Jump to content

Jamaica - Canada Jan 31


Recommended Posts

quote:Originally posted by TheKottonmouthed

It's time to retire some players that won't be around for 2014.

Radz, Sutton, KStam, DeRo, Stalteri, Hastings, Bernier, Serioux, and Hirschfeld possibly even Friend, Imhof, Gerba, Klukowski and Mckenna.

basically if your over 30 don't expect a call anytime soon.

We should be taking 2014 very seriously. 2014, 2018 are things CSA should be thinking about now. They will both deifnitely be good shots for us if we start to get these young guys ready.

We have a strong group of young players we could mold into a quality squad that could get out of qualifying stages in the CONCACAF if the proper steps are taken by the CSA.

All due respect, that's an idiotic strategy.

You keep the best players around until they are no longer the best, regardless of age. Sure, we have time to experiment and see which young guys are ready to step up, but Canada isn't in the position to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

And you need the best players to set an example for the young players in camp, even if they might not figure in the team a few years down the line. Canada is better served by Simeon Jackson training with Tomasz Radzinski even for a year and learning than if Radz is dropped completely now. The same can be applied to any number of our young players who may carry the torch in qualifying for '14.

Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by TheKottonmouthed

It's time to retire some players that won't be around for 2014.

Radz, Sutton, KStam, DeRo, Stalteri, Hastings, Bernier, Serioux, and Hirschfeld possibly even Friend, Imhof, Gerba, Klukowski and Mckenna.

basically if your over 30 don't expect a call anytime soon.

We should be taking 2014 very seriously. 2014, 2018 are things CSA should be thinking about now. They will both deifnitely be good shots for us if we start to get these young guys ready and capped.

We have a strong group of young players we could mold into a quality squad that could get out of qualifying stages in the CONCACAF if the proper steps are taken by the CSA.

I think we should introduce our young players gradually. We don't have the depth to not call players like Klukowski, DeRo, McKenna, Friend etc. That is like England not calling Lampard or Gerrard anymore just because they are past 30. We just can't give young players positions because they are oung

Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Obinna

I think we should introduce our young players gradually. We don't have the depth to not call players like Klukowski, DeRo, McKenna, Friend etc. That is like England not calling Lampard or Gerrard anymore just because they are past 30. We just can't give young players positions because they are oung

No, I agree with Kottonmouthed... If you are lets say over 30, and you won't be around in June 2014 then bye bye, they should be retired. Play all the young guys in our 2010 friendlies, and honestly it doesn't matter if we lose. Bringing in young guys gradually is a really weird myth that people believe in. How do the youngsters get better without playing? Play for Canada, learn about CONCACAF opponents now, then they'll be ready in 2012 for the WCQ. For this friendly I'd call: Hainault, Ethan Gage, Attakora, White, Will Johnson guys like that. If you can, from Europe I'd call Edgar, Peters, De Jong, Monsalve, Jackson, Hoilett. Get these players games now and early and in 2012 they'll be our stars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't FIFA 10, and players don't age in a straight line. Some rapidly decline, others remain at a high level much longer than their peers.

I'm not sure if some of you have noticed, by Canada isn't exactly teeming with depth. The best players should always be selected, regardless of age.

Obviously as time goes on the younger guys will become the best, that is just nature. But simply handing them spots because they were born in or after a certain year is not conducive to a competitive environment.

Jeff Cunningham just got recalled to the US National Team, and he'll be 34 years old by the time the World Cup rolls around. He had a great year in MLS and fills a need for the US, as resident speedy striker Charlie Davies is out with a long term injury. He's getting a shot based on his form, age be damned.

If the US, a far better team with much more depth than we have, can call guys in their mid 30's during their final few months until the WC, then we can certainly hang on to the older guys in our pool that still have the ability to contribute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Rudi

This isn't FIFA 10, and players don't age in a straight line. Some rapidly decline, others remain at a high level much longer than their peers.

I'm not sure if some of you have noticed, by Canada isn't exactly teeming with depth. The best players should always be selected, regardless of age.

Obviously as time goes on the younger guys will become the best, that is just nature. But simply handing them spots because they were born in or after a certain year is not conducive to a competitive environment.

Jeff Cunningham just got recalled to the US National Team, and he'll be 34 years old by the time the World Cup rolls around. He had a great year in MLS and fills a need for the US, as resident speedy striker Charlie Davies is out with a long term injury. He's getting a shot based on his form, age be damned.

If the US, a far better team with much more depth than we have, can call guys in their mid 30's during their final few months until the WC, then we can certainly hang on to the older guys in our pool that still have the ability to contribute.

Agree totally!! Build a tradition of winning and never rule anyone out!

Make players EARN their spots, if they haven't earned them by 2012 then they aren't our BEST and shouldn't be on the roster!! Its not that hard a concept.

