Nominate your coaching Candidate

[Vic]

quote:

As far as I am concerned they cooked their own gooses right then and there and deserved everything that happened to them thereafter.

For missing an exhibition game after you were forced to play the previous one when other players didn't (who didn't even get a question mark), and after you have an unblemished record of going through Hell to make them for decades. Really.

If you're that unforgiving, then please, don't hold back. We just had the worst year in a long, long time. Who's goose is cooked now? You're pretty easy to go after people and use names. Let's hear the names you're unforgiving with now.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Ref you need to carefully reread your own posts thoroughly before mouthing off at me one more time.

It is not I who is mouthing off against these three players. Reading your post now you are calling it a conspiracy, petulance, deserved of everything. As I said before, the hearing is over and a ruling published. Did you miss that? or will you continue to castigate these players forever and derive pleasure doing so?

[Trillium]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Ref you need to carefully reread your own posts thoroughly before mouthing off at me one more time.

Richard your not being fair or objective...no one has mouthed off at you ..commented in writing on your obsessive dislike of Charmaine Hooper...made logical arguments against your view of the Pelerud affair dumping .. three national team players...yes many have done that.

The reality is you dislike Hooper, she may not reflect your value system ...her being a strong personality ..as a woman who was born in a poor third world country who moved to be a immigrant in this country and then achieved a great deal for her new home. Thats your perogative. I am sure someday you may come to the realization you have in my opinion unfairly chacterized her as a challenging Peleruds power for her personal game ..rather then for the gain of players on the national team.

Remember Richard ..women in this country have had to go to Human Rights commisions to get the right to play ..and the right to fair funding for soccer as a womans sport, she was just doing what others before her have done..stood up to the conventional powers to bring about positive change...sometimes you win the battle other times not. But remember female players will overcome the barriers the CSA makes to achieving better results in the future ..with your emoitonal support or not.

Raise a little Hell...Hoopers Troopers

I hope you will continue to learn more about the womens game and offer your views on how we should develop it in Canada.

Ps.. did you not love the Brasilians with all the ball skill there coach has been concentrating on teaching them ?

[terpfan68]

Am I missing something? Richard is a mysogynist? Is that what happens when you criticize a women? I guess you might as well call him racist too.

I only agree with 36.25 % of what Richard says, but that doesn't mean I dislike him. I'll probably never meet any of the people who post here. I find them interesting, sometimes frustrating, but I check this site several times a day and sometimes I like to make a comment or two. I think each of us brings our own experiences with this wonderful sport to this forum, but that also means we bring our biases too.

I think we need to concentrate on issues and not personalities.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by Trillium

Richard your not being fair or objective...no one has mouthed off at you ..commented in writing on your obsessive dislike of Charmaine Hooper...made logical arguments against your view of the Pelerud affair dumping .. three national team players...yes many have done that.

The reality is you dislike Hooper, she may not reflect your value system ...her being a strong personality ..as a woman who was born in a poor third world country who moved to be a immigrant in this country and then achieved a great deal for her new home. Thats your perogative. I am sure someday you may come to the realization you have in my opinion unfairly chacterized her as a challenging Peleruds power for her personal game ..rather then for the gain of players on the national team.

Remember Richard ..women in this country have had to go to Human Rights commisions to get the right to play ..and the right to fair funding for soccer as a womans sport, she was just doing what others before her have done..stood up to the conventional powers to bring about positive change...sometimes you win the battle other times not. But remember female players will overcome the barriers the CSA makes to achieving better results in the future ..with your emoitonal support or not.

Raise a little Hell...Hoopers Troopers

I hope you will continue to learn more about the womens game and offer your views on how we should develop it in Canada.

Ps.. did you not love the Brasilians with all the ball skill there coach has been concentrating on teaching them ?

What a ridiculous and totally unfounded diatribe. For once I am totally at a loss for words.

[Vic]

quote:

For missing an exhibition game after you were forced to play the previous one when other players didn't (who didn't even get a question mark), and after you have an unblemished record of going through Hell to make them for decades. Really.

If you're that unforgiving, then please, don't hold back. We just had the worst year in a long, long time. Who's goose is cooked now? You're pretty easy to go after people and use names. Let's hear the names you're unforgiving with now.

Still waiting.

[Trillium]

quote:Originally posted by terpfan68

Am I missing something? Richard is a mysogynist? Is that what happens when you criticize a women? I guess you might as well call him racist too.

