Guest Ed Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 No one has EVER been fired. All resign in due time (or not so due time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. This is the same immature attitude at the root of his spiteful boycott of Dani Fernandes: anyone questions his ability and he acts like a tyrant. His not calling DeRo is vindictive and immature. Dale is a tremendously childish guy, another mark against his soccer IQ. But I knew that years ago. Are you guys really surprised. Unbelievable. I believe that Dale Mitchell is as terrible a coach as the next Voyageur, but to put up with the crap of DeRosario and Brennan is dumb. If I was Mitchell, DeRosario would never play for me again. He has proven himself to be useless for Canada, and has proven his immaturity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. This is the same immature attitude at the root of his spiteful boycott of Dani Fernandes: anyone questions his ability and he acts like a tyrant. His not calling DeRo is vindictive and immature. Dale is a tremendously childish guy, another mark against his soccer IQ. But I knew that years ago. Are you guys really surprised. Unbelievable. I believe that Dale Mitchell is as terrible a coach as the next Voyageur, but to put up with the crap of DeRosario and Brennan is dumb. If I was Mitchell, DeRosario would never play for me again. He has proven himself to be useless for Canada, and has proven his immaturity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Not sure why I am so optimistic on this one, but my gut tells me that the CSA will ask Mitchell to resign not too long after the final game in Jamaica. Hart will be appointed interim coach while the CSA decides what to do next (ie. how long can they delay before they hire a new coach.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted October 15, 2008 Author Share Posted October 15, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. This is the same immature attitude at the root of his spiteful boycott of Dani Fernandes: anyone questions his ability and he acts like a tyrant. His not calling DeRo is vindictive and immature. Dale is a tremendously childish guy, another mark against his soccer IQ. But I knew that years ago. Are you guys really surprised. Man you really see everything through the eyes of the players that you know. In fact, I doubt most of these players see things in the vindictive manner that you do. There is no relationship between the Fernandez situation and the current situation. Even Fernandez himself admitted to be a difficult guy to deal with when he was playing for the U20. The keeper he did choose for that U20 WC played well and it was not Mitchell's decision whether to call up Fernandez for the MNT, that was Yallop's decision. Up until the recent dissent Mitchell has had very little difficulty getting along with players despite being a CSA coach for a long time. I don't see how he could have called DeRo after the latters comments, it would undermine what little authority he still has over the team. I have always advocated bringing in a top coach to the MNT. I also think Mitchell should have been fired after the Mexico game. However, I fail to see what he has done in this WCQ that is so wrong. He called the best players and didn't get into personality conflicts with them like previous coaches until things started to go sour. His tactics may not have been brilliant but they weren't terrible either. His main crime seems to have been that he is not very animated or inspiring on the bench. I think what happened is he took over the team under very poor and from the CSA unprofessional conditions. The players weren't impressed by his coaching resume and never gave him a lot of respect. Then he suffered an incredible amount of bad luck, at various times in WCQ the following were injured: Hirschfeld, Imhof, Simpson, JDG, Radzinski, McKenna (injuries happen but that was an awful lot of key players), Nsaliwa gives up his Canadian passport, Stalteri and Hirschfeld both lose their starting positions and Stalteri in particular is completely out of form. Once things went bad, instead of players accepting their own responsibility, he became their scapegoat and the excuse for their own poor performances. To some extent he has become our scapegoat. It looks bad on him that he won't resign but he has still in my books been a much better coach than Yallop who sabotaged our WCQ by playing his friends (and also didn't resign until he got a better offer and then deserted the team. In fact, Yallop bears some responsibility for the current WCQ because he contributed to the lack of time the new manager had with the team due to not resigning after WCQ. If he was not going to take the team to the next WCQ he had to give the new administration as much time as possible. If we had hired Mitchell then we might have at least had some time to evaluate him and decide whether he was good enough before WCQ). I think we overrated our players and that there is at least a group of them that have poor attitudes. Look at some of the backgrounds of these players. DeRo for example turned down a youth contract at AC Milan, then played in Germany in the 2nd BL and fell out with the coach, when the team got relegated to the 3rd division he refused to play and they refused to release him so he lost a year there, more recently he turns down an offer to play in the EPL. Does this really sound like a committed professional? Was it Mitchell's fault that DeRo was invisible on the field in the three games he played? I have a hard time remembering him even touching the ball. DeRo has performed poorly in every WCQ. Why can Serioux play well under such a "poor coach" as Mitchell but the two bigger MLS stars, DeRo and Brennan (whose career like that of DeRo shows a similar number of unprofessional moves and failures) can not? Why can Radzinski (who has played under more top coaches than anyone else on the team) play well under Mitchell? Mitchell needs to resign or get fired but putting all the blame on him is ignoring a lot of other things that need to change. Our troubles are a lot deeper than just Mitchell. However, a start would be to get a coach who is going to instill discipline and a sense of responsibility