Jump to content

Paul James being Paul James


ag futbol

Recommended Posts

Why would you call it garbage? I find it difficult to argue with anything that James said, and wonder how De Rosario can escape his role in this whole situation.

"Hey, I really want strawberry ice cream... (gets strawberry ice cream)... I hate strawberry ice cream."

I guess playing for TFC has given him insulation from this, but I think James is pretty accurate on this. I think you should explain yourself a little more, as to why you call this garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get what the problem is here. It seems some people here a little bit too sensitive to players being criticized by the medias.

The idea of a player involved in the selection process was discussed here and a lot of people didn't like it, just like PJ. It's the same for the idea of having a comitee of experts, nothing really surprising here.

When DeRo and Brennan deciced to have a go at DM when we weren't out of the 2010 WCQ was disgusting and a lot of V's agreed that their timing was poor and disrespecting for the players in Honduras who were going to play a crucial WCQ. Right or wrong, a player should never do something like that and PJ is right about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far be it for me to defend DeRo, but my recollection was that DeRo was on the committee that selected Simoes not Mitchell. Nevertheless, I do agree he should have gotten a lot more heat for betraying the team when they were not eliminated from WCQ. The James article is pretty useless in that it is comparing two completely different situations. LeBlanc can afford to sit out his A squad because the B squad is pretty strong. We cannot afford to have a coach who pisses off half our players because we have noone to replace them with.

There is always the debate about whether a disciplinarian or player's coach would be better for a certain team. If we are to hire a disciplinarian we probably need to do it not too long before WCQ because the discipline may have a good effect in the short run but if player-coach conflicts develop we don't have the depth to replace players.

As far as DeRo being captain, there is probably no player less deserving of being captain based on his attitude and previous national team performances. In my books judging from his national team play solely and excluding MLS, DeRo is not even a starter for the national team. He has never done for the national team what he does at the MLS level. Nevertheless, he is exactly the type of player we lack and if he could ever do what he does in MLS consistently for the national team it would really increase our qualifying chances. Unless JDG2 or Hoillet commits to Canada we also don't have anyone else to play this role. There is the question of whether he has the ability to do what he does in MLS internationally but obviously Hart thinks he does.

In my opinion Hart has made a calculated gamble of the type that usually determines a coach's fate of being successful or getting fired. He is hoping being captain will motivate DeRo to raise his game and provide the type of player we need. If he and the team are playing well, DeRo is very enthusiastic and could be a good captain. If he and the team are not playing well he is probably the worst choice possible for captain. Hart has decided that we absolutely need DeRo to perform at his MLS level internationally and that he is capable of doing so and thus has done everything he can to ensure this. If it works he'll be a genius and if not he should be fired before WCQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far be it for me to defend DeRo, but my recollection was that DeRo was on the committee that selected Simoes not Mitchell.

That's how I remember it too. Further to that, De Rosario said himself that he was surprised that he was asked to give his opinion. My understanding is that he didn't campaign for anyone, but was asked to give a player's perspective once the group had been whittled down to four candidates.

RJB, your ice cream analogy doesn't really work. It's more along the lines of "We have liver flavoured ice cream and beet flavoured ice cream for you DeRo. Which one would you prefer?" It doesn't mean that he campaigned for either but picked the lesser of two evils.

And Loyola, I don't think people here are too sensitive. It's more a fact of being tired of Paul trotting out the same line again and again. You really have to admit that his comparison of the two situations is tenuous at best. He seems to try to use every opportunity he can to shine a light on the fact that he thinks most of our player pool is comprised of a bunch of spoiled brats. That's all well and good for him, but don't insult our intelligence by trying to draw comparisons that don't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I like what Blanc has done in response to the mutiny I also don't think there was anything particularly brave about suspending the French 23 for the match against Norway. Big deal. Most of them didn't want to play it anyway so whoop-to-do. Classic theater. The players know it, Blanc and the federation know it, the French public know it. Not saying a message isn't being sent just saying the message isn't anywhere near being some sort of nuclear threat.

