Jump to content

Greg Sutton adds his voice to the anti-CSA debate


VPjr

Recommended Posts

you can blame the players all you want but I agree with those that say the issue starts with the CSA. It has shown its incompetence by hiring a coach that was way in over his head, had failed miserably with the U20 side, and had no international experience (ie. coaching outside of Canada). In my opinion, you cannot expect someone whose highest level of coaching was the Vancouver Whitecaps in Division 2 to step in and take over the national team. They simply do not have the expertise and experience to manage against teams and players who ply their trade at the highest levels. As we have only one professional side playing in a reasonably decent league (MLS) we simply do not have the training ground for coaches. Its all well and good, to say we need to improve coaching and I think you can at the youth and semi-professional level but when in terms of the national team you need a foreign coach who has experience at the highest levels in order to import that expertise to Canada. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years time when Canada has (hopefully) 4 or 5 MLS sides and that league has improved its level on the world stage, you may have the training ground for Canadian coaches. Until that time, the CSA is plain stupid to think they can run the national team with Canadian coaches. Its not surprising that if you look around the world and see emerging football coaches they almost all go for foreigners as coaches. To say "Canadian coaches understand the Canadian mentality of soccer players" is bonkers. It implies a level of arrogance and is down right racist as implies that Canadians are somehow inherently better than foreigners. As if Wenger, Scolari, Mourino etc. have not been able to get to grips with the English mentality quickly and excel in the premier league and this is in nation that founded the bloody sport.

Its no surprise that the one and only time we actually qualified for the World Cup we had a foreign coach who was trained abroad. In Waiters case, he had the benefit of also coaching the whitecaps but that was back in the old NASL days when the quality in that league was on par (or close to) with top levels in Europe and definitely alot closer in quality than the MLS is now.

Finally, the CSA has shown its incompetence by sticking with Mitchell after his disasterous start to the WCQ campaign. If we were a serious football playing nation and the CSA was a serious organisation, he would have been gone after the Honduras defeat at home or at least the match in Mexico. It was clear after those 3 matches, that he had no clue, the tactics he was using were down right mickey mouse, and he was out of his depth. The fact that he is still nominally in charge after this most disasterous campaign where we finished bottom of our group clearly shows that the CSA is absolutely rubbish.

So criticise the players all you want, but Sutton is absolutely spot on when he says with the CSA the way it is players will not be so likely to commit and some may play for other countries. On a personal level, I think this does verge on traitorous of the players (and indeed I have in the past called Hargreaves such a thing) but I am not naive enough to think this will not continue to go on until (if ever) the CSA sorts itself and becomes a professional organisation.

Finally, and I know I will be attacked for this on this site for saying, but anyone who thinks the rot doesn't start with the CSA and supports us hiring Canadian coaches for the national side is an idiot and frankly in my opinion an enemy of Canadian soccer development. In my opinion, you guys that advocate that are frankly a huge part of the problem and the reason Canadian soccer is such a sorry state. Its people like you who will continue (even though your intentions are pure and noble) to keep Canada down in the 80s in the world ranking and prevent us from qualifying for the world cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Again, Bruce Arena was hired by the USA with experience similar to what DM had (2-3 yrs in the MLS, a stint as U-23 coach and the rest mostly at UofVirginia...), but the USA players responded to him well and did achieve some nice results with him.

The problem wasn't Dale Mitchell experience as a coach, it was the way he was hired with all that mess that gave a great excuses to the players in the case of failure....

Sutton points about the CSA are well taken in some case but some other of his comments are beyond idiocy...just when he say that you can loose the first 2 games and get back in the hunt...or just saying that we had to play to our potential to qualify, comletly ignoring the fact that Honduras had problably their best team ever as well. Also, the fact that our players never take responsability for what happened is troublesome IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your choice of Arena makes my point. If someone has had a few years experience in the MLS and enjoyed great success, I think they are possibly worth a look as a national team coach. As I stated above, if someone coaches in the MLS, they have a possible pedigree. Considering Arena coached his MLS side to 3 consecutive MLS finals, 2 of which they won, before being hired to coach the US national side there is an argument to be made for his selection. He was hugely successful immediately prior to his selection.

