Mitchell will not Resign

[El Hombre]

quote:Originally posted by wildguy27

because he is a very high quality coach who has proven himself by being by far the most successful U-20 coach in Canadian soccer history, and should not be fired because of one unsuccessful quest that was more due to poor performance and poor attitude from many of the players then the coach.

So he should be kept on because of one successful quest (UAE) that was more due to the exceptional performance from a few players (Hume and Hutch) then the coach?

Sorry. Does not compute.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Obinna

You are so eagar to refute those calling for DM's head that you are putting words in my mouth. This is what I said:

"It is all realative. Yes, he is incrediable compared to you or I, and mabye my old provincial team coach, but not compared to Simones (Jamacia), or Eriksson (Mexico). This is why people are throwing him under the bus. We need a coach of that level, at the very least"

Tell me where I am advocating we hire Simones or Eriksson? I'm not saying we need THOSE coaches in particular. Nobody can say DM is on par with Simones or Erikkson in terms of pedigree. Look at the resume of the other coaches in our group. The only reason I never mentioned the Honduras coach is because I never knew his name, but you can throw him in the mix as well.

After DM is finished with us, we can all judge DM's true quality as a coach based on his market value--lets see what offers he gets.

I am not anti DM, but I believe our chances of qualifying are better with a better coach. Can anyone argue that? It sounds fairly logical to me. And yes Loyola, teams have qualified out of CONCACAF with average coaches, I am not saying it's mission impossible with DM at the helm. Nor am I saying that a top coach ensures our qualification. Simpily put, a better coach would only help our cause.

How am I eager to refute those calling for DM's head when I am calling for the same thing? He should have resigned or been fired after the first game against Mexico just like Jamaica did with Simoes. What I am against is the numerous faulty analysis of what happened in this WCQ. If a similar type of analysis is going on at CSA headquarters (which may very well be the case) then we are going to repeat the same mistakes or make new mistakes. Whether or not you stated Simoes or Eriksson should be hired for Canada, if your solution to what happened in WCQ is to hire someone of the same level as two guys who have failed just as miserably as Dale in the exact same group as us in this WCQ it is pretty hard to take your opinion seriously.

I don't think Dale Mitchell's coaching abilities were necessarily proven to be poor or good during this WCQ. He inherited the team in a very bad situation, the player's wanted someone else and were unhappy with the selection and did not give him or us the fans the type of committment they should have in playing for the MNT. I was not in favour of him being hired but given that he was the team should have given 100% for him and they did not in my opinion. One can argue that a more charismatic coach might have convinced them to follow him but the charismatic Simoes seemed to have even less success in this with Jamaica despite having qualified them previously for a WCQ.

When we are evaluating coaches we have to be very careful in assessing their resume. Mitchell certainly did not have the most impressive resume but having big names on your resume is no guarantee of quality. Simoes really has one impressive thing on his resume (the Jamaica WCQ qualification) and one semi-impressive thing (silver medal with Brazil's Olympic Women's soccer team). Mixed with that are a number of failures and moderate successes. A decent resume but not a great resume and with many managers you also have to consider how much luck can play a role especially when the results are not consistent. Speaking of which almost no manager could claim to have had more luck than Eriksson. He managed to get hired by almost all the dominant and richest teams in every league he has coached. His greatest success with Lazio coincided with an investor simultaneously pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the club. His England stint was also mixed, he managed to make the quarter finals of three major tournaments but yet he was hired to bring England much further than that (and as much as it is fashionable to criticize English talent, they do have quality enough players to achieve more). During much of his tenure he was criticized for poor tactics and having no charisma (sound familiar?).

Regardless this is football and you are judged on your latest results. Simoes and Eriksson have had similar tasks to Mitchell, ie. qualify out of the same WCQ group and both have so far shat the bed so I find it pretty hard to see such managers as the solution to our problems. Anyone watching the matches can see that so far Rueda has been the top manager in our group even if his name is not as famous as the other two nor his resume as deep.

[fetajr]

when the national team goes to Jamaica, someone should sneak some weed into mitchell's luggage before coming back to Canada. He will be caught, it will get media attention, and he will be fired.