in this team because it is apparent a significant number of players do not have these qualities. BTW, since we are out of WCQ and Mitchell does need to go, I don't have a problem with players boycotting playing for Mitchell. I would be surprised if Hume did this though, he seems like the type that would play for Canada anytime he is called regardless of the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Mr. Mitchell confirmed this morning on Team 1040 (Vancouver) that he "has a contract until 2010" and made it clear he won't be resigning. Basically gave a bunch of non-answers. Also stated how far ahead the other CONCACAF nations are in regards to how they were in '86. No surprising comments. Was asked about if he saw the comments from Brennan and De Ro coming? Stated he saw one coming but not the other. Not sure if it is pod-casted. Sorry lads but my memory at the 7 o'clock hour isn't that great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto MB Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 If I was in Edmonton, I would hit him with a special Central American water-bomb. If somebody could fulfill this wish for me, I would be grateful. MB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 ^In response to Grizzly's comments, I think we need to stop perpetuating the myth that calling the best players in the pool is a feather Mitchell's or any manager's cap. Any one of us could have come up with similar selections. The manager should be the guy who is able to make a judgment as to the intangible needs of the team and react accordingly in his selections. Although Stephen Hart was labelled a puppet coach after his Gold Cup success, it's now quite clear that he was able to create a successful team by adding those intangibles. He did this by making a few successful selections that were ran against the common wisdom of who would be our best players. I'm thinking specifically of calling Nash and, we forget, out-of-favour Hastings and Gerba -while also given Hainault a shot. A lot of people make fun of Yallop for the Peters selection. Specifically, I would too. But generally speaking, you need to make those tough calls in your selection. Capello picking Walcott against Croatia comes to mind. I'm not saying Mitchell needed to call Hoilett or Street or something like that. I actually don't really have a problem with his selection other than not playing Friend more and with a strike partner. But this is really my point: what do we know? I'm not impressed by our manager picking the same team as I would. The results just reinforce that none of us, Mitchell especially, know what we're talking about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone ^In response to Grizzly's comments, I think we need to stop perpetuating the myth that calling the best players in the pool is a feather Mitchell's or any manager's cap. Any one of us could have come up with similar selections. The manager should be the guy who is able to make a judgment as to the intangible needs of the team and react accordingly in his selections. Although Stephen Hart was labelled a puppet coach after his Gold Cup success, it's now quite clear that he was able to create a successful team by adding those intangibles. He did this by making a few successful selections that were ran against the common wisdom of who would be our best players. I'm thinking specifically of calling Nash and, we forget, out-of-favour Hastings and Gerba -while also given Hainault a shot. A lot of people make fun of Yallop for the Peters selection. Specifically, I would too. But generally speaking, you need to make those tough calls in your selection. Capello picking Walcott against Croatia comes to mind. I'm not saying Mitchell needed to call Hoilett or Street or something like that. I actually don't really have a problem with his selection other than not playing Friend more and with a strike partner. But this is really my point: what do we know? I'm not impressed by our manager picking the same team as I would. The results just reinforce that none of us, Mitchell especially, know what we're talking about! While your making some valid point, I'm not sure we can come with some of your conclusion base on the Hart and 2007 GC selections. As far as I remember, initially Hart was giving games to everyone (Jamaica twice and Hungary) and for the GC he had to deal with some players injuries or no-show. Maybe your memory is better than mine but I don't remember a controversial omission that wasn't justify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe MacCarthy Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Aside from it being a "perceived comedown" would anyone object to Mitch being a coach of one of the women's teams? They are looking for a coach and I think his personality and style might be well suited. Crazy idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 ^ Sorry, having experienced DM's coaching and interpersonal skills or lack thereof first hand I wouldn't have him coach my house league team. The CSA must have got him really cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Richard ^ Sorry, having experienced DM's coaching and interpersonal skills or lack thereof first hand I wouldn't have him coach my house league team. The CSA must have got him really cheap. Lets make sure no one gets confused about tonight Dale still has to go .