Look at Carlos Pavon, Dwight Yorke, Walter Centeno..... stars for CONCACAF teams similar in talent to Canada at very old ages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by Keegan

Agree totally!! Build a tradition of winning and never rule anyone out!

Make players EARN their spots, if they haven't earned them by 2012 then they aren't our BEST and shouldn't be on the roster!! Its not that hard a concept.

Look at Carlos Pavon, Dwight Yorke, Walter Centeno..... stars for CONCACAF teams similar in talent to Canada at very old ages.

Exactly.

Hell, Amado Guevara is the Honduran captain and he'll be 34 next year, too. Should Honduras have thrown him away after they failed to qualify for WC 2006 simply because he was going to be "too old" in four years time?

Young players need to see that the national team is the place where the best players in this country reside, and if they want to become the best, they'll need to knock the incumbents off their perch. On the flip side, the young guys make the vets work that much harder.

It's the simplest formula in all of the sporting world, a good mix of vets and youth for the best overall team, yet some here seem all too keen to completely abandon it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe 30 years old is too young of a cut off. But lets say you are over 32/33 unless you're a keeper, you won't be playing in 3 years time. Yes some players play well when they are older like Cunningham and Guevara. But I don't think Radzinsky is going to improve. I don't think Bernier or Hastings should be around.

1 thing I don't like is thinking you're going to "ruin" a player by playing him too early. Attakora has played well for Toronto, CAP HIM! Hoilett is starting EPL games, CAP HIM! Johnson is a star in MLS, keep playing him. We have no decent keepers anymore... play Monsalve or Waganer. Take a chance with these young kids. Being young and good SHOULD earn you a spot for friendly games, even if you're worse than the 33 year old beside you. EX: Johnson or Bernier, play Will Johnson.

To summarize, use players who will play in June 2012 not the ones who are good in January 2010 and won't be around in 2.5 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Radzinski may not "improve" by the time the next qualifying campaign begins, but who's to say these younger guys will be a better option than him?

The only young guys right now that should be on the radar looking to get some player experience with the national team are Simeon Jackson, David Hoilett, Jaime Peters, Marcel De Jong, Will Johnson, Andrew Hainault, Nana Attakora and David Edgar.

Other guys like Marcus Haber, Jonathan Bourgault, Adam Straith and all the young goalies we have still have some work to go.

If the CSA pulls through with all the friendlies they said will be happening, everyone will get their shot eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by deschamp86

Radzinski may not "improve" by the time the next qualifying campaign begins, but who's to say these younger guys will be a better option than him?

The only young guys right now that should be on the radar looking to get some player experience with the national team are Simeon Jackson, David Hoilett, Jaime Peters, Marcel De Jong, Will Johnson, Andrew Hainault, Nana Attakora and David Edgar.

Other guys like Marcus Haber, Jonathan Bourgault, Adam Straith and all the young goalies we have still have some work to go.

If the CSA pulls through with all the friendlies they said will be happening, everyone will get their shot eventually.

Agreed! There are the "proven" youngsters playing at a high level regularly and then the unproven youngsters such as those you listed. I think Straith and Haber deserve looks as both have been good contributors for their clubs as of late.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jeffery S.

I agree totally with Rudi. Put your best players on the pitch every step of the way. If you are playing someone who is inferior to someone you have not called up, you are not doing your job as a coach. The kids want to go to the WC in 2014? Let them win a spot on the team, prove they deserve it. Just like in club football.

The young guys do not need practice or experience with the nats. They need to play great for their clubs. Then get a meritorious call-up. The national team is a handful of games a year, you are ready for them or you are not.

This is the best message to send out. Along with the message that says you cannot pick and choose, you come when you are called, always, whenever you can and there is no good reason for you not to.

No opting out clauses, that is total BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I agree with lots of this but also think that if the young players don't get called up then it's impossible to prove their worth. A David Monsalve, for example, can't show what he is worth if 31-year old Hirschfeld is still taking caps despite not playing regularly and despite the obvious fact that he might well be retired by the next world cup. Nic Ledgerwood or David Edgar can't crack the back-line and prove their usefulness if that large crop of 30-somethings (Serioux, Stalteri, Hastings, Mckenna, who is almost 30) is effectively blocking their passage for the next couple of years by making up the majority of the squad callups.

There has to be some balance there where you can keep a Radz like we did for the last cycle, but also you must be willing to take a chance on a younger crop despite that meaning a gamble in many cases. I know it made many here irate, but Yallop's bleeding of unproven but rising talents Peters, Simpson, Occean, and Serioux meant that we had them for many Gold Cups and qualifying cycles to come. Maybe Hart could split the difference and jettison a good portion of the aging and injury-prone players, while taking a chance on a few newbies. Some will surely fall on the sword, honourably and on their terms, as Imhof did which I think was a good move personally for the man and player and also for the MNT for the gesture towards the youth movement.