What leads you to toss those two ...terms into play in context of Richard... i cant remember anyone calling him a mysogynist...and the Race card has not been discussed ..in the posts I remember... what am I missing terpfan68 ?

[terpfan68]

Don't you read what you write. Look at your second paragraph.

quoting Trillium:

"The reality is you dislike Hooper, she may not reflect your value system ...her being a strong personality ..as a woman who was born in a poor third world country who moved to be a immigrant in this country and then achieved a great deal for her new home."

Sounds to me that you Trillium are defining a mysogynist without using the word. How do YOU know that Richard dislikes Hooper because she has a strong personality, maybe he doesn't like her actions. And get real. You think he picks on her because she's from a third world country!!!! Please. Richard at least keeps his arguements on an intellectial and not emotional level. Someone is obsessive about Hooper and I don't think it is Richard.

[Richard]

Trillium's posts concerning me and Charmaine Hooper have become such arrant nonsense they are farcical and not worthy of any response from me. I am done with this subject.

[Trillium]

quote:Originally posted by terpfan68

Don't you read what you write. Look at your second paragraph.

quoting Trillium:

"The reality is you dislike Hooper, she may not reflect your value system ...her being a strong personality ..as a woman who was born in a poor third world country who moved to be a immigrant in this country and then achieved a great deal for her new home."

Sounds to me that you Trillium are defining a mysogynist without using the word. How do YOU know that Richard dislikes Hooper because she has a strong personality, maybe he doesn't like her actions. And get real. You think he picks on her because she's from a third world country!!!! Please. Richard at least keeps his arguements on an intellectial and not emotional level. Someone is obsessive about Hooper and I don't think it is Richard.

From Richards earlier posts in this threat...

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.

so inexperienced

so ill-prepared

no doubt a strong personality but it takes more then that to qualify and succeed....

Geez that post plus others ..gives me the idea Richard really would not enjoy a dinner with Hooper ..or buy a ticket to a memorial game for her ..but hey I can be wrong, perhaps I am on this if so time will tell.

[terpfan68]

He's talking about her lack of coaching experience. Not anything else. You must admit that good students might make good teachers, but they need training first before you put them in front of a classroom. Coaching is more like teaching than playing. I think Hooper might make a good coach, but I don't think she should start at the top and evidently so does Richard.

[JPB]

Back to the Topic: Nominate your coaching Candidate.

Who would you nominate ?

Why would you choose them ?

If you dont have a name..what would your coaches profile be like, what background ....what skill set would you want to see?

[soccertaxi]

How about Sylvia Neid and Marin Meinert? They seem to know what they're doing...Women seem to be doing well coaching women (April Heinrichs, Hope Powell, Tina Theune-Meyer, Silvia Neid, Marika Domanski-Lyfors).

Ultimately, you want the best skill set and experience possible for the money you can pay but you NEED a motivator that will click with the players, not to mention someone who can handle the political side of things. Anyone involved in sport will tell you that the best coach they ever had was the coach that was able to motivate them to surpass themselves, not the best or most famous technician.

All of this talk about Charmaine Hooper, whether she was interested or not, qualified or not, it couldn't happen for another 10 years or so unless you wanted to clear the entire team and start anew.

[Trillium]

quote:Originally posted by soccertaxi

How about Sylvia Neid and Marin Meinert? They seem to know what they're doing...Women seem to be doing well coaching women (April Heinrichs, Hope Powell, Tina Theune-Meyer, Silvia Neid, Marika Domanski-Lyfors).

Ultimately, you want the best skill set and experience possible for the money you can pay but you NEED a motivator that will click with the players, not to mention someone who can handle the political side of things. Anyone involved in sport will tell you that the best coach they ever had was the coach that was able to motivate them to surpass themselves, not the best or most famous technician.

All of this talk about Charmaine Hooper, whether she was interested or not, qualified or not, it couldn't happen for another 10 years or so unless you wanted to clear the entire team and start anew.

How many of the current ...players of the starting eleven do you see winning a spot with a new coach who does extensive recruitment ... what age do you presume players reach there peek ?....

In four years the players born in 80,and 81 will be 29 .. will they still be envolved..and sacrificing careers..to be in residence programs ..?

Will a womens pro league give such players living wages ?

How many of the players will have time off ..during the next four years to begin familys ?

I would suggest any coach ...looking at her or his current pool of talent ..will realize easily fifty percent will be gone ..in four years...

