa in 2010, and when we are grouped with South Africa, Czech Republic and Ecuador, what will our expectations be? Quarterfinals? Advance out of the group? Even get a point? A goal? In CONCACAF, we can perform well enough--especially as of late--but outside the region we face the best, and that is what we faced in the U20s. To do better, we need better depth, better skilled players with more experience. Even our TFC U20s are not starters. Edgar doesn't even start with Newcastle, though he played some good games last year.

Put it this way: When Belarus craps out of a junior hockey tournament, what sort of assessment does one really need to do? Blame the coach? Not even Scottie Bowman could save Belarus? Blame the funding? Maybe, but that is almost beside the point. If asked, anyone with half a hockey brain would say: look at the Americans and the Canadians and the Russians to see why they are the three best junior hockey nations these days, and the answer is plain. They are developing their players--and lots of them--in great programs, and at high levels, with many of the best juniors already playing for NHL teams, or developing in US college, the Russian league or the CHL. Where are our soccer players training? Some at NTC, some in US college--where they play for no more than 3 or 4 months/year--some in Europe, but few of these starters with great teams.

I'm glad Nykamp is reviewing everything, but I hope he sees the true problems, the true challenges, and I hope that he and Linford, with new interest from corporate Canada, can continue working toward real solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

I appreciate Mitchell's candour. Though I know many here are still deluded into thinking we'd the talent to do much better than we did, I believe Mitchell's assessment is spot on. A better coach may have done marginally better, and maybe Mitchell needs to add motivational instruction to his repetoire, but I thank him for his honesty and hope that Nykamp listens closely. Change is required, and changing the coach will do diddly compared to what we really need to do.

As for scouting players, footie, please name all this technically sound players you know of. The only ones, as far a I can see, that did not make the team decided not to play for us ie. Vittoria, Lensky and DeGuzman. All are skilled and technical. All did not choose to play for us.

Even more encouraging is Nykamp's approach--very Canadian--to review our failure here. I think on deeper investigation, he'll see that Mitchell is indeed correct in what he's said here, and he'll also see that we had decent prep, decent funding etc. So what is the problem? What is the failure?

Put it this way: When we qualify for South Africa in 2010, and when we are grouped with South Africa, Czech Republic and Ecuador, what will our expectations be? Quarterfinals? Advance out of the group? Even get a point? A goal? In CONCACAF, we can perform well enough--especially as of late--but outside the region we face the best, and that is what we faced in the U20s. To do better, we need better depth, better skilled players with more experience. Even our TFC U20s are not starters. Edgar doesn't even start with Newcastle, though he played some good games last year.

Put it this way: When Belarus craps out of a junior hockey tournament, what sort of assessment does one really need to do? Blame the coach? Not even Scottie Bowman could save Belarus? Blame the funding? Maybe, but that is almost beside the point. If asked, anyone with half a hockey brain would say: look at the Americans and the Canadians and the Russians to see why they are the three best junior hockey nations these days, and the answer is plain. They are developing their players--and lots of them--in great programs, and at high levels, with many of the best juniors already playing for NHL teams, or developing in US college, the Russian league or the CHL. Where are our soccer players training? Some at NTC, some in US college--where they play for no more than 3 or 4 months/year--some in Europe, but few of these starters with great teams.

I'm glad Nykamp is reviewing everything, but I hope he sees the true problems, the true challenges, and I hope that he and Linford, with new interest from corporate Canada, can continue working toward real solutions.

Good post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "review of the U20's". This should be a review of the CSA as incompetent morons. This is nothing more than a white wash too make it look like the CSA is "doing" something. How can they not know what is wrong with soccer in this country. This is bloody ridiculous. Pathetic. My god.. the Federal Government has to threaten to withdraw funding from these CSA idiots until they all resign or are forced out. enough already!!!! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow.

It took me a few minutes to reflect on that article.

I don't think I've ever heard a coach (ANY coach) be as candid with his post game/tournament assessment. My first reaction was that he was doing his players a disservice, but I'm not convinced that Mitchell really was as bad a coach as some are painting him. There are always questionable tactics and player choices to pick apart, but after watching the ball repeatedly bounce sideways off Lombardo's head... there really is only so much that the coach can do. Mitchell pointing out the obvious lack of talent is nothing we weren't all thinking.

The point raised about the Belarus hockey team is well taken, but I applaud the typical Canadian review of our failure - mainly because in the past it's been so atypical. There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't be better. Having a review actually document on paper the reasons for the failure is the first step in the process of real change.