James trying to make a point, again, but clearly trotting out the wrong gauge to do it. And besides, what exactly is that point again? Has some new bit of information recently surfaced to indicate that Hart is being bullied by our spoiled player pool? Know I haven't been around much lately but I don't think I missed anything that important.

P.S. Really, we should get into the habit of copy & paste with crap article like this. I suspect with every hit on the Globe's website our Mr. James makes a nickle or two. I hate the thought of being used so cheaply and it's not even a Friday night.

P.S.S. (...)=s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't PJ is mad at DeRo for being there. He's just pointing out to the CSA culture which gave too much importance to a player opinion in a decision where players should have minimal impact. Well, that's how I read theses paragraphs:

Eliminating player involvement in the selection process should be made without commotion. After all, it is not a university or high-school coaching job. It is a job leading a nation into competition against other nations.

Having players as a part of selection committees or firing squads inverts the power base which empowers players and diffuses their accountability. It is an amateur way of doing business when total professionalism is required.

It looks like the problem is the CSA here, not DeRo.

I also remember DeRo was suppose to be endorsing Simoes when Simoes/DM and SH were the last 3 candidates which put DeRo in a conflicting situation when the Simoes fiasco happened.

I don't think PJ is suggesting we should've suspended all our players but that players who acted like idiots in 2008 (DeRo and Brennan) shouldn't be rewarded for their actions which was detrimental to the team at that time. It showed poor leadership and a lack of respect to the players and to the fans who were still believing we could qualify.

Yes, I think people are too sensitive. It's maybe not the best analogy but the problems he is pointing at do exist and are part of a cultural problem at the CSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far be it for me to defend DeRo, but my recollection was that DeRo was on the committee that selected Simoes not Mitchell. Nevertheless, I do agree he should have gotten a lot more heat for betraying the team when they were not eliminated from WCQ. The James article is pretty useless in that it is comparing two completely different situations. LeBlanc can afford to sit out his A squad because the B squad is pretty strong. We cannot afford to have a coach who pisses off half our players because we have noone to replace them with.

The last 3 candidates were DM, Simoes and Hart. That's where DeRo was involved in the process and if I rmeember correctly, he was there during interviews. DeRo himself said it was bizarre being there.

BTW, I don't think PJ is suggesting we should suspend half the team but having a tougher stance toward the 1-2 bad apples that you can have at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that Garbage? Whats wrong with what was written?

I said so at the time. Its never a good idea to "FORMALLY" involve the players in the selection process for a coach of any team sport. Other than in the NBA, no organization anywhere can function properly under those circumstances. The key word word being "Formally". It works in the NBA because th NBA is really about its stars. the stars players really determine everything.

Its perfectly good, to informally ask one or a small group of of your key players for feedback on a certain candidate(s) and you should weigh that input into consideration but the ultimate decision should rest with someone who is ultimately accountable to the selection that he or she makes. The skills that are involved in making those decision and that you need to look for in a candidate, is something that you acquire or learn. Whereas the main skills that players possess relate to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the article. It was a matter of the CSA wanting player "buy-in" at the time. That theory obviously didn't work. Hart should pick his team and if wants to ask the advice of his key players, that is his decision. Living and dying by sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ (re. Free Kick's post) That's not the issue that James is harping on though. I think a lot of people here were surprised that DeRo was involved in the selection process and didn't really support that as an initiative that should remain. Were the players consulted before Hart was hired? Not to my knowledge. So, his call for a change in the hiring process is a non-starter.

His main thesis is that "Canada should do what Blanc is doing" (it's in the damn title of his piece, for crying out loud). So, what did Blanc do? He banned every player from the WC squad for the next game (which is meaningless, is it not). He did not change the governing structure of the French Federation nor did he call for sweeping changes. Why did Blanc do what he did? Presumably due to the players *****ing and moaning and being generally weak of character. What is the fallout of this according to James? "The chance to build and solidify future success based firstly on solid principles of loyalty and respect of authority...."