Mitchel coached one year in USL-1 (which in spite of what people say is not the same as the MLS, even the players admit that) than went to coach our U-20 side. So he had exactly one year experience coaching basically a semi-professional side; and then our U-20 side where I think his lack of tactical ability was clearly exposed in the WC.

So these selections are not even comparable. If Canada had more successful managers in the MLS like Yallop, they would possibly be worth a gamble.

And your claim that Sutton's comments are beyond idiocy is unfounded. Eg. "just when he say that you can loose the first 2 games and get back in the hunt..." is definitely true. Just ask Jamaica. They had one point after 3 matches and only went out in the end on goal difference to Mexico. If Mexico wins the last match, or Canada pops a winner in Edmonton (which we easily could have), they would have been through. Now that is not saying you want to lose 2 matches, it just means you can and still get back into it.

Also, his comments were "if we played to our potential, we would have probably qualified". That's a more than fair comment. If we played to our potential, we probably would have qualified. He didn't say definitely qualify. Or we were guaranteed. And by us playing to our potential, it implies that we shut down other teams like Honduras. And certainly Honduras had a good side but on paper they were no better than us. In fact, I would argue they were slightly weaker especially on the back line. And certainly had less depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone listened to the DeRo interview, he said something that I thought was interesting (although he didn't fully complete his thought)

When asked about the NT situation, he said something along the line of "Dale is a good coach" but then later commented about how the team had good momentum coming out of the Gold Cup.... Without mentioning Stephen Hart's name directly, its clear (at least its clear to me) that he and probably many of the other players involved in the GC squad wanted Hart to lead the MNT into qualifying if they weren't going to get the foreign coach that was initially going to be hired.

Am I the only person who heard the interview and got that same impression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a whole lot more to being a successful coach in any sport than coaching experience and technical qualifications. This is especially so at the international level where the coach/manager is dealing with players experienced on the international scene and who understand the game as well as or better than the coach, and many of whom have better high level international club experience than he has. Man management skills and charisma are two that come to mind. DM regrettably is lacking in both of these and when combined with his relatively limited high level coaching experience we have what should have been a predictable recipe for failure. The CSA evidently didn't see that but some of us in this forum expressed grave concern about DM's appointment from the outset. Sadly we have been proven right. I have known DM for years and wish the man well but he was not the right choice to head the MNT program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

Your choice of Arena makes my point. If someone has had a few years experience in the MLS and enjoyed great success, I think they are possibly worth a look as a national team coach. As I stated above, if someone coaches in the MLS, they have a possible pedigree. Considering Arena coached his MLS side to 3 consecutive MLS finals, 2 of which they won, before being hired to coach the US national side there is an argument to be made for his selection. He was hugely successful immediately prior to his selection.

Mitchel coached one year in USL-1 (which in spite of what people say is not the same as the MLS, even the players admit that) than went to coach our U-20 side. So he had exactly one year experience coaching basically a semi-professional side; and then our U-20 side where I think his lack of tactical ability was clearly exposed in the WC.

So these selections are not even comparable. If Canada had more successful managers in the MLS like Yallop, they would possibly be worth a gamble.

And your claim that Sutton's comments are beyond idiocy is unfounded. Eg. "just when he say that you can loose the first 2 games and get back in the hunt..." is definitely true. Just ask Jamaica. They had one point after 3 matches and only went out in the end on goal difference to Mexico. If Mexico wins the last match, or Canada pops a winner in Edmonton (which we easily could have), they would have been through. Now that is not saying you want to lose 2 matches, it just means you can and still get back into it.

Also, his comments were "if we played to our potential, we would have probably qualified". That's a more than fair comment. If we played to our potential, we probably would have qualified. He didn't say definitely qualify. Or we were guaranteed. And by us playing to our potential, it implies that we shut down other teams like Honduras. And certainly Honduras had a good side but on paper they were no better than us. In fact, I would argue they were slightly weaker especially on the back line. And certainly had less depth.

