Greg Sutton adds his voice to the anti-CSA debate

[VPjr]

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wspt_sutton04/GSStory/GlobeSportsSoccer/home

[Loud Mouth Soup]

quote:But I will blame the people that are in charge of setting ourselves in the right direction and making sure that we were well-prepared going into that campaign and obviously we weren't.

Nice.

[Loud Mouth Soup]

quote:But I will blame the people that are in charge of setting ourselves in the right direction and making sure that we were well-prepared going into that campaign and obviously we weren't.

Nice.

[loyola]

The irony here is that we got a lot more prep this year than we got in 2004. I'm not really sure I understand his critics about not being "well-prepared" if he's alluding to games and camps because they had a lot of that (we skipped two FIFA dates in the last year but played twice on non-FIFA dates against Martinique and Panama).

Sutton said:We didn't play up to our potential, because if we did play to our potential we would have probably qualified for the next round. Why is that, that's the question you've got to ask yourself," the Toronto FC goalie said Thursday. "That's the question that the CSA has to ask themselves. Why did we not qualify for this (final qualifying) round with the potential that we had, because by far we had the best group of players that we've had in a long time.

I'm sorry but it was always going to be tough to get out of that group with 3 quality teams. Put Sven, Fabio, José or Bora at the helm, it would've been difficult anyways. I love how he suggests the CSA should ask themselves why the MNT didn't qualified but isn't suggesting the players should do the same(I'm not saying him personaly but he players who played). BTW, having the best group ever doesn't mean anything if you don't consider the oppositions...Honduras also had their best group ever and Mexico is never easy opposition.

"And it's not like it's a one- or two-game playoff; it's a qualifying campaign that consists of six games. If you lose a couple, there's plenty of time to get right back into it. But we just didn't have the right momentum, we didn't have the right support going into it."

WTF???

"They're only allowed to bring in a certain amount of guys because they can only pay a certain number of players fees per game," he said. "Whereas you look at the U.S., they have a player pool, each training camp, they'll have 30 guys, where we'll have 20 if we're lucky. It just gives them a better opportunity, a better advantage. ...

"We have some very good talent in Canada but we just can't bring them all together at times just because of budget reasons."

I'm not sure I see the problem here...When we had that 3 weeks camp in June, we had 24-25 guys. I'm not sure we can call that much more. At some point you have to realize that after our top 20-25 there's a big gap with the rest in our players pool. Very different than the USA.

[loyola]

The irony here is that we got a lot more prep this year than we got in 2004. I'm not really sure I understand his critics about not being "well-prepared" if he's alluding to games and camps because they had a lot of that (we skipped two FIFA dates in the last year but played twice on non-FIFA dates against Martinique and Panama).

Sutton said:We didn't play up to our potential, because if we did play to our potential we would have probably qualified for the next round. Why is that, that's the question you've got to ask yourself," the Toronto FC goalie said Thursday. "That's the question that the CSA has to ask themselves. Why did we not qualify for this (final qualifying) round with the potential that we had, because by far we had the best group of players that we've had in a long time.

I'm sorry but it was always going to be tough to get out of that group with 3 quality teams. Put Sven, Fabio, José or Bora at the helm, it would've been difficult anyways. I love how he suggests the CSA should ask themselves why the MNT didn't qualified but isn't suggesting the players should do the same(I'm not saying him personaly but he players who played). BTW, having the best group ever doesn't mean anything if you don't consider the oppositions...Honduras also had their best group ever and Mexico is never easy opposition.

"And it's not like it's a one- or two-game playoff; it's a qualifying campaign that consists of six games. If you lose a couple, there's plenty of time to get right back into it. But we just didn't have the right momentum, we didn't have the right support going into it."

WTF???

"They're only allowed to bring in a certain amount of guys because they can only pay a certain number of players fees per game," he said. "Whereas you look at the U.S., they have a player pool, each training camp, they'll have 30 guys, where we'll have 20 if we're lucky. It just gives them a better opportunity, a better advantage. ...