It should start with the Jamaica camp if you ask me, especially since, as Hart's coming out party it will allow him to start intentionally setting a foundation for the next years to come. Let' hope he has some vision going forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point. In the ideal situation when you are selecting the best available players, you're likely to get a mix of young and old, so that would be the happy medium. I'm going to give Hart some credit for at least having a look at some different guys and seeing if they have the chops for the task at hand. For instance, guys like Hemming, Ornoch, and Imhoff the Younger were brought in for the prep prior to the Cyprus match yet none made the dress list for the subsequent GC and most recent friendlies, so he probably feels that at this specific point in time that they don't provide an upgrade over the incumbents who are available. On the other hand, young guys like Jakovic, Jackson, and Johnson have appeared to make a breakthrough while Hainault is back on the radar and maybe Attakora is next in line come January and that will help serve us better in 2010.

I'm just not big on this notion of selecting any players, young and veteran alike, based solely on potential, reputation, and/or league pedigree. We need to build depth and position competition, and I think Hart has demonstrated enough to me in 2009 that he's on the right track for the immediate future at least. And he did imply that he is looking look to experiment somewhat, so we may see some more newbies get a look in the new year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by nolando

^^I agree with lots of this but also think that if the young players don't get called up then it's impossible to prove their worth. A David Monsalve, for example, can't show what he is worth if 31-year old Hirschfeld is still taking caps despite not playing regularly and despite the obvious fact that he might well be retired by the next world cup....

Playing an occasional B international tends to be the solution to those issues in a European context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by BearcatSA

I'm just not big on this notion of selecting any players, young and veteran alike, based solely on potential, reputation, and/or league pedigree.

I think we all agree with that, but some seem to consider the opposite to be OK, almost totally throwing out the notion of potential. Why ? I think the only real achievement a national team can target (or dream of in our case) is to qualify for the WC, nothing less. If it's not about that, then what's the purpose of talking and planning in terms of cycles ? I think we just can't simply say "you're the best today so you're in" and the day after "you're not the best anymore so you're out", followed the day after by "oh you're back to your former self, hey welcome back". We need a vision and a plan to get there. So for me the potential of each player is probably the most important criteria at this time of the cycle cause we're at the beginning.

For me, the "good mix between vets and youngsters" also means "a good mix between experienced players with no potential of getting better (or even slowing down) and up and coming players with no feats in their CV, not the best package for NOW but with much more potential for the coming years. Let's say we rate the players based on a 0 to 100 video game style scale, I'd prefer to call a player with an overall rating of 85 and a potential of 90 rather than a 90 player with a 50 potential rating. I know we live in a real world and we can't rate overall talent and potential in this clear cut way but you get the point. I don't say we ghould get rid of every 30+ years old players based on that at all, but how old you are (and potential) should be considered nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by the biologist

I think we all agree with that, but some seem to consider the opposite to be OK, almost totally throwing out the notion of potential. Why ? I think the only real achievement a national team can target (or dream of in our case) is to qualify for the WC, nothing less. If it's not about that, then what's the purpose of talking and planning in terms of cycles ? I think we just can't simply say "you're the best today so you're in" and the day after "you're not the best anymore so you're out", followed the day after by "oh you're back to your former self, hey welcome back". We need a vision and a plan to get there. So for me the potential of each player is probably the most important criteria at this time of the cycle cause we're at the beginning.

For me, the "good mix between vets and youngsters" also means "a good mix between experienced players with no potential of getting better (or even slowing down) and up and coming players with no feats in their CV, not the best package for NOW but with much more potential for the coming years. Let's say we rate the players based on a 0 to 100 video game style scale, I'd prefer to call a player with an overall rating of 85 and a potential of 90 rather than a 90 player with a 50 potential rating. I know we live in a real world and we can't rate overall talent and potential in this clear cut way but you get the point. I don't say we ghould get rid of every 30+ years old players based on that at all, but how old you are (and potential) should be considered nonetheless.

I like the video game analogy. Though I don't play them, I will try to explain my reasoning by continuing that analogy: that 85/90 young player looks like a guy who has established himself at club level but has not made the NT breakthrough yet because of the 90/50 veterans in front of him on the depth chart. I agree, that guy should be getting looked at closely and getting the nod, I have no argument with that. But they were a few young guys mentioned during the course of the discussion who have done precious little in their pro careers over the last year who some think should be selected based solely on their "upside."

