U20 Odds & Ends

[CoachRich]

Yes, it is a good thread & timely.

Vic diplomatic immunity laws in this age don't protect you when you have committed a serious crime. Their immunity is usually revoked by their country or their country takes them back & prosecutes them.

Sidney has the choice to choose where she wants to develop in the sport. That's her choice & doesn't give us the right to put labels on her because of her choice. Like any coach or player in sports you should want the best for your team mates & competition. To do otherwise is not what sports are about.

You refer a lot to some of our greatest players but for the players coming up they need a better development structure/model. Once we provide the structure/model it up to the players to buy in or not. Sometimes they will go elsewhere as we have seen. If we continue w/ the past, we will continue to get bypassed bye the Euros' UK & Asia.

The only shift I see in the WP is that after NCAA they are looking to play Pro in the USA or go overseas. They ain't coming back to Canada until they can play the game like elsewhere. Also, they might not come back to the WNT as the CSA is starting over & no one knows if they will have the $. Especially w/ the PSO's turning down the CSA fee increases.

On playing overseas it's hit or miss. But w/ the WPSL all Pro Women's league are getting more $. They are now having to compete for the best players so hopefully scouting of players will get better. Still the NCAA is the easiest & best place to look for the top NA players as that is our structure/model.

As for the CIS & the likes, I don't see them being able to compete w/ the NCAA until they join the NCAA & offer full rides. That's 1 of the reasons why UBC & SFU are going south. The other is the lack of competition & traveling to it in Canada....the east looks after itself.

I agree sport is about economics. But it's also how effective you are w/ the $ & the structure/model you use. Look at what the States has done since they did the WC by tweaking their model all the time. Look at Euro w/ their women's model/structure where the players are Pro'ed & NT'ed before they are 15. The German U20's had been together as a team for 3 years. The other countries are pretty close as you can see it. Especially w/ Japan. They didn't have a lot of $ in the beginning but they had the structure/model. Now w/ competition & success they are getting more $ As much as I harp about $, I also realize thru my experience that structure/model is almost just as important.

Again great thoughts & passion here. It's one of the reasons I keep coming back for the punishment I really hope everyone takes what is shared here back to the field for the benefit of the sport & the kids as we can do so much at any of the levels we touch.

[Vic]

Rich, I'm glad you're a masochist

Sorry if this is a little fragmented... just trying to stay linear.

I know of two cases of vehicular homicide where diplomatic immunity was pleaded and they walked. And the keyword you used is "usually" revoked because there is no legal requirement to do so. Law and right may be cousins, but they're not married. But for arguments sake, how about this - you can nuke a major urban area with a remote control device and you will be fed and sheltered (and maybe even educated).

I don't label Sydney Leroux anything other than "American", which I believe is the appropriate term.

World class players from the past? Yes Hooper is a veteran, and Lang an old doll at what 21? But I also referred to Geneviève Richard who is 17 years old.

I care about players who don't come back about as much as I care about those who leave. Same as on the men's side. Wearing the maple leaf is a privilege and if you don't think so then that's your loss. And my attitudes are the same outside of soccer. Honestly, if there's somewhere you'd rather be, Godspeed quickly and no hard feelings whatsoever. I'm a lot more worried about national team coaches driving great players away than dual citizens doing it. We've suffered a lot more of that lately and no one gave a damn.

Offering full rides has almost nothing to with the quality of a program or the education behind it. We almost cover tuition up here already anyway. UBC and SFU are going South (and taking our system backwards) because it's better for them personally.

Being a Canadian isn't always easy. Sometimes you have to suck it up and suffer and find a way to make it work.

p.s. because of a lack of competition in Canada? OUA and the West had 3 schools ranked in the top 10. Quebec had 2. Atlantic 1. OUA is so strong that unranked teams beat out the top teams in provincials and came 2nd and 5th at nationals. UBC didn't even go to nationals. That sure sounds like parity to me.

[bjarne]

Originally posted by Vic

I should begin by going back a step. One of my first posts in this thread I believe was wondering if she was released or quit. Because to me the ethics of the decision have quite a bit to do with that.

To be honest, I can't remember if she was released or quit. I think I remember that she was looking for a bigger challenge for her development and the US provided that. Again I think we need to take responsibility as people living within the system for the fact that it just isn't good enough and not throw rocks at people who decide to take the opportunity they have to better themselves as players. Even more so for the girls, because the opportunities are so minimal to make a living from the game, so it truly is about bettering themselves as players.