In some ways this is exactly what I was hoping would happen. The light is shining on the CSA.. now is the time to start opening the closets and sorting things out. A general review of the CSA might be desirable, but I think that's a bit beyond Nykamp's scope. Hopefully this U20 review will document the larger problems that can then be tackled. These kinds of things have a process that needs to be undertaken, and to my mind the first step.

When the heck was the last time the CSA did ANY sort of a review of anything? Where was the review of why we crashed out of WCQ? How many times in the past have our repeated failures amounted to little more than a shrug from Kevan Pipe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.

Mitchell does not say a word in self-criticism, does not do the noble thing and take blame even formally, does not analyze why the team was not at its level, comes up the lame excuse about the first game. And does not say the most obvious thing, based on his own logic: there were only 2 or three players comfortable at this level, BUT NO COACHES!

Mitchell does not have the level to coach at an international tournament. The players will change, new crops will come. But why stick with the same coach when his own reasoning proves he is not competent to train a team to perform at this level?

Mitchell should do what Acosta the Chile coach did after their quarter final loss in Copa America, hand in a resignation and let the CSA decide if they want to accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that the talent on this team was not at the standard of most in this tournament and that we didn't have the exceptional talent like Hutchinson and Hume in 2003,they still underperformed. A good coach would have had this team motivated and outworking its opponent. A good coach would also have had his team the best prepared for its first game. Anyone who saw Chile in the SA championships knew exactly how they would play.

I agree that team talent and the coach need to share the responsibility. This young team seems to be accepting some of the responsibility for failure, but what about the coach? Frankly, I find it unprofessional on the part of Mitchell to place the blame with the players in a way that seems to suggest that there was nothing he could do. These are impressionable teenagers. The role of the Coach is much more dominant in this case than at the senior level. Again, Canada will not be considered seriously in this sport if Coaches are allowed to carry on after such a debacle, let alone get promoted.

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Mitchell does not say a word in self-criticism, does not do the noble thing and take blame even formally, does not analyze why the team was not at its level, comes up the lame excuse about the first game. And does not say the most obvious thing, based on his own logic: there were only 2 or three players comfortable at this level, BUT NO COACHES!

Mitchell does not have the level to coach at an international tournament. The players will change, new crops will come. But why stick with the same coach when his own reasoning proves he is not competent to train a team to perform at this level?

Mitchell should do what Acosta the Chile coach did after their quarter final loss in Copa America, hand in a resignation and let the CSA decide if they want to accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

Even though I feel Mitchell should be given his chance, I do like the statements by Nykamp and his candour discussing the situation. There is a difference between sounding good and taking action but still I can't remember statements like this from the CSA in the past. Hopefully failure will not be considered acceptable like it seemed to be under Pipe.

Yes, he's saying the right things. But I remember that Linford sounded like a breath of fresh air when he arrived, but what has really changed since he arrived? Pipe got the boot, but does it really seem like things are any better at the CSA these days? We still have no TD, it took forever to find someone willing to be CEO, Linford was unable to convince the CSA board to hire Simoes, the MNT appears to be only playing 4 friendlies this year (out of 11 possible dates), etc, etc. My guess is Nykamp gets stuck in the same mud as Linford, and the CSA continues to go nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by rdroze

Yes, he's saying the right things. But I remember that Linford sounded like a breath of fresh air when he arrived, but what has really changed since he arrived? Pipe got the boot, but does it really seem like things are any better at the CSA these days? We still have no TD, it took forever to find someone willing to be CEO, Linford was unable to convince the CSA board to hire Simoes, the MNT appears to be only playing 4 friendlies this year (out of 11 possible dates), etc, etc. My guess is Nykamp gets stuck in the same mud as Linford, and the CSA continues to go nowhere.

You may be right but to be fair to Linford the jury is still out on how he has performed in his job. Furthermore, his choice for coach was not Mitchell who now everyone suddenly is against but Simoes. It seems like Linford tried just about everything possible to convince the board to hire Simoes and failed. Could anyone else have done any better? Maybe the only solution is to completely ditch everyone on the CSA board of directors but until that happens I would at least like some people in charge who are saying what I want to hear and trying their best to implement it even if they are fighting against much resistence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Canuck Oranje

I agree that team talent and the coach need to share the responsibility. This young team seems to be accepting some of the responsibility for failure, but what about the coach? Frankly, I find it unprofessional on the part of Mitchell to place the blame with the players in a way that seems to suggest that there was nothing he could do.