Lang will in her mid twentys ..will she be able to develop into a dominating player ?

Sinclair will be twenty seven...hopefully a mature leader with the skills and experience to win and produce in big games... but I suspect ...she is going to be facing a tough four years in terms of her personal sporting decisions.. stay in Vancouver ..or go into the new Womens league or go to Europe ?

[Guest Ed]

I nominate the dink coaching the US Women's team. Fits right in with the old mantra 'The suits are bigger than the players' philosophy, so entrenched in our CSA.

Or, as a homer pick, one of the Calgary SW united coaches who put his teens into AMSL and did very well, playing anything but direct soccer.

[Trillium]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

I nominate the dink coaching the US Women's team. Fits right in with the old mantra 'The suits are bigger than the players' philosophy, so entrenched in our CSA.

Or, as a homer pick, one of the Calgary SW united coaches who put his teens into AMSL and did very well, playing anything but direct soccer.

What about W league coaches in Canada..do any jump out ..? Or the coaches out of London..who seem to produce top female players ...?

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by Trillium

What about W league coaches in Canada..do any jump out ..? Or the coaches out of London..who seem to produce top female players ...?

So Ryan made a mistake, does that condemn him forever as a dink? On what basis are you concluding that his personal mantra is 'The suits are bigger than the players'? I am very glad you don't make any decisions that pertain directly to me or anybody I know if you are willing to draw such sweeping conclusions on such flimsy grounds.

[Guest Ed]

Walks like a dink, talks like a dink --- dink.

[Richard]

Doesn't say much for your opinion of US Soccer who appointed him as head coach of their WNT.

[Guest Ed]

Got it in one. After the fiasco with their MNT coach, I am not overly impressed with the USSF with Klinsmann pretty much a done deal until he backed out due to the constraints imposed by Gulati, leaving Bradley the 'interim coach' looking very much a second tier candidate.

Gulati has his scent all over this Hope business.

[loyola]

Interesting read about the Hope Solo story and the hiring of Coach Ryan:

http://ussoccerplayers.com/exclusives/index.html?article_id=721

Ryan And The Fed

09/29/2007 10:25 PM

By Mark Levinstein

WASHINGTON, DC (Sep 29, 2007) USSoccerPlayers -- As the US Women’s World Cup team attempts to prepare for Sunday’s consolation game, a media firestorm swirls around the team’s star goalkeeper and its head coach. In an effort to save his job and his reputation, Greg Ryan has attempted to portray the controversy as being limited to his decision to change goalkeepers and the post-game comments from the disgruntled player left on the bench.

Attempting to deflect the tremendous criticism that has rained down upon him, Coach Ryan has made statements that would make any magician proud, misdirecting the audience’s attention away from his coaching errors of historic proportions and toward the 26 year-old goalkeeper who has brought Coach Ryan so much positive press for the past several years.

The suspension of Solo for speaking her mind after Ryan said she was entitled to have her say, constitutes an immature action by someone who never should have had the job as coach of the Women’s National Team.

In an effort to set the record straight and to refocus attention on what we believe should be the context in which this situation is understood, we feel the need to tell you what you do not read in the sports pages.

We believe the public should know what the players and the people involved in this controversy know. The history that has brought us what was an inevitable fall from grace caused not by the players on the Women’s National Team but by the US Soccer Federation, its leadership, and a man who never should have been the coach.

Coach Ryan was selected to be the coach of the Women’s National Team in 2005* by Dr. Robert Contiguglia, then the lame duck President of the US Soccer Federation. There was a general consensus throughout the sport that Dr. Contiguglia, a Colorado physician, lacked sufficient knowledge about the business of professional and Olympic sports in general or the sport of soccer in particular. Tradition was that the President had the power to select the men’s and women’s head coaches.

A USSF search and evaluation committee identified the candidates, interviewed and assessed them, and made their recommendations. Greg Ryan, was then the women’s coach at Colorado College. While we have not been able to confirm the ranking of the candidates considered by the committee, Federation sources have said that Coach Ryan was ranked fifth among the candidates being considered.

Ignoring the recommendations of a committee much more qualified than he was, President Contiguglia decided that his choice would be Ryan. Efforts were made to block Ryan’s appointment in favor of coaches with much more experience at the highest level of the women’s game, coaches who had been leaders in the WUSA. But incoming President Sunil Gulati and others were unwilling to challenge the tradition that left these decisions in the hands of the President, no matter what the President’s qualifications or motivation might be for making such a decision. The decision not to question the President’s selection may have been motivated, in part, by an interest in preserving for Gulati the same unfettered discretion in 2006 to name Bruce Arena’s successor on the men’s side of the organization.