When I brought Arena, I was responding to this part of your earlier post:

It has shown its incompetence by hiring a coach that was way in over his head, had failed miserably with the U20 side, and had no international experience (ie. coaching outside of Canada). In my opinion, you cannot expect someone whose highest level of coaching was the Vancouver Whitecaps in Division 2 to step in and take over the national team. They simply do not have the expertise and experience to manage against teams and players who ply their trade at the highest levels. As we have only one professional side playing in a reasonably decent league (MLS) we simply do not have the training ground for coaches. Its all well and good, to say we need to improve coaching and I think you can at the youth and semi-professional level but when in terms of the national team you need a foreign coach who has experience at the highest levels in order to import that expertise to Canada.

Arena had almost no international experience and limited pro coaching exprience in a brand new league that wasn't what it is today. Dale had a bit of experience like you pointed out and I'm not sure I see a great difference between the 2 men.

There are some difference between the two of them but overall it's not enough to disrespect one coach and give too much respect to the other.

I also strongly disagree with your assessment of Mitchell results with the U-20's. First, he did qualified us twice with some good results in CONCACAF. Second he had success and failures in WC but a fair assessment of the U-20's debacle in 2007 would include the fact that we didn't have one decent striker in that team (Johnson was playing in midfield) and that Austria and Chile were a lot better than us in term of talent (look at where some of their players are today).

I still doubt that the coach would change that much, our last 3 coaches had different CV and experiences and none has been able to win a game while we were still in the hunt in the CONCACAF group stage.

BTW An Observer, you should never forget the fact that some of the players who have spoked out against Mitchell have suggested Hart as a replacement....Someone who has 0 pro coaching experience....

I'm no fan of Mitchell's coaching and I think it was one of the problem but the players have to take responsability as well. Mitchell was set up for that kind of players reaction when he was hired.

As for Sutton comments maybe I used strong words but loo at the players comments prior to the first game, "it's a must win" "we need to take 6 pts at home" and stuff like that. When we lost 5 pts in those 2 games it was always going to almost impossible to qualify. Jamaica is a different story since they had that funny shcedule starting 3 games away and ending with 3 at home. I still think Sutton doesn't come up very well with a statement like that.

All the central americans people I've spoken to in my soccer community all agree with me when I told them we had a good team but they all thought that Honduras was a bit stronger than us. Most Costa Ricans and Salvadorians were very afraid of Honduras. And after watching them in 4 of their 6 games, I can understand why, Honduras is a very good team, better than us even if we play to our potential (which I'm not sure I know what it is....apart from being a sport cliché!)

BTW, I've seen some pictures of the hotel our MNT stayed during a camp in Florida and let me tell you that was a really nice Hotel, so I,m not sure what kind of criticism this was from Greg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by loyola

Arena had almost no international experience and limited pro coaching exprience in a brand new league that wasn't what it is today. Dale had a bit of experience like you pointed out and I'm not sure I see a great difference between the 2 men.

There are some difference between the two of them but overall it's not enough to disrespect one coach and give too much respect to the other.

I also strongly disagree with your assessment of Mitchell results with the U-20's. First, he did qualified us twice with some good results in CONCACAF. Second he had success and failures in WC but a fair assessment of the U-20's debacle in 2007 would include the fact that we didn't have one decent striker in that team (Johnson was playing in midfield) and that Austria and Chile were a lot better than us in term of talent (look at where some of their players are today).

I still doubt that the coach would change that much, our last 3 coaches had different CV and experiences and none has been able to win a game while we were still in the hunt in the CONCACAF group stage.

As per Richard's post above, it's not the CV that coaches the team, its the man. Bruce Arena's CV might have been just as skinny as Dale's (maybe somewhat skinnier, although I'd argue he had coached far more meaningful matches before being named coach of the US MNT than Dale has) but Arena has a certain quality that made him a good leader for that team. I'm not much of an Arena fan (I think the man's ego could fill all 20,000 seats at BMO Field) but he was able to produce results.

Dale Mitchell was a fine soccer player and performed very well for Canada's MNT. He's proven to be a mediocre coach if you judge is full body of work. His biggest problem is he's not a leader. He has ZERO inspirational qualities. He is not the type of coach a team rallies around.