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Joe MacCarthy Aside from it being a "perceived comedown" would anyone object to Mitch being a coach of one of the women's teams? They are looking for a coach and I think his personality and style might be well suited. Crazy idea? A Canadian women senior team deserves to have a competent coach. Mitchell should be dispossessed of his coaching licence. Maybe that is a way around for the CSA to get rid of the bum. Just revoke his licence and hence he is no longer qualified to hang on to the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto MB Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Based on Hume's non-involvement last night, it looks like that rhumour is confirmed. So add Iain Hume to the tally of key players to have been alienated by Dale Mitchell. Oh, and since Kluka will be out vs Jamaica, I guess we'll just call Jimmmy B....I mean Nik Ledgerwood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Toronto MB Based on Hume's non-involvement last night, it looks like that rhumour is confirmed. So add Iain Hume to the tally of key players to have been alienated by Dale Mitchell. Oh, and since Kluka will be out vs Jamaica, I guess we'll just call Jimmmy B....I mean Nik Ledgerwood. I am not entirely sure about this. Hume has mostly come on as a second half sub under Mitchell. In this game the strikers, Radzinski and Gerba, were playing so well that it would not have been a good decision to take them off. I am not saying that the rumour is untrue but I wouldn't believe it either because he didn't play. I would have to hear some other confirmation of it to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungfucultmaster Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Toronto MB Based on Hume's non-involvement last night, it looks like that rhumour is confirmed. So add Iain Hume to the tally of key players to have been alienated by Dale Mitchell. According to Hume's brother, he was not even called for the Brazil friendly. Also, when he was subbed in for Radz against Hondurus in Montreal, Mitchell told him not to go forward and not to attack, to only play defense. Well, Hume is an attacking player, so that is just bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto MB Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Well, the irony of some of this is that Mitchell practically owes his whole CSA career to Hume. Iain near single-handedly carried us to quarters vs. Spain at the U-20's in 2003. Mitchell has been riding that wave ever since. So Mitchell's complete inability to understand Hume is all the more perplexing, because he seemingly understood him so well as a youngster. First he throws Hume out to dry at centre-forward in South Africa and then tells him not to attack vs Honduras? WTF? Hume's delivery on set-pieces has been lethal, and with our depleted midfield how could he not have taken part last night? With as much space as they were giving us on the counter-attack, Hume would have torn them apart. My guess is he either told Mitchell to f**k himself, or Dale found out anyways and didn't want him in the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB_Tito Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 quote:Originally posted by kungfucultmaster According to Hume's brother, he was not even called for the Brazil friendly. Also, when he was subbed in for Radz against Hondurus in Montreal, Mitchell told him not to go forward and not to attack, to only play defense. Well, Hume is an attacking player, so that is just bizarre. That's not bizarre,that the IDIOT coach. That's the reason I back all the players that came out and said what they think about DM and CSA. We can read some comments how certain players underachieved in this WCQ,wonder why? Well, when you have an Idiot on the bench who doesn't have a clue about game tactics and than on top of that tells players to play what is not their natural position or game style,no wonder they underachieved. Only clueless and useless coach as DM would sub Hume for Radz and tell him to play defense,in a game that was must win for us. Will see how many new faces we will see in Jamaica,I hope it will be only one, New Coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatawonderfulworld Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 ... anyways ... " IT`S TIME TO SAY GOODBYE " for Mr.Mitchell ... and for some players too !! Team Jamaica reacted too ... and it was successfully !! Why not with CANADA ?? It`s a shame to see games like against St. Vincent, Jamaica or against Honduras ... Juergen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadasBest Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly I am not entirely sure about this. Hume has mostly come on as a second half sub under Mitchell. In this game the strikers, Radzinski and Gerba, were playing so well that it would not have been a good decision to take them off. I am not saying that the rumour is untrue but I wouldn't believe it either because he didn't play. I would have to hear some other confirmation of it to believe it. Based on what I had seen at the game, it appeared Hume was not in the games plans at all. He started training before game with the bench players, then when they were warming up the subs from the 65th min to about min 75 ot 80 Hume was on the bench the whole from what I could see. Based on what I saw, it didn't look like Hume was in Mitchell's plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moldobut Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I must agree with the comments poster before that Hume was instrumental in the campaign. If it wasn't for his dangerous deliveries we wouldn't have scored in Mex and Honduras and a lot of other international games for the matter. I saw Hume after the match. He was the first one on the bus way before anyone else got on and he sat in there on his own and didn't look happy at all so take that for what it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Toronto MB With as much space as they were giving us on the counter-attack, Hume would have torn them apart. Nice to see that you noticed this, too. It wasn't a very compact match, in that sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcisoul Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I thought Hume was one of the better players in the last game he took the free kick that we scored on and he actually shot the ball from behind the 18 yard box. I was wondering why he was not playing in edmonton, i actully thought that he wasnt there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Hume's performance against Honduras was the worst moment of this whole debacle for me. He was a little boy lost out there and no where near his usual abrasive, hard charging style. That's unforgiveable if indeed Mitchell was to blame for putting the reins on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildguy27 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Good for him. He is an incredible coach. He should not take blame for the fault of players to perform to their potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.