Even now in BC, its ridiculous the club system for elite female players here. I 100% agree with what CoachRich preaches about the need for separate pathways to development for recreational and competitive clubs because it all operates under the same umbrella right now and the people making the decisions that affect the girls development are often people who have had absolutely no experience in the game at a high level.

To add insult to injury on the matter on the girls side in BC, the Whitecaps Prospects are allowed to pluck about 10 of the "top" players off the club rosters when they are in grade 11 and they get trained in a proper environment, while the rest of the "unchosen ones" are mandated to be thrown back into a recreational environment with the Dad coaching, the twice a week practice on gravel etc. Its ridiculous and a slap in the face to the players who want to reach their potential but are getting thrown back into a recreational environment. Why shouldn't other groups be allowed to have the opportunity that say the Whitecaps have to take players and develop them without being restricted to these ridiculous stay within your District rules? Compare that with pretty much any other 1st world country running women's soccer, and its a joke.

Again and as an example of the potential talent that is being overlooked, all you have to do is look at a player like Nahiomy Ortiz, who didn't get picked for the BC PROVINCIAL team, but can go and make the Colombian U17 team and play against the Canadian U17 team in a World Cup draw. To me, this is an example that there are players like that out there who are that good, but not getting the chance to be developed properly.

Good questions Bjarne. I've asked myself those many times, especially on the boy's side. I really am stuck on the fence here, and playing a bit of Devil's advocate. I have no idea how I would handle this decision if I was in their shoes. You never can tell.

I admire your honesty Vic and the ability to say "I don't know". Sometimes I feel like people on here are so black and white about things. It is murky. There are some good questions to ask ourselves and reflect on the system. The biggest thing for me is that we accept the system is faulty, so how can anyone fault a person who chooses to leave to better themselves.

Doctors going to Dubai was a good analogy. But again, I am of the mentality that I am not going to fault anyone for trying to better themselves and their families situation. If that means that all the doctors emigrate because we have such a dire system, then my mentality, individually speaking, is that I need to do something to make the system a place where doctors want to be. Sometimes I feel like there is just too much apathy in terms of bettering ourselves in Canada in general, we sit idly and accept the status quo too often, instead of pushing ourselves to be better. Sadly enough though, we'll be the first to complain as soon as that status quo affects us in some negative way.

What about the players who stayed and played here and achieved international all-star status? What about the Hooper's, the Lang's, the Richard's? They all did pretty good under our systems and didn't need to leave to get there. So if they can do it, what is the definition of has to leave?

Vic, Hooper played almost all her soccer outside of Canada starting when she went to university at North Carolina State in the 80's. She played in the Norwegian and Japanese leagues and then played on US W League teams, like the Chicago Cobras after that. I would argue that Charmaine did have to leave to get to where she did.

Kara Lang has been at UCLA for the last 3 years and on the National Team, playing against women for what the last 7 years? Again, the Kara Lang's of the world have had the opportunity to develop on the international stage. I would say that the chance that she had to develop playing against women at the international level when she was 15 would have had more to do with her development than the fact that she was helped along by staying in Canada. That being said, the situation that Kara had for development is an anomaly.

I think there's a big difference between going to school somewhere and playing for a different country. Going away to school is like playing club in Europe on the men's side. And even at that, I believe the tide is turning and there already is a shift in the attitudes from the highest levels inside the women's program because of the demands of the NCAA programs. I just hope they follow it up with some action to make the schools up here a better option. It would be great for everyone.

I agree with you on that, it is different. It was more the principle than the actual point itself that I was trying to get across though. You only need to look at our national team roster to know that the NCAA is where players feel they need to go to develop. That being said, I personally was encouraged to see Rachel Goulding and Alyssa Lagonia make the U20 squad out of Canadian universities. I also hope they follow things up to make the Canadian schools a better option.

Well, we did as well against the Americans before the core of the Canadian team became players taking NCAA scholarships. It's all a little moot and somewhat derivative though - all these players would have become a lot better if they went and played in Europe full-time instead of going to school. There is no substitute for a dedicated professional training environment.

I beg to differ on that point. I think there was one tie in Columbus against the US in 2000 where the majority of the players weren't down in the US in the NCAA, but other than that IIRC, they spanked us on a regular basis. Again obviously there were many factors that contributed to our ascension in the ranks, but I think all you need to do is ask the Christine Sinclairs/Melissa Tancredis/Candace Chapman about how the NCAA affected their development as players to realize that it was a crucial step in developing them into the players they are today.