Again, its not Dale's fault he was chosen for the job. That fault rests squarely on the CSA, especially Dale's cheering section on the board of directors (a certain VP comes to mind). However, just because he should never have got this job in the first place doesn't mean he's not ultimately a big part (if not the biggest part) of the failure of this MNT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by VPjr

As per Richard's post above, it's not the CV that coaches the team, its the man. Bruce Arena's CV might have been just as skinny as Dale's (maybe somewhat skinnier, although I'd argue he had coached far more meaningful matches before being named coach of the US MNT than Dale has) but Arena has a certain quality that made him a good leader for that team. I'm not much of an Arena fan (I think the man's ego could fill all 20,000 seats at BMO Field) but he was able to produce results.

Dale Mitchell was a fine soccer player and performed very well for Canada's MNT. He's proven to be a mediocre coach if you judge is full body of work. His biggest problem is he's not a leader. He has ZERO inspirational qualities. He is not the type of coach a team rallies around.

Again, its not Dale's fault he was chosen for the job. That fault rests squarely on the CSA, especially Dale's cheering section on the board of directors (a certain VP comes to mind). However, just because he should never have got this job in the first place doesn't mean he's not ultimately a big part (if not the biggest part) of the failure of this MNT.

I'm well aware of those charesteristic of a coach but the thing here is that we can only judge them on their CV. I don't know how they act in practices, pre-game, post game meetings, etc...so we can't really comment on that.

If this WCQ experience with DM means that he doesn't have the charisma and leadershîp necessary to lead a team, what did the 2003 and 2005 U-20 WCQ tournaments and the 2003 WC success meant in term of his leadership abilities? Also what does a USL coach of the year award mean? I personnaly don't really know....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

There is a whole lot more to being a successful coach in any sport than coaching experience and technical qualifications. This is especially so at the international level where the coach/manager is dealing with players experienced on the international scene and who understand the game as well as or better than the coach, and many of whom have better high level international club experience than he has. Man management skills and charisma are two that come to mind. DM regrettably is lacking in both of these and when combined with his relatively limited high level coaching experience we have what should have been a predictable recipe for failure. The CSA evidently didn't see that but some of us in this forum expressed grave concern about DM's appointment from the outset. Sadly we have been proven right. I have known DM for years and wish the man well but he was not the right choice to head the MNT program.

So, how do you explain the suggestion of Hart as a coach by JDG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

some of us in this forum expressed grave concern about DM's appointment from the outset. Sadly we have been proven right.

Some of us pointed out the lack of heart and missing leadership amongst the players before WCQ and sadly we were proven right.

If some had played as hard as they danced after losses, we might be in the hex now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by loyola

I'm well aware of those charesteristic of a coach but the thing here is that we can only judge them on their CV. I don't know how they act in practices, pre-game, post game meetings, etc...so we can't really comment on that.

If this WCQ experience with DM means that he doesn't have the charisma and leadershîp necessary to lead a team, what did the 2003 and 2005 U-20 WCQ tournaments and the 2003 WC success meant in term of his leadership abilities? Also what does a USL coach of the year award mean? I personnaly don't really know....

A proper vetting and interview process should have alerted any professional recruiter to the fact that DM was a third rate candidate for the MNT manager job. Nobody is hired for any high profile job on their written resume alone, especially one that requires high grade interpersonal and man management skills as well as some degree of charisma with a splash of ego such as this job does. I suspect that it was the untrained amateurs on the CSA BoD who made the hiring decision driven by ease of availability and low price and without outside professional input, much like they seem to run the rest of the organisation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the hiring process was a complete joke because those doing the hiring really did not know how to rank applicants in terms of their abilities.

To the arguement that DM had success in earlier coaching assignments, there is a huge jump between U-20 and the men's national team in terms of the playing experience and soccer IQ of the players. Looking at other sports, how many coaches move directly from junior hockey to the NHL or from college to the NBA or NFL? Yes there are exceptions, but for most there is a significant apprenticeship where coaches act as assistants and then move through a series of coaching jobs before getting comfortable.