Coach Ryan inherited the Gold Medal team from the 2004 Olympics, a team that was losing Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, and Joy Fawcett, but that had tremendous experience, resources in excess of any other team in the world, an incredibly deep pool of rising young talent upon which to draw. It was also a program that had a regular schedule, giving him the opportunity and player availability virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world.

Ryan responded to that by introducing a responsive strategy based on strength of opponent and a long ball, kick and rush strategy that depended heavily on set plays and banging balls into the box for target forwards. Rather than further develop the US style of play, Ryan took a world number one squad and made it reactive. An insult to the strength of the program and the women on the squad.

While current and former US National Team players were appalled at the brand of soccer the US team was being coached to play, their concerns fell on deaf ears as the Federation refused to do anything about the coach as long as the team did not lose.

Considering the relative strength of the women’s game, it was a fairly safe assumption this wouldn’t be a problem.

Many of the top teams from around the world were under-funded or not funded at all for two years after the 2004 Olympics, so their National Team programs sat idle or played few games, leaving the US with a tremendous opportunity. With the demise of the WUSA, many top players from around the world who could come to the United States and be paid to play against top competition were denied that opportunity. US players still had the W-League, the WPSL, National Team residency, and a full schedule of US National Team games around the world to give them high level domestic and international competitive experience.

While many of the US players developed and demonstrated the ability to play high quality technical, ball possession soccer in the second tier professional leagues around the US, the system employed by Coach Ryan did not utilize those skills.

At the same time, Greg Ryan was clearly a “company man” for the Federation and against the players, finding every possible excuse to reduce the amounts paid to the players, and violating the financial terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Federation and the association representing the women players. This led to the filing of an unprecedented number of unfair labor practice charges against the Federation, attributable in part to Ryan’s actions.

There were many efforts to bring the problems to USSF President Sunil Gulati, but as has been the Federation’s history, he refused to take any action. Instead, Gulati acknowledged the problems with the team, but refused to remove a coach who had not lost a game. The National Team players were confronted with a bad situation – an inadequate coach, the wrong style of play, and games that rather than serve as an example for younger players were a continuous lesson in “what not to do.”

Faced with meaningful competition on a world stage, what had been brewing since the Ryan appointment played out, including blaming everything and everyone but the obvious. Against North Korea, as part of his effort to modify US tactics in response to every significant opponent, Ryan had the team play a formation that they had never played before and the result was a 2-2 tie that could have turned out much worse.

The loss against Brazil obviously was not just about the goalkeeper change. It was about poor coaching, ball possession versus a long ball game, and changing strategy in anticipation of an opponent rather than forcing the opponent to adjust to your style of play.

The goalkeeper change was not just about taking one player out and putting another player in the game. As anyone familiar with a team sport like soccer can explain, the question was not just whether Solo would have come out to field the ball so Leslie Osborne’s own goal header would not have occurred or whether Solo would have made the precise saves that glanced off Scurry’s hands and into the net.

Instead, it’s why a coach of the top team in the World is making desperate last minute changes that are counter to any reasonable plan for game preparation.

Substituting Scurry meant replacing a goalkeeper with tremendous footskills (Solo was one of the best forwards in the country, a two-time Parade Magazine high school All-American who scored 38 goals her senior year and a total of 109 goals in her high school career in Seattle) who loves to have teammates play the ball back to her with a goalkeeper who is not as comfortable receiving the ball at her feet under pressure.

It meant replacing one defensive general for another – different style, different strengths, different inclinations. The comfort level that the defenders had achieved, knowing what Solo would do in the many situations that arise was replaced by a player who had not played a full National Team game with the defense in several months. The panic it demonstrated, and the controversy it caused were certainly not conducive to helping the team prepare for a major game against Brazil.

Here’s Coach Ryan on his thought process: “I think the way the Brazilians play, in terms of creating off the dribble in the penalty box and making the goaltender make reaction-type saves, I think [scurry] is the best goalkeeper in the world in those situations.”

What’s happening here is a coach openly questioning the abilities of Hope Solo, directly comparing her game to that of another player. Not exactly the team before individual mentality the program likes to pride itself on. Did the Federation or any player go after him for making negative comments about Solo? No.

