Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trillium

Nominate your coaching Candidate

Recommended Posts

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

What about Paul James for coach. He is spot-on on the deficiencies of Pellerud. I met James once and he impressed me.

He is not the most successfull CIAU womens coach...so you might wonder on that point... on another i wonder how he manages to hold on to is welsh accent after so long... but maybe its to get a on air job on tv ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you as an immigrant to Canada myself, arriving as an adult one has to work hard to lose an accent, retaining it is easy as that is what happens naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had always assumed that since Provincial teams required a coach to have a "C" license that a National team would require an A license. England's coach is licensed at the A level. See the selection here.

Coach

Hope Powell was appointed as the first ever full-time national coach of the women's team in June 1998. An experienced international with 66 caps for England and 35 goals, she is the youngest-ever England coach and the first female to be given the job. Powell first played football with Millwall Lionesses at the age of 11 and won the FA Women's Cup three times, including the league and cup double as captain of Croydon in 1996.

She is a fully qualified 'A' License coach and in 2003 became the first woman to achieve the UEFA Pro License - the highest coaching award available. Her achievements to date include taking the U-19s to the semi-finals of the 2002 and 2003 UEFA Women's Championship and to the quarter-finals of the inaugural FIFA U-19 World Championship in 2002 - the same year in which she was awarded an OBE in the Queen's birthday honours list.

As well as leading the Three Lions to China 2007, Powell also coached the senior team to qualification for the 2001 UEFA European Championship Finals in her first major championship as manager and, in June 2005, narrowly failed to take England into the semi-finals of the European Championship on home soil.

I took this from the following website. http://www.fifa.com/womenworldcup/teams/team=1883720/profile.html

You might want to check out the full article.

I know that certification can be a problem. Chelsea's new manager Avram Grant credentials are being examined. He evidently did not have the certification to coach in the English professional league.

I don't think any holder of an A license would agree to work under someone shall we say "less qualified". Besides I don't think there are that many out there. I couldn't find out anything on fifa's website about coaching licenses. Perhaps someone out there could direct me to the proper site. If an A license is a requirement theh all this discusion about Hooper coaching becomes moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest any discussion of Hooper coaching the WNT is moot anyway as according to her own website bio she has no coaching certification at all and no coaching experience beyond her summer camps for kiddies. Setting aside any and all other issues I would not support somebody so inexperienced and ill-prepared for coaching from even being an assistant coach, let alone head coach. She was a wonderful player in her prime and is no doubt a strong personality but it takes more than that to qualify and succeed as head coach of a national team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Avram Grant's problem is that he does not have a UEFA Pro license which is apparently a requirement to coach either in the EPL or in CL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Richard

I suggest any discussion of Hooper coaching the WNT is moot anyway as according to her own website bio she has no coaching certification at all and no coaching experience beyond her summer camps for kiddies. Setting aside any and all other issues I would not support somebody so inexperienced and ill-prepared for coaching from even being an assistant coach, let alone head coach. She was a wonderful player in her prime and is no doubt a strong personality but it takes more than that to qualify and succeed as head coach of a national team.

Relax Richard. It is not your decision as to who coaches what. And to suggest this board should moot discussing Hooper is reaching. Who knows, maybe in the space of 4 years Hooper may take the required coaching courses. I think the reason her name has been offered is because of her vast experience as a player and perhaps her strong personality, not because of her 'coaching' experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Richard

I suggest any discussion of Hooper coaching the WNT is moot anyway as according to her own website bio she has no coaching certification at all and no coaching experience beyond her summer camps for kiddies. Setting aside any and all other issues I would not support somebody so inexperienced and ill-prepared for coaching from even being an assistant coach, let alone head coach. She was a wonderful player in her prime and is no doubt a strong personality but it takes more than that to qualify and succeed as head coach of a national team.

Maybe she will sign on with Guyana as coach and begin developing there womens team Richard.... if she coached a Concacaf tean that qualifys in four years for the womens world cup ...would you then agree she has the talent to coach Canada ..at that point ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you guys so prickly about my questioning Hooper's current credentials to coach our WNT - or any national team for that matter? We need a coach by the end of the Olympics when Pellerud's contract expires, I doubt extending his contract would go down very well here. There is no way Hooper can acquire the necessary coaching experience to qualify for the job by 2008, never mind the required certification that I and probably the CSA selection committee would consider essential. See the link below to the BCSA description of the coaching certification path, probably similar in all provinces. When she has several years of successful high level coaching under her belt and an A license i.e. a tolerable coaching resume, then she would be welcome to apply for the job. Barring some kind of miracle she is simply not a qualified candidate to succeed Pellerud after the Olympics that's all I'm saying, not that she would never be qualified and capable.