[gator]

The general consensus here (wildguy excluded) is that Mitchell should resign or be fired! When it comes down to who we believe should be the next manager, there hasn't been a whole lot said! There are very few Alex Fergusons or Scolaris out there, and you can argue Scolari underachieved with Portugal but thats another debate! Most managers, even the best have a record of failure, as well as success! We really don't know what our budget restraints will be, we can assume they are tight! Grizzly, who do you think they should hire? Let's have some names people!

[redhat]

quote:Originally posted by fetajr

when the national team goes to Jamaica, someone should sneak some weed into mitchell's luggage before coming back to Canada. He will be caught, it will get media attention, and he will be fired.

lol ... thanks for that. Made my morning.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

So he should be kept on because of one successful quest (UAE) that was more due to the exceptional performance from a few players (Hume and Hutch) then the coach?

Sorry. Does not compute.

No he shouldn't but to analyze his 2003 performance like you did (specialy when I doubt you saw all the games) is BS. You can take away credit from many coaches in arguing like that. You should apply your logic to Hart 2007 GC performance when he had a motivated JDG, a scoring DeRo and a solid Pat Onstad...

The fact remains that Mitchell did qualified us twice in a row with some convincing results along the way and I doubt the credit should be all on the players. For every Hutch or Hume you have an Asante or a Lombardo who are clearly out of their depth in that kind of tournament and Mitchell had to work with them as well.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by gator

The general consensus here (wildguy excluded) is that Mitchell should resign or be fired! When it comes down to who we believe should be the next manager, there hasn't been a whole lot said! There are very few Alex Fergusons or Scolaris out there, and you can argue Scolari underachieved with Portugal but thats another debate! Most managers, even the best have a record of failure, as well as success! We really don't know what our budget restraints will be, we can assume they are tight! Grizzly, who do you think they should hire? Let's have some names people!

It is pretty hard to say who would be interested and affordable. I mentioned Rueda as Honduras has really impressed me this WCQ. Whether they go through or not in this group any team other than Mexico with a chance to qualify on the last match day has to have been considered fairly successful. My father stayed in the same hotel as the Honduran team and got up early to go swimming the day after the match. The Hondurans were exercising early in the morning beside the pool and my father was very impressed with how they listened to Rueda and the discipline of the team. My father is a longtime military man and it takes a lot to impress him as far as leadership goes.

Incidentally, I guess our players were sleeping off their hangover from the party the night before while the winning team was training for their next game. This is a failing of both Mitchell and the players in my opinion. It seems like partying after losses was a habit under Mitchell as Varsity Taylor apparently met much of the team in a bar in Tallinn after the loss in Estonia.

Another guy I would think would be a good candidate is Bojan Prasnikar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojan_Prasnikar) who is currently coach of Energie Cottbus. He has international experience coaching Slovakia and has had a lot of success with smaller clubs. Last year he took over Cottbus late in the season and saved them from relegation. This year hasn't been as successful but despite Energie being my second team in Germany, it is probably one of the worst jobs in German soccer and one in which it is easy to get fired from. They are always trying to play in the 1st Bundesliga on the budget of a middle table 2nd Bundesliga team.

[El Hombre]

quote:Originally posted by loyola

No he shouldn't but to analyze his 2003 performance like you did (specialy when I doubt you saw all the games) is BS. You can take away credit from many coaches in arguing like that. You should apply your logic to Hart 2007 GC performance when he had a motivated JDG, a scoring DeRo and a solid Pat Onstad...

The fact remains that Mitchell did qualified us twice in a row with some convincing results along the way and I doubt the credit should be all on the players. For every Hutch or Hume you have an Asante or a Lombardo who are clearly out of their depth in that kind of tournament and Mitchell had to work with them as well.

Firstly, breathe.

Secondly, that analysis was no more BS than what Wildguy27 posted. Same for same.

Thirdly, you have consistently brought up how it's such an achievement to qualify the team for two straight world cups. I finally looked into this to see how much of an achievement it really was:

2003: Two teams go through from the group of Canada, Mexico, Haiti and El Salvador. Is it not entirely conceivable that this is a group that we should finish in the top 2?