So, what happened? What you would expect. Defensively, the US seemed unusually hesitant, with one player attempting a goal line clearance that was a routine save for the regular keeper in similar situations. Multiple players attempting risky tackles and no one comfortable marking their opposite number in a system built for counter attacks. This from the number one ranked team in the world with multiple world XI candidates.

All of the reasons why Ryan should not have been the coach, all the problems with the style of play, all the problems with adjusting to opponents, the consequences all came crashing down in one game and the US team did not look like it belonged on the field with the Brazilians.

Given that, should anyone criticize Hope Solo’s response?

Solo is a committed athlete, an emotional 26 year-old young woman who along with her teammates had her World Cup championship dreams shattered while she sat on the bench through the most embarrassing game in the history of the Women’s National Team. She knows that the team let down Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy and the women who blazed the trail through which Solo and most of the other players followed. She knows the team let down millions of girls and young women for whom the successes and failures of the Women’s National Team are defining moments.

Solo and her teammates have endured the failure by the USSF to promote their team and stupid decisions by Coach Ryan for the past several years. She has watched Ryan’s public image rise as he gets credit for the victories the team has earned despite him, not because of his coaching.

She knows what every player on that team knows – Coach Ryan cost the country the World Cup because he did not realize that after sitting on the bench for the past several months and not being on the field during key games, a 37 year-old Brianna Scurry could not provide the same leadership and the same contributions that Hope Solo could provide.

Were her comments directed at Brianna Scurry? Absolutely not. Even Coach Ryan initially acknowledged that Solo had a right to share her views that she would have made those saves (and isn’t it hard to really argue with her given Solo’s track record in the goal)?

Less than 48 hours later, the Federation and its coach returned to the standard script.

In 1998 an unqualified and arrogant men’s National Team Coach Steve Sampson introduced a ludicrous 3-6-1 formation and benched US Men’s National Team players with the most international experience. Then he and the Federation attempted to blame the benched players who made a few critical statements about the Coach as they were forced to suffer through a humiliating series of first round losses. To this day, the Federation continues to suggest that the players were responsible for that horrendous World Cup.

What would a professional sports organization do? Put the right goalkeeper back on the field. Rally the players together. Get some dignity back by winning the consolation game and letting that be the cornerstone of a new outlook to take them back to China for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Not this Federation. Attack the player. When Federation President Gulati was asked about the Coach throwing Solo off the team, what was his response?

“There are good experiences, and good experiences to have had. This is a good experience to have had.”

The only thing that could possibly turn such a horrendous situation into a good experience would be if the Federation admits its responsibility for what happened and learn from its mistakes.

Unfortunately, it is become clearer and clearer that that is not likely to happen. Solo apologized to Briana Scurry and her teammates. When are Ryan and Gulati and the Fed going to apologize to the players and the US soccer community?

Mark Levinstein is the Acting Executive Director of the US National Soccer Team Players Association.

* Factual correction - 2004 in the original.

[Gian-Luca]

Thanks for that Ed. That article demonstrates that 1. no amount of money thrown at a programme is going to help a team that adopts an ineffective style of play and 2. a nation's soccer federation can have a ton of money at its disposal and still screw up big time.

[Guest Ed]

I think G-L meant "Thanks Loyola".

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

So Ryan made a mistake, does that condemn him forever as a dink? On what basis are you concluding that his personal mantra is 'The suits are bigger than the players'? I am very glad you don't make any decisions that pertain directly to me or anybody I know if you are willing to draw such sweeping conclusions on such flimsy grounds.

This paragraph from the article posted by Loyola would seem to support the "suits bigger than the players":

"At the same time, Greg Ryan was clearly a “company man” for the Federation and against the players, finding every possible excuse to reduce the amounts paid to the players, and violating the financial terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Federation and the association representing the women players. This led to the filing of an unprecedented number of unfair labor practice charges against the Federation, attributable in part to Ryan’s actions"

[Richard]

Who is Ryan's employer and who pays his salary - the players or the Federation?

The fact that the players are independently unionised means there is a de facto adversarial situation when it comes to employment terms and contracts. It is part of his job not only to manage the team for which he is responsible as head coach but to act in the interests of his employer in any labour negotiations. Does this automatically make him a corporate dink, if so then every single corporate executive in north America fits Ed's corporate dink in a suit category?