In the case of the National Team, it is not a place for developing coaches because there is not a lot of in-game experience that can be gained when a team only plays a hand full of meaningful games per year. The rest are essentially exhibition games. I would say the if Hart was selected, he would face the same problems in the end.

quote:Originally posted by Richard

A proper vetting and interview process should have alerted any professional recruiter to the fact that DM was a third rate candidate for the MNT manager job. Nobody is hired for any high profile job on their written resume alone, especially one that requires high grade interpersonal and man management skills as well as some degree of charisma with a splash of ego such as this job does. I suspect that it was the untrained amateurs on the CSA BoD who made the hiring decision driven by ease of availability and low price and without outside professional input, much like they seem to run the rest of the organisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Canuck Oranje

First of all, the hiring process was a complete joke because those doing the hiring really did not know how to rank applicants in terms of their abilities.

To the arguement that DM had success in earlier coaching assignments, there is a huge jump between U-20 and the men's national team in terms of the playing experience and soccer IQ of the players. Looking at other sports, how many coaches move directly from junior hockey to the NHL or from college to the NBA or NFL? Yes there are exceptions, but for most there is a significant apprenticeship where coaches act as assistants and then move through a series of coaching jobs before getting comfortable.

In the case of the National Team, it is not a place for developing coaches because there is not a lot of in-game experience that can be gained when a team only plays a hand full of meaningful games per year. The rest are essentially exhibition games. I would say the if Hart was selected, he would face the same problems in the end.

You clearly haven't been paying attention because there's a lot of coaches moving between the NCAA and the NBA or NFL with mixed results over the years.

My point isn't that Mitchell was the best candidate or the hiring process was well conducted ( we all can agree that it was a joke) but that he didn't deserve the lack of respect he was shown AFTER WE FAILED TO QUALIFY. His CV, while nothing like an old international coach CV, it is still OK if you compare him to someone like Arena when he was hired. As for the leadership, he has won COY award with a D2 team and had some success with U-20's who responded to him well in 2003 and 2005.

I just think it is lame from the players to go after him like that when they just didn't take responsability. That's what decent pro do when their coach is under fire....but strangely enough our players act like they are fans (Voyageurs).

Like FK mentionned earlier, I bet most Central Americans nations have problem with their FA as well, but it only becomes a problem when you fail. Of course it's the job of the CSA to ask themselves what went wrong but the players should also ask themselves what they did wrong....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name the Head Coaches in the NFL that gained immediate success coming out of the NCAA. I know it has happened but I doubt it is as frequent as most think. Most move through assistant positions first and others end up going through a number of head coaching positions before gaining success.

Secondly, this is not about selecting one specific coach over another. It is about selecting the best coach available at the cost that the association can afford. That clearly was not done.

But most importantly, while I agree that the players must accept some responsibility for the lack of success, I haven't read anywhere where Mitchell has accepted any responsibility for failure. Neither at the U-20 nor at the MNT level. Then again, I may not have been paying attention.

quote:Originally posted by loyola

You clearly haven't been paying attention because there's a lot of coaches moving between the NCAA and the NBA or NFL with mixed results over the years.

My point isn't that Mitchell was the best candidate or the hiring process was well conducted ( we all can agree that it was a joke) but that he didn't deserve the lack of respect he was shown AFTER WE FAILED TO QUALIFY. His CV, while nothing like an old international coach CV, it is still OK if you compare him to someone like Arena when he was hired. As for the leadership, he has won COY award with a D2 team and had some success with U-20's who responded to him well in 2003 and 2005.

I just think it is lame from the players to go after him like that when they just didn't take responsability. That's what decent pro do when their coach is under fire....but strangely enough our players act like they are fans (Voyageurs).

Like FK mentionned earlier, I bet most Central Americans nations have problem with their FA as well, but it only becomes a problem when you fail. Of course it's the job of the CSA to ask themselves what went wrong but the players should also ask themselves what they did wrong....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name the Head Coaches in the NFL that gained immediate success coming out of the NCAA. I know it has happened but I doubt it is as frequent as most think. Most move through assistant positions first and others end up going through a number of head coaching positions before gaining success.