I don't believe that just being a strong personality and a former good soccer player quite cuts it as adequate qualification to be head coach of the Canadian Women's National Team Program, do you?

http://www.bcsoccer.net/bcsa/COACHES/CertificationPathway/tabid/80/Default.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Vic

I remember Carla Chin playing club back in the 80's. She was small, but she was a great gymnastic shotstopper. It's a tough life making a living staying in the game, and not surprised to hear she's in the States. Glad to hear she's still at it, and wish her the best of luck.

Vic,

Based on your description, I think you might be confusing Carla with her younger and smaller (5’2) sister, Sue, who was also a keeper. Sue certainly would be described as a gymnastic like keeper. Sue was more agile than Carla as Carla (5’8) was more of a technical keeper who organized her defense to minimize shooting opportunities.

Sue also continues to be involved in the game; she currently coaching an NCAA D1 program after stints at Notre Dame, Duke and a couple of Florida based schools. I have a colleague that remains in touch with both Sue and Carla.

On the Hooper matter,

A contact in Chicago tells me she’s involved in coaching with a program just outside of Chicago. She’s been fast tracked (exemption) by the USSF to their B license program. Apparently this is a FIFA based courtesy extended to elite players who have participated in WC competitions.

BTW, I think Yallop holds a USSF A license.

I’ll add another name to the list of candidates to replace EP; an American, Roby Stahl.

More on Mr. Stahl here: http://www.osysa.com/DirofCoaching.html

Credentials up the ying-yang ….

“Stahl holds a U.S. Soccer "A" License, an NSCAA Advanced National Diploma, a Swedish Elite License, a Brazilian Elite License, a U.S. Youth National Instructors License, a Canadian Soccer Association "B" License and has a dual Master's in Education. He is in charge of the development of the coaches licensing curriculum for OSYSA and has instructed at US Soccer National coaching Schools in the past. “

Stahl had a ringside seat when Anson Dorrance was putting together the USSF’s 1991 WC Championship squad. His first wife was Michelle Akers.

“Roby has extensive experience at the international level, much gained during his five year marriage to former U.S. Women's National Team player and FIFA "Player of the Century" Michelle Akers. Together they traveled to many countries presenting clinics for coaches, players and working with Women's National Teams at the request of national federations.”

I remember some of their clinics from the early 90s at NSCAA conventions. Some interesting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ed

I'm guessing Hooper will be coaching some elite team in the states before this thread ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Richard

She'll need appropriate certification in the USA before she can do that too.

According the posting of Squid2, Hooper seems to have some certification, but be that as it may, is there anything she can do that you will approve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but she has already done plenty on the field of play, her earlier playing record speaks for itself. I am sure she's a good mother to her childen and would probably make a good coach with the appropriate training. My only beef with Charmaine Hooper was her going sour on the national team program and making all the nasty public allegations she did that she could not substantiate to the satisfaction of an independent and duly constituted hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Richard

Yes, but she has already done plenty on the field of play, her earlier playing record speaks for itself. I am sure she's a good mother to her childen and would probably make a good coach with the appropriate training. My only beef with Charmaine Hooper was her going sour on the national team program and making all the nasty public allegations she did that she could not substantiate to the satisfaction of an independent and duly constituted hearing.

OK, but the Hearing is finished. She lost, she served her suspension and she lost the money. Can't we just move on? or are you going to hold this against her forever and make her to continue to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest speedmonk42
quote:Originally posted by The Ref

OK, but the Hearing is finished. She lost, she served her suspension and she lost the money. Can't we just move on? or are you going to hold this against her forever and make her to continue to pay for it.

All I have read and said is that she is not qualified. And that she should get some experience if she wants to caoch.

That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Richard

Yes, but she has already done plenty on the field of play, her earlier playing record speaks for itself. I am sure she's a good mother to her childen and would probably make a good coach with the appropriate training. My only beef with Charmaine Hooper was her going sour on the national team program and making all the nasty public allegations she did that she could not substantiate to the satisfaction of an independent and duly constituted hearing.

Richard....What will be your penalty for the US benched keeper Solo ...is she out of the national team forever now ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think there is a parallel between the Hope Solo outburst after the Brazil game and the long, drawn battle the Hooper three tried unsuccessfully to wage against Pellerud and the CSA?

For info: Solo will not play in Sunday's game and has even been banished from the bench by Ryan, see my post in another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no parallel here since Solo didn't let her teamates down like Hooper and co did when they decided not to attend a game.

In her interview Solo is clearly criticizing her coach decision, I don't think she took a shot a Scurry (who BTW said the same thing after the Olympic in 2000 feeling that she would've save the last goal...but she was on the bench). Now, Ryan like a good politician did turn it like Solo was attacking her teamamte when she was going after him.....