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out that James is taking another shot at the players. Deconstructing his piece, he's advocating for the dropping of all players that he deems to be weak of character from the MNT setup (presumably fielding a team consisting of just Hastings and Watson then). What's interesting is his statement I quoted above about loyalty and respect of authority. To me this seems like he wants players that aren't allowed to speak their mind, so his problem wasn't with the timing of DeRosario's comments (which was a problem for a lot of people here) but the fact that he made them at all. Appointing a coach and then insulating him from all criticism (even when it is warrented) is not a great idea, in my opinion.

The reason why it is garbage can be found in the title of this thread. As Ag Futbol aptly put it, this is Paul James being Paul James. He is using a current story to tenuously bring up a 2+ year old story to take another shot at the players. This is boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone's entitled to an opinion so I won't disparage PJ's piece. I don't agree with everything in it but there are parts that I absolutely do agree with.

I agree 100% with him that a manager must have control over his team and he must have the support of the management (in the case of a National Team, the national federation) if it is determined that extreme measures are needed to regain control over a team that had lost its way. It's fairly easy, in light of the embarrassing display by the French NT at the recently completed WC, for the FFF and Laurent Blanc to make the decision to suspend the whole team, at least for 1 friendly. I am sure some of those players who embarrassed their country in South Africa will never return to the NT but I am willing to bet that many of the key players will because, at the end of the day, the French want to win and they won't do that with a B-Squad. When Euro qualifying starts, many of the key players will be back.

I also agree with PJ when he says that players can never be part of the formal process of hiring their boss. That was crazy on the CSA's part to have DeRo part of a hiring committee. However, once Simoes was out of the picture, I do not think Dwayne had a say in the hiring of DM or SH.

Also, my recollection is that DeRo was not immediately brought back into the squad in the SH era (He didn't go to Macedonia or Poland) and I don't recall him getting the arm band, at least not in Argentina...Diesel was the captain there. Is my memory failing me? Did DeRo get named captain in a match before Argentina?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, my recollection is that DeRo was not immediately brought back into the squad in the SH era (He didn't go to Macedonia or Poland) and I don't recall him getting the arm band, at least not in Argentina...Diesel was the captain there. Is my memory failing me? Did DeRo get named captain in a match before Argentina?

The only game that DeRo has played since the Mexico WCQ was the Argentina game (according to CSA records). I'll assume James is correct in that DeRo was the captain for that game as I can't find any proof that he wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say he was announced as "the new captain" for that game, he was just announced as "the captain." Stalteri was not able to make that game, so a captain was needed. Stalteri was again captain for the Argentina game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ (re. Free Kick's post) That's not the issue that James is harping on though. I think a lot of people here were surprised that DeRo was involved in the selection process and didn't really support that as an initiative that should remain. Were the players consulted before Hart was hired? Not to my knowledge. So, his call for a change in the hiring process is a non-starter.

His main thesis is that "Canada should do what Blanc is doing" (it's in the damn title of his piece, for crying out loud). So, what did Blanc do? He banned every player from the WC squad for the next game (which is meaningless, is it not). He did not change the governing structure of the French Federation nor did he call for sweeping changes. Why did Blanc do what he did? Presumably due to the players *****ing and moaning and being generally weak of character. What is the fallout of this according to James? "The chance to build and solidify future success based firstly on solid principles of loyalty and respect of authority...."

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out that James is taking another shot at the players. Deconstructing his piece, he's advocating for the dropping of all players that he deems to be weak of character from the MNT setup (presumably fielding a team consisting of just Hastings and Watson then). What's interesting is his statement I quoted above about loyalty and respect of authority. To me this seems like he wants players that aren't allowed to speak their mind, so his problem wasn't with the timing of DeRosario's comments (which was a problem for a lot of people here) but the fact that he made them at all. Appointing a coach and then insulating him from all criticism (even when it is warrented) is not a great idea, in my opinion.

The reason why it is garbage can be found in the title of this thread. As Ag Futbol aptly put it, this is Paul James being Paul James. He is using a current story to tenuously bring up a 2+ year old story to take another shot at the players. This is boring.

Just under the title you can read this "Canadian soccer could learn from action taken by French coach" and I think that's PJ main point.