Secondly, this is not about selecting one specific coach over another. It is about selecting the best coach available at the cost that the association can afford. That clearly was not done.

But most importantly, while I agree that the players must accept some responsibility for the lack of success, I haven't read anywhere where Mitchell has accepted any responsibility for failure. Neither at the U-20 nor at the MNT level. Then again, I may not have been paying attention.

quote:Originally posted by loyola

You clearly haven't been paying attention because there's a lot of coaches moving between the NCAA and the NBA or NFL with mixed results over the years.

My point isn't that Mitchell was the best candidate or the hiring process was well conducted ( we all can agree that it was a joke) but that he didn't deserve the lack of respect he was shown AFTER WE FAILED TO QUALIFY. His CV, while nothing like an old international coach CV, it is still OK if you compare him to someone like Arena when he was hired. As for the leadership, he has won COY award with a D2 team and had some success with U-20's who responded to him well in 2003 and 2005.

I just think it is lame from the players to go after him like that when they just didn't take responsability. That's what decent pro do when their coach is under fire....but strangely enough our players act like they are fans (Voyageurs).

Like FK mentionned earlier, I bet most Central Americans nations have problem with their FA as well, but it only becomes a problem when you fail. Of course it's the job of the CSA to ask themselves what went wrong but the players should also ask themselves what they did wrong....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Canuck Oranje

Name the Head Coaches in the NFL that gained immediate success coming out of the NCAA. I know it has happened but I doubt it is as frequent as most think. Most move through assistant positions first and others end up going through a number of head coaching positions before gaining success.

Secondly, this is not about selecting one specific coach over another. It is about selecting the best coach available at the cost that the association can afford. That clearly was not done.

But most importantly, while I agree that the players must accept some responsibility for the lack of success, I haven't read anywhere where Mitchell has accepted any responsibility for failure. Neither at the U-20 nor at the MNT level. Then again, I may not have been paying attention.

It depends of what you mean by immediate success. A former NCAA coach who takes over the Clippers will have a different criteria for success than a NCAA coach taking over the Lakers...

Where did I say that it was correct for Mitchell not to take the blame? I said it before, the players and coaching staff must take the blame, and none has done it.

Mitchell comments about the U-20's was interpreted as a shot to the players but I think is assessment was fair since we clearly didn't have the talent that Austria and Chile had, we were way overmatched. Only Congo, the only game we played really well (without scoring) we could've got a result. I'm sorry but I didn't side with him at first but a year after when I look at where the players have gone I have to agree that we didn't have enough talent this time around! Maybe he shouldn't have say it, or rephrase it differently, but he was right IMO.

This time, he hasn't said anything like that because he knew we weren't a lot weaker than the other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Canuck Oranje

Name the Head Coaches in the NFL that gained immediate success coming out of the NCAA. I know it has happened but I doubt it is as frequent as most think. Most move through assistant positions first and others end up going through a number of head coaching positions before gaining success.

Secondly, this is not about selecting one specific coach over another. It is about selecting the best coach available at the cost that the association can afford. That clearly was not done.

But most importantly, while I agree that the players must accept some responsibility for the lack of success, I haven't read anywhere where Mitchell has accepted any responsibility for failure. Neither at the U-20 nor at the MNT level. Then again, I may not have been paying attention.

It depends of what you mean by immediate success. A former NCAA coach who takes over the Clippers will have a different criteria for success than a NCAA coach taking over the Lakers...

Where did I say that it was correct for Mitchell not to take the blame? I said it before, the players and coaching staff must take the blame, and none has done it.

Mitchell comments about the U-20's was interpreted as a shot to the players but I think is assessment was fair since we clearly didn't have the talent that Austria and Chile had, we were way overmatched. Only Congo, the only game we played really well (without scoring) we could've got a result. I'm sorry but I didn't side with him at first but a year after when I look at where the players have gone I have to agree that we didn't have enough talent this time around! Maybe he shouldn't have say it, or rephrase it differently, but he was right IMO.

This time, he hasn't said anything like that because he knew we weren't a lot weaker than the other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but other than the fact they were both "professional coaches" in a north american league these guys are completely different.