Just to prove the guy is clueless, here's a superb quote:

"My mistake was not leaving them more in a dual starting role from an earlier period of time,'' Ryan said Saturday. ``I think we needed two kinds of goal keepers in this World Cup."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...,2020905.story

Sincerly, what kind of U-10 coach is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Richard

Do you really think there is a parallel between the Hope Solo outburst after the Brazil game and the long, drawn battle the Hooper three tried unsuccessfully to wage against Pellerud and the CSA?

For info: Solo will not play in Sunday's game and has even been banished from the bench by Ryan, see my post in another thread.

Just to clarify that the 'drawn battle' you refer to was so lengthy because Mr. Pellerud and his team of lawyers kept postponing and delaying the preliminary hearing and consequent full hearing using all kinds of delaying tactics including not making himself available. Until he was ordered by the arbitrator to appear. Mr. Pellerud then conveniently or by mere coincidence left for New Zealand. He was then ordered to appear by video conferencing. So in reality he was never confronted in person by his accusers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Just to clarify that the 'drawn battle' you refer to was so lengthy because Mr. Pellerud and his team of lawyers kept postponing and delaying the preliminary hearing and consequent full hearing using all kinds of delaying tactics including not making himself available. Until he was ordered by the arbitrator to appear. Mr. Pellerud then conveniently or by mere coincidence left for New Zealand. He was then ordered to appear by video conferencing. So in reality he was never confronted in person by his accusers.

In Canada appearance in court via video conference is a common and accepted practice. The Hooper hearing was many levels down from a court trial and clearly the adjudicator had no problem with it. It was Hooper who initiated the proceedings and it was Hooper who failed to present evidence to support her allegations which is why the outcome was the way it was. Why can't you accept the outcome of the official, legally constituted hearing like everybody else and move on?

As for it being a long drawn out business... it was. And I didn't lay the blame for that with any one party in my post so lay off.

Now back to the point, do you really think there is a parallel as you are trying to suggest or are you just grabbing at straws to take another shot at me personally because you don't like my position over the Hooper affair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Richard

In Canada appearance in court via video conference is a common and accepted practice. The Hooper hearing was many levels down from a court trial and clearly the adjudicator had no problem with it. It was Hooper who initiated the proceedings and it was Hooper who failed to present evidence to support her allegations which is why the outcome was the way it was. Why can't you accept the outcome of the official, legally constituted hearing like everybody else and move on?

As for it being a long drawn out business... it was. And I didn't lay the blame for that with any one party in my post so lay off.

Now back to the point, do you really think there is a parallel as you are trying to suggest or are you just grabbing at straws to take another shot at me personally because you don't like my position over the Hooper affair?

I am not trying to suggest anything. Where do you get off.

Where did I say I don't accept the outcome. You are running out of ways to twist things. And where did I say videoconferencing was not acceptable. It is you who needs to lay off attacking Mrs. Hooper and make innuendos at every opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

There's no parallel here since Solo didn't let her teamates down like Hooper and co did when they decided not to attend a game.

Yeah, and I guess all the Fury players not showing up for the USA game because they were too busy playing W League playoffs and beating out Hooper/Leblanc's Wildcat team 3-2 (while they were forced to play for country, and in Leblanc's case sit on the bench) was different. Funny how no one has ever once mentions Wilkinson, Matheson, Gayle and Switaek as letting down their teammates.

Oh sorry, I forgot. Even Pellerud ok'd it so it has to be in the best interests of the country... he would never dream of doing anything to better his lifestyle.

What's happened has happened and done is done. Fair enough. The three got pissed off at being railroaded, kangaroo courted and lied too. And they are the only people that lost here, and they lost almost a year before the SDRCC. China was just another exhibiton game and no different than the USA. Hooper backed every game for decades, and Latham flew across the country after her Father died to play one. They earned their stripes, and their right to question. Don't ever try and convince me they let anyone down.

quote:

In Canada appearance in court via video conference is a common and accepted practice. The Hooper hearing was many levels down from a court trial and clearly the adjudicator had no problem with it. It was Hooper who initiated the proceedings and it was Hooper who failed to present evidence to support her allegations which is why the outcome was the way it was. Why can't you accept the outcome of the official, legally constituted hearing like everybody else and move on?

Looking forward to getting back to our regularly scheduled WWC programming and all leaving this behind. But just one question for the road Richard: do you have any evidence Hooper initiated it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Don't ever try and convince me they let anyone down."

They clearly conspired to be deliberate no-shows for their country's national team at an international fixture for which they had absolutely no excuse or extenuating circumstances, just petulance. You're only as good as your last game. As far as I am concerned they cooked their own gooses right then and there and deserved everything that happened to them thereafter. This by no means demeans the contribution they made to the WNT program before they went sour on it.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...