2005: Two teams go through from the group of Canada, Mexico, Honduras and Jamaica. True, this was a tough group but keep in mind that Paul James qualified us from the exact same group for 2001.

As for convincing results, which ones are these? The 2-1 over Mexico in 2005? Keep in mind that this Mexico team ended up not qualifying themselves. Or are you talking about the 0-0 tie against Haiti in 2003? Or the 3-2 win against an already qualified US? Nice wins but hardly convincing. If you want convincing results, look at Twamley's record while qualifying for Malaysia 1997 (2-0 over US, 2-2 vs. Mexico (in Mexico!), 2-0 over Costa Rica, 3-0 over Nicaragua and 1-0 over T+T).

Fourthly, if qualifying us for the U20s is the benchmark for good coaches, then why not bring back Tony Taylor because he won us the 1987 U20 CONCACAF tournament to qualify us for Chile 1987 (when only two CONCACAF teams were allowed as opposed to the four now)? Bob Bearpark did the same thing for USSR 1985 too.

Fifthly, as for the actual U20 performance itself, Dale has exactly one more win (with a record of 2-8-1 over 3 tournaments) than Bruce Twamley (with a record of 1-2-1 for 1 tournament).

All this is to say that if you are going to sing Dale's praises, you have to keep them in perspective.

[wildguy27]

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

Fourthly, if qualifying us for the U20s is the benchmark for good coaches, then why not bring back Tony Taylor because he won us the 1987 U20 CONCACAF tournament to qualify us for Chile 1987 (when only two CONCACAF teams were allowed as opposed to the four now)? Bob Bearpark did the same thing for USSR 1985 too.

Those coaching "achievements" were over 20 years ago and are outdated, as are the coaches. Dale Mitchell's "achievements" as a coach are very recent and show he is a rising star of a coach, and now he hit his first speedbump, but it would foolish to toss him aside because of it so soon.

[I_AM_CANADIAN]

Of course he didn't resign. He's never going to get another job coaching in professional football, so naturally he's going to keep his job until he's sacked.

[gator]

wildguy, I think you just like Mitchell because he starts Lars, even though you lost your bet! lol

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

Firstly, breathe.

Secondly, that analysis was no more BS than what Wildguy27 posted. Same for same.

Thirdly, you have consistently brought up how it's such an achievement to qualify the team for two straight world cups. I finally looked into this to see how much of an achievement it really was:

2003: Two teams go through from the group of Canada, Mexico, Haiti and El Salvador. Is it not entirely conceivable that this is a group that we should finish in the top 2?

2005: Two teams go through from the group of Canada, Mexico, Honduras and Jamaica. True, this was a tough group but keep in mind that Paul James qualified us from the exact same group for 2001.

As for convincing results, which ones are these? The 2-1 over Mexico in 2005? Keep in mind that this Mexico team ended up not qualifying themselves. Or are you talking about the 0-0 tie against Haiti in 2003? Or the 3-2 win against an already qualified US? Nice wins but hardly convincing. If you want convincing results, look at Twamley's record while qualifying for Malaysia 1997 (2-0 over US, 2-2 vs. Mexico (in Mexico!), 2-0 over Costa Rica, 3-0 over Nicaragua and 1-0 over T+T).

Fourthly, if qualifying us for the U20s is the benchmark for good coaches, then why not bring back Tony Taylor because he won us the 1987 U20 CONCACAF tournament to qualify us for Chile 1987 (when only two CONCACAF teams were allowed as opposed to the four now)? Bob Bearpark did the same thing for USSR 1985 too.

Fifthly, as for the actual U20 performance itself, Dale has exactly one more win (with a record of 2-8-1 over 3 tournaments) than Bruce Twamley (with a record of 1-2-1 for 1 tournament).

All this is to say that if you are going to sing Dale's praises, you have to keep them in perspective.

I think your opinion has more value to the member of this forum than WildLars26's opinion that's why I went after your response.