"We have some very good talent in Canada but we just can't bring them all together at times just because of budget reasons."

I'm not sure I see the problem here...When we had that 3 weeks camp in June, we had 24-25 guys. I'm not sure we can call that much more. At some point you have to realize that after our top 20-25 there's a big gap with the rest in our players pool. Very different than the USA.

[peachgrinder]

quote:Originally posted by loyola

I'm not sure I see the problem here...When we had that 3 weeks camp in June, we had 24-25 guys. I'm not sure we can call that much more. At some point you have to realize that after our top 20-25 there's a big gap with the rest in our players pool. Very different than the USA.

The idea of more competition for each place is likely what Mr. Sutton was saying. When you dress 16/18, only a few guys are being dropped with only marginal 'cover' at some positions. Some guys need to have someone behind them, itching to get on the field, in their place. There is a reason, for example, that the hockey World Junior Team has invited enough so that there are 4 goalies competing for 2 spots, 12 defensemen competing for 6/7, 20 forwards competing for 12 spots. Pat Quinn publicly stated that he wanted competition at each spot and wanted enough bodies to do so in camp.

The first thing someone does when they try out for a team is see who their competition is ON THE TEAM. Many players publicly state that they won't sign for certain teams, etc. because there is not enough chance to play. While it is great to assume that they will always work to their potential, there is a reason why some coaches are better than others. People need to play at a top level at all times to keep their job in the side - I don't think we can say that this is an issue for Canada, unfortunately, and keep the pressure on those who donned the jersey.

I think Sutton is being quite diplomatic and well-stated, actually, and is refreshing to hear this style of voice rather than the typical "I'm not playing".

PEACH

[nolando]

Good to call BS on this, loyola. I agree with your points.

[redhat]

I'd agree with Loyola on this one, as much as GS is entitled to his opinion.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by peachgrinder

The idea of more competition for each place is likely what Mr. Sutton was saying. When you dress 16/18, only a few guys are being dropped with only marginal 'cover' at some positions. Some guys need to have someone behind them, itching to get on the field, in their place. There is a reason, for example, that the hockey World Junior Team has invited enough so that there are 4 goalies competing for 2 spots, 12 defensemen competing for 6/7, 20 forwards competing for 12 spots. Pat Quinn publicly stated that he wanted competition at each spot and wanted enough bodies to do so in camp.

The first thing someone does when they try out for a team is see who their competition is ON THE TEAM. Many players publicly state that they won't sign for certain teams, etc. because there is not enough chance to play. While it is great to assume that they will always work to their potential, there is a reason why some coaches are better than others. People need to play at a top level at all times to keep their job in the side - I don't think we can say that this is an issue for Canada, unfortunately, and keep the pressure on those who donned the jersey.

I think Sutton is being quite diplomatic and well-stated, actually, and is refreshing to hear this style of voice rather than the typical "I'm not playing".

PEACH

Sutton himself is palying a position where we had a lot of competition, not very high level competition, but still we had 4 keepers called for that June camp. Maybe we could call a few more guys, but I,m not sure it would make a ton of difference. The players who were called during that process were for the most part (and most V's agreed with that) the best available.

[Joe MacCarthy]

When I see this stuff I always think of the prima donna Team Canada hockey team of 1972. Pampered pros complaining about everything until they saw the conditions others were operating under without complaint, far worse than the "poor" conditions these guys today face.

They happened to have enough leadership and guts to suck it up when it counted unlike our Senior Men's Soccer Team. The players blaming the CSA for everything is totally lame.

[CanadianSoccerFan]

I'm getting sick of this "it's all the CSA's fault and we had nothing to do with it" talk. loyola hit the nail on the head. Horrible points from Sutton.

[Free kick]

Gotta agree with the consensus of opinions here. If its the national association that is not doing what they should be doing then, what is it that the Honduran National Soccer associationg is doing that CSA hasn't? I'd like to see one example mentioned. And dont give me some bogus point that they played something like one more friendly than canada did in the lead up to WCQ. And, lets not compare us to the USSF who have a massive budget as it is.