I think his main frustration is the main core of players should've been taking care of in 2008-2009 when we failed to qualify and certain players tried single out DM as the main culprit. Instead of adopting a tough stance toward these guys, the first thing we are doing is giving one of the leader of the "it's not my fault" camp the armband for his first game back.

Maybe PJ is being repititive but I don't think this article is garbage, it's is using the FFF situation as an example to follow and it's not a bad the idea for the next time a frustrated player opens his mouth while we are still trying to qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out that James is taking another shot at the players. Deconstructing his piece, he's advocating for the dropping of all players that he deems to be weak of character from the MNT setup (presumably fielding a team consisting of just Hastings and Watson then). What's interesting is his statement I quoted above about loyalty and respect of authority. To me this seems like he wants players that aren't allowed to speak their mind, so his problem wasn't with the timing of DeRosario's comments (which was a problem for a lot of people here) but the fact that he made them at all. Appointing a coach and then insulating him from all criticism (even when it is warrented) is not a great idea, in my opinion.

If that's what he is getting at, then I am with you. But I have not interpretetd these pieces to the same extreme that you presented it. I was going to do a break down of each game in the semi final round over the past three world cup cycles and list a principle factor ( talent, mental preparation/attitude, refereeing) for the outcome. Remember, we did not win a single game of any significance in WCQ over this whole period.

Off the top of my head, the adverse results for two of the three opening games in the past WCQ semi final rounds ( ie.: versus Guatemala in 2004 and versus jamaica in 2008) could be attributed to the factors that Paul James has been getting at in his series of artcles. The exception to me is that opener in 2000 against T&T whereby it all came down to talent, they had a Dwight Yorke and we didn't.

You could find other examples I am sure and you could find just as many whereby we just beaten by the better team. We didn't have the talent to qualify for the any of WC's but I still dont see an abundance of talent in Guatemala either. Therefore, with the right attitude, you could make a case that in at least one of those past three cycles, we might have been good enough to play in hex.

In short, where I find agreement with paul james's is that he is taking up the cause against that oft repeated false and overly simplistic notion amongst some the fans that says: " We have the talent to play in WC the reason we dont is ALL the fault of the CSA". Hence the CSA has become a scapegoat and a means of denial and playing ostridge to the other causes for our lack of successes. The CSA certainly dont deserve any applause, but pointing the finger solely at a national body is extremely naive.

I see this notion: " " We have the talent to play in WC the reason we dont is ALL the fault of the CSA". as mantra for those who lack perspective or have only just stated following things of dont follow or thinks things out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out that James is taking another shot at the players. Deconstructing his piece, he's advocating for the dropping of all players that he deems to be weak of character from the MNT setup (presumably fielding a team consisting of just Hastings and Watson then). What's interesting is his statement I quoted above about loyalty and respect of authority. To me this seems like he wants players that aren't allowed to speak their mind, so his problem wasn't with the timing of DeRosario's comments (which was a problem for a lot of people here) but the fact that he made them at all. Appointing a coach and then insulating him from all criticism (even when it is warrented) is not a great idea, in my opinion.

I don't think it's about shutting the players mouth, it is about having players professionnal and strong enough to stick together when we are facing elimination.

You are also opening a pandora box about letting players criticize the coach "when it is warrented". Unless a coach is doing something crazy or illegal players should just go on with what the coach is doing and play. Of course, they can go to the CSA if there's really something serious going on but going public like they did in 2008 or refusing to train like France did this year is a no-no IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's about shutting the players mouth, it is about having players professionnal and strong enough to stick together when we are facing elimination.

You are also opening a pandora box about letting players criticize the coach "when it is warrented". Unless a coach is doing something crazy or illegal players should just go on with what the coach is doing and play. Of course, they can go to the CSA if there's really something serious going on but going public like they did in 2008 or refusing to train like France did this year is a no-no IMO.

Exactly. We have to draw a line in the sand on this issue. Players should play to the coaches system, and do as they're told. That's why the coach gets fired, and not the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to side with the "not garbage" view. James hit the nail on the head with this (mostly). I see no reason that one single player rep should not be on the hiring committee at least in a consulting role. As professionals who will have work with the coach they can and should provide some input into his hiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...