You really want to tell us this actually compares to dale Mitchell? I think not, Arena has accomplished much more.

On January 3, 1996, Arena left U.Va. to become the coach of D.C. United of Major League Soccer. The 1996 season would be both the team's and the league's inaugural season, so Arena needed to build a team from scratch. To make his position even more difficult, he had agreed to coach the U.S. U-23 national team at the 1996 Summer Olympics where it went 1-1-1. Despite the distraction of the Olympics, Arena managed to form his team and lead United to victory in the first MLS Cup. In addition to the MLS Title, Arena also took United to the 1996 U.S. Open Cup championship. Arena and United continued to experience success in 1997. The team won its second MLS Cup defeating the Colorado Rapids 2-1. Arena's success led to his selection as the 1997 MLS Coach of the Year. This year, Arena took United to the semifinals of the CONCACAF Champions' Cup. In 1998, Arena took United to its third consecutive MLS Cup only to see his team fall to the expansion Chicago Fire led by his protege Bob Bradley. However, while Arena failed to add another MLS championship to his resume, he guided United to the CONCACAF Champions' Cup title with a 1-0 victory over Toluca on August 16, 1998. He followed that with a defeat of Brazilian club Vasco da Gama to take the Interamerican Cup title. Arena was also the 1997 and 1998 MLS All-Star head coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but other than the fact they were both "professional coaches" in a north american league these guys are completely different.

You really want to tell us this actually compares to dale Mitchell? I think not, Arena has accomplished much more.

On January 3, 1996, Arena left U.Va. to become the coach of D.C. United of Major League Soccer. The 1996 season would be both the team's and the league's inaugural season, so Arena needed to build a team from scratch. To make his position even more difficult, he had agreed to coach the U.S. U-23 national team at the 1996 Summer Olympics where it went 1-1-1. Despite the distraction of the Olympics, Arena managed to form his team and lead United to victory in the first MLS Cup. In addition to the MLS Title, Arena also took United to the 1996 U.S. Open Cup championship. Arena and United continued to experience success in 1997. The team won its second MLS Cup defeating the Colorado Rapids 2-1. Arena's success led to his selection as the 1997 MLS Coach of the Year. This year, Arena took United to the semifinals of the CONCACAF Champions' Cup. In 1998, Arena took United to its third consecutive MLS Cup only to see his team fall to the expansion Chicago Fire led by his protege Bob Bradley. However, while Arena failed to add another MLS championship to his resume, he guided United to the CONCACAF Champions' Cup title with a 1-0 victory over Toluca on August 16, 1998. He followed that with a defeat of Brazilian club Vasco da Gama to take the Interamerican Cup title. Arena was also the 1997 and 1998 MLS All-Star head coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

the better way soccer show feed link

http://feeds.feedburner.com/SoccerShow

the original soccer show source

http://qml.quiettouch.com/files/radio/fan590/podcasts/soccer_show/ss-20081204.mp3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

the better way soccer show feed link

http://feeds.feedburner.com/SoccerShow

the original soccer show source

http://qml.quiettouch.com/files/radio/fan590/podcasts/soccer_show/ss-20081204.mp3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I didn't search all the NBA teams to see where the Head Coaches were hired from but it is clear from my limited search that most if not all have at least played at the same level as the players they coach. Most also did some time as assistants at the NBA level before taking a head coaching position including Mike Dunleavy with the Clippers. The NFL is the same and there may be a one or two NHL coaches that haven't coached at the Professional level and not played in the NHL. My point is that the move is not easy and it takes an exceptional individual to make the move. Most fail. Rick Pitino's attempts in NBA is a high profile example.

As I said before, the MNT is not a place to develop coaches because the team does not play enough meaningful games (friendlies are not meaningful for a coach). To make matters worse, many of the national team players currently play at a higher club level than Mitchell has ever played. The fact that Mitchell made it to the World Cup in 1986 is irrevelant because the Canadian team was uncompetitive when it reached that tournament.

Regarding Bruce Arena, I would argue the years he spent at DC United put him in a better position to take the national team than Mitchell's years with the U-20 team. But I would agree that his CV is also a little thin. One thing that Arena had going for him that Mitchell did not is the NCAA system. Many (not all) of the USA players went through that system even when they went overseas.