In terms of females being full time professional and skipping university; until there becomes some legitimate money in the women's game, I think that at the very least getting an education whilst being in the supported environment that the NCAA affords is the best option. The US has managed to stay at the top of the world in that system, so why not hang on their coattails and the girls have something to fall back on once they are done.

I admire your outlook and I've been there. It's just economics to me now though. Not only are they more progressive as a country in terms of funding athletes, their economy is 10 times ours. We don't have the money to keep people who are looking for the best option and we never will.

This is again where we differ in opinion I think. There are 366,000 girls that play soccer in this country (IIRC). That to me is an extremely large economic base to draw from. The problem is, the way that money is managed. There are clubs that I know of that have half a million dollars sitting in the bank. To me this idea that there is no money in women's soccer in Canada is ridiculous. There is so much money, its just a matter of a system being in place where that money actually gets funnelled back into the system itself to help the girls game grow. This could change the game and the funding issues dramatically, instead of having that money sitting in bank accounts managed by people who aren't business people and who have their own agendas for being there.

Again, call me naive, but I think all the ingredients for success are there. Its just a matter of people getting together, not moaning about the status quo, and doing something to change the game for better in this country.

Until then, I think its ridiculous to fault anyone or wish them anything but the best of luck, for trying to improve themselves elsewhere.

[terpfan68]

Please choose examples that make sense. Detonating a nuclear device over a major metropolitian centre may not be a crime but it would be an ACT OF WAR.

[Vic]

Sounds about the same in the East Bjarne. I actually agree with you 100% on almost everything. The problem is the same all across the country, what seperates us from the rest of the advanced soccer world is this - we don't have our best coaches working with our best kids.

We have way too many hands in the pie, too many leagues, academies, teams, clubs, programs, indoor, outdoor, futsal, private, public, regional, provincial, national, university, college, etc. Too many options and all claiming to be the best and dissing the others, with no one realizing they all are wrong.

Sure players leave to become better players. Our best men's players are classic examples (JdeG, DDR, etc). It would be nice if we had an option for them here but we'll never have top flight. But we CAN have a fairly high quality league that also serves as a great development league to integrate our youth players in with adults though. Especially on the women's side.

I believe there were also more CIS players in the final U20 camp as well.

You're wrong about the Americans spanking us more in the past than they do now. And that's not because of the numbers below, it's because I've watched most of them since day one, and seen a lot of them live.

2007-2008:

1-2

0-1

0-6

1-1

0-4

2-6

-------------------

0-1-5 (1pt - AVG 0.8 GF/ 3.3 GA)

1986-1992

0-1

2-1

2-4

0-1

0-4

1-4

0-5

0-7

0-3

0-1

-------------------

1-0-9 (3pts - AVG: 0.5 GF/ 3.0 GA)

And had there been world rankings, we would have ranked higher back then than we do now. Outside of us, the USA, Norway, Germany, and China and maybe another one or two there were very few serious teams in the women's game back then.

I have no problem with anyone getting an education because the money is just now appearing for the women's game. But the women's soccer world has changed, and people who opt for school shouldn't complain when they get roasted by Brazilians who are sacrificing and paying the price.

The USA has managed to stay on top of the world with that system because they have 10 times the players we do and 10 times the money. And riding on their coattails at 10% is part of why we're where we are.

I know of a couple of youth clubs with over a million in the bank. Clubs who have never inserted a player into a provincial or national team. And I know what they plan to do with it and the money will never reach high end athletes. But I digress. Fee money isn't the problem. There's a thread on the men's side where people are getting worked up about $1 or $5 of youth fees. Fee money never makes it to elite players. The families of elite players are always the ones funding their kids. Fee money just makes bigger club bank accounts, and gives us better dressed house league kids. Whether fees are $1, $10 or $100 doesn't address the real problem.

Until we find a way to cut through the politics, egos and chest-thumping and get our best youth coaches working with our the best youth players, we're savages.

[bjarne]

quote:Originally posted by Vic

Sounds about the same in the East Bjarne. I actually agree with you 100% on almost everything. The problem is the same all across the country, what seperates us from the rest of the advanced soccer world is this - we don't have our best coaches working with our best kids.