You missed the point. It was your reference to the fact that apparently it was because of Hume and Hutch that we did so well in 2003 and you took away credit from the coach (and like me you didn't saw those games except against Spain, did you?). Like I said, we can apply the same logic to Hart who has crashed 3 times out of easier U-17 WCQ groups (the last one had 3 out of 5 teams qualifying...) to explain his GC success.

2003 and 2005 we won both group by winning at the host ground and never lost a game (our record for those 2 years is 5-0-1). That's convincing results IMO. I'm not sure I follow your reference to 1985 and 1987 since we won our group both times with DM.

2-8-1, are we Canada or Brazil? If we are Canada, a 2-8-1 record over 3 WC isn't bad IMO (of course I would've liked us to pick up a win in 2007 but we had only one realistic chance to do so against Congo and our strikers were what they were...out of their league).

Talking about putting things in perspective, do you know what's is Canada overall record in men's World Cup play (U-17, U-20 and Senior)? 4 W, 5 D and 30 L.

I'm not praising Mitchell, I think he's an average coach but I'm giving him credit for his good work with our U-20's (even if most of us will remember 2007, I will also remember his 2003 and 2005 results which were good for a canadian team).

[El Hombre]

I'll try these one by one.

quote:Originally posted by loyola

You missed the point. It was your reference to the fact that apparently it was because of Hume and Hutch that we did so well in 2003 and you took away credit from the coach (and like me you didn't saw those games except against Spain, did you?). Like I said, we can apply the same logic to Hart who has crashed 3 times out of easier U-17 WCQ groups (the last one had 3 out of 5 teams qualifying...) to explain his GC success.

No, you're missing the point. My response was to Wildguy who put all the success of 2003 and 2005 on the coach. I took the polar opposite stance that it was all on the players in order for him to see how his argument is misguided and flawed. There is hypocrisy there and I was trying to highlight it.

quote:Originally posted by loyola

2003 and 2005 we won both group by winning at the host ground and never lost a game (our record for those 2 years is 5-0-1). That's convincing results IMO. I'm not sure I follow your reference to 1985 and 1987 since we won our group both times with DM.

Bruce Twamley was 4-0-1 in qualifying for Malaysia 1997 in Mexico. Does that make him a good coach? Tony Taylor was 6-0-1 in qualifying for Chile 1987 in Port of Spain. Does that make him a good coach too?

quote:Originally posted by loyola

2-8-1, are we Canada or Brazil? If we are Canada, a 2-8-1 record over 3 WC isn't bad IMO..

Talking about putting things in perspective, do you know what's is Canada overall record in men's World Cup play (U-17, U-20 and Senior)? 4 W, 5 D and 30 L.

Again you're missing the point. Bruce Twamley has almost the same record at the U20 World Cup than Dale does. Is Bruce as good a coach?

quote:Originally posted by loyola

I'm not praising Mitchell, I think he's an average coach but I'm giving him credit for his good work with our U-20's (even if most of us will remember 2007, I will also remember his 2003 and 2005 results which were good for a canadian team).

Fine. However, what I'm trying to show is that his accomplishments at the U20 level are actually not that special nor are they tremendously impressive. He rode the UAE success, which he cannot be held solely responsible for nor can it be solely attributed to him (which started this whole debate), for far too long.

[wildguy27]

quote:Originally posted by gator

wildguy, I think you just like Mitchell because he starts Lars, even though you lost your bet! lol

LOL! Nah, I couldnt give a damn about Lars or any of our keepers really . It the most irrelevant position about the whole team at the moment, and the whole current pool of them are all mediocre quite frankly anyway. It is not like we have someone playing in the Premier league or having any great success in one of the smaller leagues, that is the only way I would care about any of them playing for us. I only made a concerted effort on some supposed Lars scandal just to be a troll and go out of my way to annoy people. The bet was for a nickel and dime type amount and didnt bother me much whether I won or lost, and was just part of my overall trolling anyway.

[Loud Mouth Soup]

I think wildguy is Dale Mitchell. Or his son. Or medicated.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

I'll try these one by one.