Another point, the USA did not gain much success internationally until Milutinovic had the team and the USSF actually had the team together for an extended preparation prior to the 1994 WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I didn't search all the NBA teams to see where the Head Coaches were hired from but it is clear from my limited search that most if not all have at least played at the same level as the players they coach. Most also did some time as assistants at the NBA level before taking a head coaching position including Mike Dunleavy with the Clippers. The NFL is the same and there may be a one or two NHL coaches that haven't coached at the Professional level and not played in the NHL. My point is that the move is not easy and it takes an exceptional individual to make the move. Most fail. Rick Pitino's attempts in NBA is a high profile example.

As I said before, the MNT is not a place to develop coaches because the team does not play enough meaningful games (friendlies are not meaningful for a coach). To make matters worse, many of the national team players currently play at a higher club level than Mitchell has ever played. The fact that Mitchell made it to the World Cup in 1986 is irrevelant because the Canadian team was uncompetitive when it reached that tournament.

Regarding Bruce Arena, I would argue the years he spent at DC United put him in a better position to take the national team than Mitchell's years with the U-20 team. But I would agree that his CV is also a little thin. One thing that Arena had going for him that Mitchell did not is the NCAA system. Many (not all) of the USA players went through that system even when they went overseas.

Another point, the USA did not gain much success internationally until Milutinovic had the team and the USSF actually had the team together for an extended preparation prior to the 1994 WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Dunleavy wasn't an example of someone coaching in the NCAA moving to the NBA. Actually, he never coached a pro team before getting the Lakers job in 1990.

Let's not forget that DM was Yallop only assistant coach during the 2004 WCQ. So he did serve some time as an assistant and knew the players, and the players knew him.

I also think DM CV is thin but I don't think he was the clueless guy that some are trying to portrait him here. He coached some teams to some success results in the past. He also played in the region and had success with our MNT (something Bruce Arena didn't have for him for all that's worth).

Some in this thread have argued that games at the U-20 results are less tactically demanding for coaches. Can someone explain that one to me? I fail to see where's the difference, the games aren't ending 5-3 at the U-20 level, it's 1-0 and 0-0. I think the main difference between youth and senior is in the management of the players, not with tactics.

The irony is that our great players with so called great soccer IQ are suggesting Stephen Hart, who has virtually no playing experience and very limited coaching experience apart from a student job as the MNT coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Perhaps he might have been over his head a bit,"... read: Dale brought nothing to the table to help the team win games. Glad you said it Sutton. Good article. The more fingers pointed at the CSA the better.

Dale Mitchell was a poor choice in every single way. His appointment was based on the CSA being cheap and everyone kows it. Trying to justify it in retrospect based on his U20 record and ncaa basketball coaches is stupid. In general, u20 coaches are suitable candidates for the NT. Pekerman comes to mind. The difference with Mitchell is that Mitchell was a poor coach. Recent U20 successes are owed to Hume and Gyaki, not Mitchell, and that is obvious. There is no defending his appointment. It was not a reasonable move because there were clearly better options.

Stephen Hart was at least well liked as a person by the players and had a good gold cup with them. If you know youre going to get stuck with an inexperienced coach, he might as well be a nice guy and not a total loser in terms of personality like Dale.

Nobody in their right mind would have picked Dale over Hart, Ozzie Ardilles or Simoes. This was a scandalous decision. If we were going to qualify, it would have been despite Dale. I honestly thought the talent would carry us through despite dale, but the group proved to be too tough. We needed a good coach to qualify.

Simoes would have been perfect for us. His style suits us so much more than the jamaicans. unlike jamaica, we actually had the players to pull off simoes' ideas and i have no doubt that he would have left any prima donna out of the squad, and that julian would have been in his hotel room after the honduras game not at a club. Julian, deRo, stalteri knew that theyd never be dropped by ball-less mitchell and so complacency set in. Simoes would have put everyone on edge, stalteri and dero for sure would have seen the bench... it all could have gone so different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...