While it might be nice for Mitchell to come out & directly say that he didn't succeed in properly motivating the team (which is a criticism that I would agree with), in the end I'm in two minds of whether that would be a good thing. It might be brutally honest (and I think Mitchell's comments do suggest, if you read between the lines, that he wasn't able to get the team with the proper optimistic winning attitude needed), but public statements of the "I suck as a coach" variety wouldn't do much for morale of the senior team who right now are on a confidence high, for them to know that they have a new coach who doesn't seem to have much confidence in his abilities. If he doesn't actually think he can do the job at the senior level than he should resign, but I'm assuming that's not what he actually thinks.

The other problem is that the more we as fans & the general public focus on Mitchell, the more we make his the scape-goat for the poor showing in this tourney, the more it obscures things from the real issue of insufficient talent. Even if Mitchell had the players in the right frame of mind it would likely have resulted in a slightly less embarassing early elimination, or even if we succeeded in our struggled to get out of the group like we always do, I'm not really seeing how squeaking out of the first round really does anything good for us in the long run, and in the grand scheme of things we would be no better off. If we focus instead on the fact that the overall talent level needs to improve at the youth level & actually take the steps needed to improve, some good might come out of this mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

While it might be nice for Mitchell to come out & directly say that he didn't succeed in properly motivating the team (which is a criticism that I would agree with), in the end I'm in two minds of whether that would be a good thing. It might be brutally honest (and I think Mitchell's comments do suggest, if you read between the lines, that he wasn't able to get the team with the proper optimistic winning attitude needed), but public statements of the "I suck as a coach" variety wouldn't do much for morale of the senior team who right now are on a confidence high, for them to know that they have a new coach who doesn't seem to have much confidence in his abilities. If he doesn't actually think he can do the job at the senior level than he should resign, but I'm assuming that's not what he actually thinks.

He doesn't need to come out and say "I suck as a coach" but what he should've said is "We failed as a team, the players right through to the coaches." I think that leaving the blame at the feet of 19 and 20 year olds is the sign of a very bad manager. That to me would scare me more as a member of the senior team than would a coach that accepts some of the responsibility for 3 losses.

I'm very disappointed in Mitchell right now, more for what he's said than for the performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

He doesn't need to come out and say "I suck as a coach" but what he should've said is "We failed as a team, the players right through to the coaches."

To me, that would be tantamount to saying "I suck as a coach & so do the players".

Part of me agrees with you, but part of me doesn't, for the reasons I mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also disappointed in Mitchell's post-game reaction.

For all the talk about not being at the same level as the rest, etc. blah blah, Canada's record in the last four tournaments ('97, '01, '03 and '05) prior to this was: 3 wins, 2 draw and 10 losses (if my memory serves me right) which to me indicates that competing at this level is not impossible. Almost all the losses came against teams that were far better than the likes of Chile and Austria (e.g. teams like Brazil, Argentina, Italy and Germany and Spain). And none of the U20 teams, had 2 years to prepare for the tournament.

So to lay the blame squarely on the players and their lack of savvy is fairly naive and incase of the coach, opportunistic, in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

College Coaches do it all the time without having to resign. However, if the honest assessment of the Coach is that he, himself, screwed up, he should offer his resignation. It would be up to the CSA then if they would rather not accept it.

Professional coaches will admit responsibility too but they offer their resignation when that is their assessment because that is what would be expected by most professional clubs.

A U-20 environment would be closer to a College environment however his appointment to the MNT position complicates it.

On the point of talent available, just how different was this team from the 2003 team? If you look at the roster player by player comparing where each was playing at the time they were in the tournament, I sense that many on this team were playing at a higher level than those in 2003. To me, Hutchinson was the discovery of the 2003 tournament for Canada (Hume was already at Tranmere) and to a lesser extent, Josh Simpson. On the 2007 team, we have Edgar (with appearances in Newcastle's "A" team), Peters (with Senior Caps and numerous appearances with Ipswich) and Johnson (at Heerenveen). While you can argue that talent of Hutchinson, Hume, and Simpson might have been higher, you have to admit that Edgar, Peters and Johnson had higher level experience at the time of the tournament.

While we may have overvalued the talent on this team, I don't think we should go as far as to undervalue the talent on this team.

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

To me, that would be tantamount to saying "I suck as a coach & so do the players".

Part of me agrees with you, but part of me doesn't, for the reasons I mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Mitchell does not say a word in self-criticism, does not do the noble thing and take blame even formally, does not analyze why the team was not at its level, comes up the lame excuse about the first game. And does not say the most obvious thing, based on his own logic: there were only 2 or three players comfortable at this level, BUT NO COACHES!

Mitchell does not have the level to coach at an international tournament. The players will change, new crops will come. But why stick with the same coach when his own reasoning proves he is not competent to train a team to perform at this level?