From the Honduran fans that I have talked to, the last thing that i would ever expect to hear from them is an endorsement of their FA. We have even seen published reports from Amado Guevarra ripping their FA.

So then why is that they are advancing and we aren't? Let point out that we have one Julian deGuzman and they have 3 or four players of Julian deGuzman pedigree and quality.

[Gian-Luca]

Interesting & somewhat surprising to me that he said the Dale Mitchell is well-liked by the players (except Brennan presumably and possibly Friend). It's now been two months after Brennan's tirade to the press where he said that "pretty soon" we'd be hearing all about what a crap & nasty coach Mitchell is from the players and we are still none the wiser of what he did specifically that was so evil. And in fact we're seeing just as many players publicly defend the guy as have criticized him.

Before any of the knee-jerks reactions come my way, this is no way suggests I don't want a new coach in place for 2009. I think the coach does have to take some of the blame along with everyone else. It just gets back to what I think is not strong enough character in the group as it appears the moment things started to go wrong finger pointing & divisions happened in the team rather than everyone pulling their socks up to do whatever it took to make the next round.

As for Sutton's comments in general, I don't have a problem with them. I do think our preparation was good enough but I don't think there's anything really wrong per se in saying it can be improved and asking for more money for the programe. Having more players attend each camp would also be nice if they can afford it.

[VPjr]

Some of Greg's points were echoed by DDR in an interview conducted by Nigel Reed and Bob Iarusci last night (Fan590 Soccer Show).

http://www.fan590.com/onair/soccer/media.jsp?content=20081204_232140_5412

DDR's interview is the 2nd one on the show.

The first one is with Guy Bradbury of the OSA (explaining why the OSA has chosen to only support a $1 per player rather than $5 per player fee increase in 2009 (worth listening to as well).

[nolando]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

It's now been two months after Brennan's tirade to the press where he said that "pretty soon" we'd be hearing all about what a crap & nasty coach Mitchell is from the players and we are still none the wiser of what he did specifically that was so evil. And in fact we're seeing just as many players publicly defend the guy as have criticized him.

Thanks for reminding us..I'd totally forgotten that. This core group was more fractured, and fractured in more ways, than I think any of us have realised. Too many babies - not enough men, if you ask me.

[Guest Ed]

quote:Originally posted by VPjr

Some of Greg's points were echoed by DDR in an interview conducted by Nigel Reed and Bob Iarusci last night (Fan590 Soccer Show).

http://www.fan590.com/onair/soccer/media.jsp?content=20081204_232140_5412

DDR's interview is the 2nd one on the show.

The first one is with Guy Bradbury of the OSA (explaining why the OSA has chosen to only support a $1 per player rather than $5 per player fee increase in 2009 (worth listening to as well).

Why do these provincial (in every sense of the word) organizations rule the roost? I think the provincial associations should be disbanded. The one in Alberta with quite deliberate decisions HINDERS player development.

[Vic]

Shuold be interesting to hear the responses from Quebec, but I think that goes for politics as well.

[VPjr]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

Why do these provincial (in every sense of the word) organizations rule the roost? I think the provincial associations should be disbanded. The one in Alberta with quite deliberate decisions HINDERS player development.

I don't disagree with you regarding the provincial associations....I've got grave concerns about about their power over the CSA and their ability to dominate the agenda.

However, I'm more inclined to see this issue from the perspective of the community clubs who are going to be asked to fork out the money to fund the $5.00 fee (not the OSA or any other PSO). Budgets have been set, fee structures have been agreed to and we are entering into tough economic times. I'm not convinced that the CSA has made a convincing enough argument to justify this massive fee increase and I don't think they've done sufficient DIRECT consultation with the grassroots to create the comfort level necessary to see such a motion pass at the provincial board level.

Furthermore, I'm convinced that larger clubs can do alot more with that money to further player development than the CSA could. A club like Oakville SC would have to fork out $51K if the $5 per head fee increase were to have passed. Even if it's only $1 per player, that's a substantial $10K cheque being written to the CSA that could have gone to hiring another paid part time development coach.