No, you're missing the point. My response was to Wildguy who put all the success of 2003 and 2005 on the coach. I took the polar opposite stance that it was all on the players in order for him to see how his argument is misguided and flawed. There is hypocrisy there and I was trying to highlight it.

Bruce Twamley was 4-0-1 in qualifying for Malaysia 1997 in Mexico. Does that make him a good coach? Tony Taylor was 6-0-1 in qualifying for Chile 1987 in Port of Spain. Does that make him a good coach too?

Again you're missing the point. Bruce Twamley has almost the same record at the U20 World Cup than Dale does. Is Bruce as good a coach?

Fine. However, what I'm trying to show is that his accomplishments at the U20 level are actually not that special nor are they tremendously impressive. He rode the UAE success, which he cannot be held solely responsible for nor can it be solely attributed to him (which started this whole debate), for far too long.

Fair, I see what you were doing with Wildguy26. But that's what a lot of people here have said here in the past so that's why I went after that response, thinking it was unfair to DM. So I thought that you were thinking Hume and Hutch were the only reason why we succeed in UAE 2003. If that's not what you are thinking then I'm sorry for responding to your post.

As for Bruce and Tony I can only note that Twamley cut Occean from the U-23 and a few weeks later he was signing in Norway (a bit different than Taylor cutting 15 yrs old Hargreaves), so we could maybe hold that against him in term of recognizing talent. I've also heard some players praising Twamley in the past. He might be a good coach for all I know. BTW, that 1987 qualifying group was a joke ...

[El Hombre]

quote:Originally posted by loyola

Fair, I see what you were doing with Wildguy26. But that's what a lot of people here have said here in the past so that's why I went after that response, thinking it was unfair to DM. So I thought that you were thinking Hume and Hutch were the only reason why we succeed in UAE 2003. If that's not what you are thinking then I'm sorry for responding to your post.

As for Bruce and Tony I can only note that Twamley cut Occean from the U-23 and a few weeks later he was signing in Norway (a bit different than Taylor cutting 15 yrs old Hargreaves), so we could maybe hold that against him in term of recognizing talent. I've also heard some players praising Twamley in the past. He might be a good coach for all I know. BTW, that 1987 qualifying group was a joke ...

Fair enough. Enjoyable way of spending a Friday afternoon.

Let's hug it out.

[youllneverwalkalone]

I don't see any justification in defending Mitchell. He's really hurt us. After one point in 2 games at home, given his U20 2007 failure, he needed to man-up and resign. But he didn't do the right thing. For this reason, he can stick his 19 goals, 55 caps, WC 86, and 3 U20s up his arse. He should be an enemy of the Voyageurs for at least a thousand years. Maybe more.

[BrennanFan]

quote:Originally posted by wildguy27

LOL! Nah, I couldnt give a damn about Lars or any of our keepers really . It the most irrelevant position about the whole team at the moment, and the whole current pool of them are all mediocre quite frankly anyway. It is not like we have someone playing in the Premier league or having any great success in one of the smaller leagues, that is the only way I would care about any of them playing for us. I only made a concerted effort on some supposed Lars scandal just to be a troll and go out of my way to annoy people. The bet was for a nickel and dime type amount and didnt bother me much whether I won or lost, and was just part of my overall trolling anyway.

holy **** am i reading this right? did troll boy actually admit to being a troll?

let me guess... with the lars thing you were trolling but now with this mitchell stuff you really mean it?

would someone deal with this punk, goddam after a night of drinking all i want to do is read some mitchell bashing in peace, and instead what do i get? this goddam troll who admits to trolling and yet is allowed to troll my board. hey troll, great YOU!!!!!!

[Grizzly]

I think we should hire Carlo Colaiacovo as the next MNT coach!

[VPjr]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I think we should hire Carlo Colaiacovo as the next MNT coach!

might be viable...he's not doing much else these days....considering he's getting benched by the Maple Laughs, he might want to start re-assessing his career options

[wildguy27]

quote:Originally posted by BrennanFan

That is correct. I have decided to cease my past intentional trolling ways and now merely express only my true and honest views. [}]