We have way too many hands in the pie, too many leagues, academies, teams, clubs, programs, indoor, outdoor, futsal, private, public, regional, provincial, national, university, college, etc. Too many options and all claiming to be the best and dissing the others, with no one realizing they all are wrong.

Sure players leave to become better players. Our best men's players are classic examples (JdeG, DDR, etc). It would be nice if we had an option for them here but we'll never have top flight. But we CAN have a fairly high quality league that also serves as a great development league to integrate our youth players in with adults though. Especially on the women's side.

I believe there were also more CIS players in the final U20 camp as well.

You're wrong about the Americans spanking us more in the past than they do now. And that's not because of the numbers below, it's because I've watched most of them since day one, and seen a lot of them live.

2007-2008:

1-2

0-1

0-6

1-1

0-4

2-6

-------------------

0-1-5 (1pt - AVG 0.8 GF/ 3.3 GA)

1986-1992

0-1

2-1

2-4

0-1

0-4

1-4

0-5

0-7

0-3

0-1

-------------------

1-0-9 (3pts - AVG: 0.5 GF/ 3.0 GA)

And had there been world rankings, we would have ranked higher back then than we do now. Outside of us, the USA, Norway, Germany, and China and maybe another one or two there were very few serious teams in the women's game back then.

I have no problem with anyone getting an education because the money is just now appearing for the women's game. But the women's soccer world has changed, and people who opt for school shouldn't complain when they get roasted by Brazilians who are sacrificing and paying the price.

The USA has managed to stay on top of the world with that system because they have 10 times the players we do and 10 times the money. And riding on their coattails at 10% is part of why we're where we are.

I know of a couple of youth clubs with over a million in the bank. Clubs who have never inserted a player into a provincial or national team. And I know what they plan to do with it and the money will never reach high end athletes. But I digress. Fee money isn't the problem. There's a thread on the men's side where people are getting worked up about $1 or $5 of youth fees. Fee money never makes it to elite players. The families of elite players are always the ones funding their kids. Fee money just makes bigger club bank accounts, and gives us better dressed house league kids. Whether fees are $1, $10 or $100 doesn't address the real problem.

Until we find a way to cut through the politics, egos and chest-thumping and get our best youth coaches working with our the best youth players, we're savages.

Vic, this has been a very enjoyable conversation. Thanks for your well-informed contributions. God it is depressing that its like this all over the country, and I completely agree with what you said on the youth soccer front and the too many hands in the pot front. I'm still, perhaps naively, going to have the attitude that with a group, similar to the passion found on this board, that unites, that we can get some change. I guess all we can do is go back to our own little worlds and try and do what we can to start turning this system around.

[CoachRich]

Yes, very enjoyable & it's true we have to do what we can in the areas we touch. Bottom line for me is we don't have to reinvent the wheel but we do have to be smarter w/ what we have & more importantly humble enough to cooperate for the kids

[Guest Ed]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

I wish to add my support to CoachRich over the post by Ed in the World Soccer forum thread. Sexism aside I think it is one thing to use the word whore when referring to males as some do with Owen Hargreaves for instance, but for a young woman it is inappropriate and in very bad taste.

Mods I urge you to delete that thread and reprimand the originator Ed as it reflects badly on all of us who participate in the forum. I certainly have no desire to be associated with that kind of degrading attitude.

Well well well. That thread was deliberately worded and I see it got the reaction I expected. You actually fail to see the irony in defending the use of the word in describing Hargreaves.

And COACH Rich, I see your true colours coming out as well when you confess that "I would definitely have them in discipline & out of the game right away if they where in any part of the game I admin.". You're not a coach, but you look good in a suit. I am a coach and am loved by my kids and parents. I teach my kids about Cdn players and urge my kids to play for Canada. I don't cheer for the opposition and I don't kowtow to suits. Well done. Are you one of the expat twats working for the ASA who told Hargreaves to call up Wales?

[Massive Attack]

MOD POST:

Post deleted - FULLY inappropriate.

[Vic]

Ed, she's an 18yr old girl. She has parents with different nationalities and two homelands. She has played for both countries. Do you think the Americans called her that when she played for us as a U14? And where do you think it would have got them if they did?

[Guest Ed]

If you read my post, I deliberately used that term because Hargreaves is constantly called that on this board, with nothing but BLESSINGS from the mods and most who post here. I don't see a great deal of difference between a 19 yr old boy (who at the least doesn't play AGAINST us) and her case.