The CSA needs to do a much better sell job on their plan to get the support of the people who truly possess the power of the purse in Canadian soccer. I hope they see this rejection as an opportunity rather than an obstacle because that is precisely what it is (especially if they are smart enough to do an end around the OSA and the other provincial associations and conduct DIRECT consultations with member clubs, who, in my opinion, would greatly appreciate a more direct relationship with the national association).

[Richard]

The provincial organisations have the influence they do over the CSA because the CSA is essentially constituted as an association of the provincial bodies, not an association of individual soccer player members. There is no direct link between the ordinary Canadian amateur soccer player and the national association and there is a very long and tenuous multi-level indirect process for selection of CSA board members. Ordinary soccer players really have zero direct influence over the CSA and who gets to serve on its board as a director.

The CSA has no mandate to consult with ordinary soccer players about its affairs including player registration taxes, only the provincial associations.

This is what I see as the fundamental flaw in the structure and administration of soccer in our country, it is unimaginably undemocratic at both the national and provincial level.

[The Ref]

I would not criticize Sutton for speaking out, on the contrary I congratulate him for doing so and joining the increasing number of players who are saying enough is enough. Sutton was very polite and political correct in what he said which really means the CSA chose a lousy coach who could not prepare a team and that they should look at themselves for screwing up so badly due to their internal politics.

And I agree with Richard, the CSA (the head) is so far away from the players and national teams without any clear connection that it cannot manage a national program no matter who is in their stupid board.

[Trillium]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

The provincial organisations have the influence they do over the CSA because the CSA is essentially constituted as an association of the provincial bodies, not an association of individual soccer player members. There is no direct link between the ordinary Canadian amateur soccer player and the national association and there is a very long and tenuous multi-level indirect process for selection of CSA board members. Ordinary soccer players really have zero direct influence over the CSA and who gets to serve on its board as a director.

The CSA has no mandate to consult with ordinary soccer players about its affairs including player registration taxes, only the provincial associations.

This is what I see as the fundamental flaw in the structure and administration of soccer in our country, it is unimaginably undemocratic at both the national and provincial level.

Richard.. your exactly right and the Provinces as evidenced by Ontario .. have no interest in changing. Democratic ? what is that Bradbury on the radio show says we are all members .. he in fact is lying.

[Richard]

"poor coaching is the primary reason we failed"

Nail gets hit right on the head yet again.

I have been saying it was a poor choice (in more ways than one) ever since DM's appointment was first announced.

[Grizzly]

It is also interesting that these criticisms come from someone who withdrew from the team. While some of his criticisms of the CSA are valid, another reason we didn't qualify is players who did not have enough commitment to the team like Sutton. The concepts of responsibility and self-criticism seem foreign to this team. I think the problem this WC was we had a team that lacked discipline, desire and motivation and Mitchell was not a coach who was able to provide this. We obviously needed a better coach who could discipline and motivate the players but that does not excuse the players for lacking this in the first place.

[ag futbol]

Anytime there's a failure, responsibility cascades top down. As was pointed out above, it didn't take long for a club like Spurs to turn things around with the right coach. Leadership and commitment of the players is going to be a fuction of the coaching and everything above. This is not a foreign concept to sports.

Everybody deserves blame but it goes: CSA executives and the provinces first, Dale Mitchell second, and the players third.

When your fearless leader is incompetent, it's going to cause a lot of strife within the team. Expecting these guys to basically organize themselves, stand on their head and win is out of the question.

Anyway, it would be nice if instead of prancing around in the media, a few of these players got organized and started lobying somebody like the minister of sport for a review of the organization. Take it to the next level!

[Richard]

Yes, some fault must rest with the players but the rot set in with an inadequate coach. After that it all tumbled down like a house of cards. This is not unique to a soccer team, it takes an unusual group that can thrive and succeed in the face of poor or even obstructive management.