Mitchell should do what Acosta the Chile coach did after their quarter final loss in Copa America, hand in a resignation and let the CSA decide if they want to accept it.

Well said Jeffrey S. I know Mitchell was given an 'A' Coaching License by the CSA a few years back, big mistake! One attribute required from coaches to progress in their licensing categories is the ability to act the part. In other words that means to portray your coaching message to players not just by moving your lips but by using body language, gestures, different tones of voice and different demeanors. Mitchell does not have any of these, he is a passive and soft spoken guy. Not at all inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Canuck Oranje

On the point of talent available, just how different was this team from the 2003 team? If you look at the roster player by player comparing where each was playing at the time they were in the tournament, I sense that many on this team were playing at a higher level than those in 2003. To me, Hutchinson was the discovery of the 2003 tournament for Canada (Hume was already at Tranmere) and to a lesser extent, Josh Simpson. On the 2007 team, we have Edgar (with appearances in Newcastle's "A" team), Peters (with Senior Caps and numerous appearances with Ipswich) and Johnson (at Heerenveen). While you can argue that talent of Hutchinson, Hume, and Simpson might have been higher, you have to admit that Edgar, Peters and Johnson had higher level experience at the time of the tournament.

While we may have overvalued the talent on this team, I don't think we should go as far as to undervalue the talent on this team.

I started a threead about this issue. I really think that this year team had much more experience than the 2003 team player by player wise.

Begovic, Johnson, JBB, Edgar, Peters, Lombardo and KOA all playing at a higher level than all the players on our 2003 roster. Jackson is playing at a good level too. As for the other players they are all with either U-20's side of good clubs in Europe, with TFC developpement team and a few in college.

Canada starting 11 vs Spain in 2003:

[1] KARIM Alim (GK)

[2] MARSHALL Winston

[4] HARMSE Kevin

[6] ARANGO Andres

[7] DI TULLIO Jason

CHIN Gordon ©

[9] HUME Iain

[13] HUTCHINSON Atiba

[15] SIMPSON Josh

[17] MATONDO Sita-Taty

[18] ASANTE Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.
quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

To me, that would be tantamount to saying "I suck as a coach & so do the players".

Part of me agrees with you, but part of me doesn't, for the reasons I mentioned.

C'mon, many great coaches take the pressure of the players by placing it on themselves. Mourinho is a master at it, Rijkaard does it too, and they are totally different in character. And we are talking about teams with the best players in the world, the coaches still come out and take the blame for failures. I have heard tons of coaches do this, but Mitchell does not do it as he does not have to look a single one of these players in the face for the next few years, except the ones he exonerated (Peters especially).

Sure, it maybe just for the press, and merely formal, and not what you really think. But the fact is for a u-20 coach to lay into his players this way after the fact is cowardly and unprofessional, and a very bad sign for the future. Thankfully their coaches on the pro teams they play on will be better than Mitchell, and they'll improve in spite of the kind of national program they have to deal with. As has happened with almost all the better players of our senior team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by loyola

I started a threead about this issue. I really think that this year team had much more experience than the 2003 team player by player wise.

Begovic, Johnson, JBB, Edgar, Peters, Lombardo and KOA all playing at a higher level than all the players on our 2003 roster. Jackson is playing at a good level too. As for the other players they are all with either U-20's side of good clubs in Europe, with TFC developpement team and a few in college.

Canada starting 11 vs Spain in 2003:

[1] KARIM Alim (GK)

[2] MARSHALL Winston

[4] HARMSE Kevin

[6] ARANGO Andres

[7] DI TULLIO Jason

CHIN Gordon ©

[9] HUME Iain

[13] HUTCHINSON Atiba

[15] SIMPSON Josh

[17] MATONDO Sita-Taty

[18] ASANTE Richard

Not a bad defensive side, with one bonafide striker that made all the difference--aside from Josh's stellar strike. Add a Hume-type finisher to this year's squad, and we might be playing Mexico tonight. Austria and Congo were better than us, but barely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my problem with mitchell is his lack of presence and confidence on the sideline. i want a coach who exudes some sense of control over the game, his team, their formation, how they are playing. the congo coach was working the sidelines like a madman. so was the chilean coach. mitchell chews gum and stays hidden on the bench. where is the animation? for that i would take stephen hart. he just seems to carry himself more as someone who is comfortable under this level of scrutiny and pressure. and to say the players are good enough at this level. what national coach would say that? even if you think it, just lie. talk about destroying the confidence of the players. i have a feeling this lack of cohesion was there before the chile kickoff. if not, definitely afterward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...