In the end, the guy with the plan and the vision to assess this potential is Hart (for better or for worse, depending upon your opinion of him). So we'll see what he has in store for the coming year, beginning with the January camp. Hopefully we'll see him build depth and competition for places in the starting XI, looking for the best chemistry. Injuries and suspensions undermine an NT's selection continuity over the course of the year, but player form should not be disregarded. He's already demonstrated that he'll take a flyer on a few surprise candidates, so I'm sure we'll see one or two more in the coming year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The defintion of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and hope for a different result. To continue to call 30+ year old players who have managed to crap the bed in the last 2 WC qualifying campaigns, and expect a different result in 2012 is insane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because calling inexperienced guys like Simpson and Peters really worked well in 2004.

I'm with BearcatSA on this one. You try to give everyone a look and call the best available regardless of age. To reduce call ups to a question of age and what happened in the past WCQ is too simplistic IMO. Honduras NT have plenty of guys in their roster who are over 30 and failed for 2002 and 2006. I'm not sure why we shouldn't call a guy who's still good enough to play for us and can contribute positively to the team success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if Simpson and Peters had been called 12-18 months before the qualifiers started - you know, like now - we would have had a good idea of what they could do at that level. Those Hondurans you refer to, incidently, made the Hex in 2002, and earned 9 points in the semi's in 2006. If our guys were doing that we clearly would not be having this debate. But since we got got 5 points in 2006 and 2 this last go around in the semi's so I'd say the comparison is dubious at best. But I am not interested in pursuing arguments based on stupid debating tricks. We have two years to identify the players for the next go around. We play 6-7 games per year. Do the math. We gain nothing by calling guys with 40+ caps over and over again and wasting the few opportunities we have to integrate younger players who still have upside into our line-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidently, the 30 something player who had any significant playing time during the last qualifying cycle are: Onstad, Hirschfeld, Hastings, Serioux, Stalteri, Bernier, DeRosario and Radzinski. Most were found wanting and have younger players breathing down their necks. None of them are going to get better. Keeper is an exception as Wagenaar is not better than what we have and is unlikely to surpass and the <20s are still too far away. I'd rather see an extended run for Jacovic, Hainault, Attakora, Edgar, Simpson, Johnson, Jackson, Ledgerwood et. al. than any of the out players mentioned. As I noted above, all of the 30+ have 40+ caps except Serioux and all can easily be integrated back into the side in 2012 if no younger player steps up to replace them (and I'd be very surprised if this is the case for more than 1.) in the next 2 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, honestly, what's everyone arguing about? We already have a number of young players being introduced into the squad. At the moment we have Wagenaar (24/'85), Jakovic (24/'85), Ledgerwood (24/'85), Ornoch (24/'85), Hemming (24/'85), De Jong (23/'86), Hainault (23/'86), Johnson (22/'87), Jackson (22/'87) and Peters (22/'87) involved to various degrees in MNT games the past 2 years. We also could have had Begovic (22/'87), De Guzman (22/'87) and Lensky (21/'88) in the squad already. We could still have Edgar (22/'87), Hoilett (19/'90) and maybe Vitoria (22/'87).

The next batch of young players like Monsalve (21/'88), Attakora (20/'89), Haber (20/'89), Edwini-Bonsu (19/'90) and Straith (19/'90) will eventually be brought in slowly and integrated into the next Gold Cup squad if they are deserving.

The other point of significance on this issue is that we never really had a lot of older players in our WCQ squad to begin with. The only players over the age of 31 last year were Onstad (40/1968) and Radzinksi (34->35/Dec. 1973). Everyone else was born in 1977 or later - making them 31 years old or younger.

Current veterans in our player pool:

Radz (1973) 36->39

Stalteri, Imhof, Brennan, Sutton and Hastings (1977) 32->35

Hirschfeld and De Rosario (1978) 31->34

Bernier, Serioux and Stamatopolous (1979) 30->33

McKenna and Cann (1980) 29->32

Klukowski, De Guzman, Friend and Pozniak (1981) 28->31

Gerba (1982) 27->30

Hutchinson, Simpson and Hume (1983) 26->29

Harmse and Nakajima-Farran (1984) 25->28

Most of our current core players will still be young enough to contribute when the next WCQ cycle begins. And players like De Guzman, Hutch etc. who will be in their late 20's/early 30's will be counted on to lead the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Great summary jpg75. The core will definitely be the late 20s guys with some of the youngsters hopefully stepping up and contributing. Stalteri & Derosario keep themselves in great shape so they could be cover, or "one of the 3 at each position" that Hart hopes to have. Same for the likes of Bernier, Serioux & McKenna, although I would expect by that time only McKenna will still be a real contender as a starter. Hirschfeld I have to believe is our Number 1 until someone else (other than Onstad!) can rise up and challenge.

You never know though. Always a few surprises as WCQ approaches. Could Teal Bunbury be one in 2012? I'm betting him and one of our young gun keepers (Street, Stillo, Misciewicz or Latendresse).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...