Persuading players to choose Canada by Richard Starnes (Hoilett news)

[loyola]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Persuading+players+choose+Canada/3864131/story.html

Positive quote about David Hoilett:

Hoilett, who has attended Canada squad training sessions, is also eligible for Jamaica, where his dad and agent "Senior" Hoilett was born. Hart is in constant contact with the Hoiletts and the latest hints suggest Canada will be the striker's country of choice.

Also, interesting to note that we are pursuing Milan Bozic. No word on the serbian keeper.

[nolando]

Bozic - intriguing but perhaps another Pacheco as he has played in decent leagues, but when you look at the stats he played only 19 matches between 2005 and 2009, so he's either severely injury-prone or a career bubble-player, of whom Canada seems to have a surplus already

[loyola]

Bozic - intriguing but perhaps another Pacheco as he has played in decent leagues, but when you look at the stats he played only 19 matches between 2005 and 2009, so he's either severely injury-prone or a career bubble-player, of whom Canada seems to have a surplus already

Agree with you Nolando. I initially thought we were talking about a guy playing in the top division in Serbia, but a 3rd division guy? Well, we can't afford to ignore anyone but it's not like this guy has a chance to play for Serbia.

Good to hear some positives news about Hoilett but I won't celebrate until he plays a game for us or at least show up to a camp!

[Keegan]

Ya I don't understand the "pursuing" of Bozic at all. Certainy Bozic wouldn't need any incentive to play for Canada he would probably be all over it but he's definitely not playing at a level comparable to our current midfielders.

Good news on Hoillet! Im sure lots of Vs are just waiting for that final word so they can get his name on the back of their Canada kit. Im just wondering though why there would be a choice for David between Jamaica and Canada and not Janeil? Janeill played for us in U17 qualifiers and now for the U20s, so Canada's good enough for his one son but not the other? Janeill would definitely be good enough for Jamaica's u17/U20 squad but you never heard of any decision there.

[TFCRegina]

I get the feeling with David it's about playing good football. He wants to play lots of games against good teams. It's simple. Canada has been going out and actively pursuing friendlies against quality sides. That seems to have influenced him more to Canada in the last little while, because you'll note that even while we were losing all those games, he was responding more favourably to playing for us because he felt there had been positive change at the CSA.

IE: Hoilett is seeing the international game as a way of raising his club game, and he wants to be challenged.

[Robert]

Maybe we should first find out why so many are choosing not to play for Canada. By asking them we could maybe address the some issues so it doesn't happen as often.

[loyola]

I get the feeling with David it's about playing good football. He wants to play lots of games against good teams. It's simple. Canada has been going out and actively pursuing friendlies against quality sides. That seems to have influenced him more to Canada in the last little while, because you'll note that even while we were losing all those games, he was responding more favourably to playing for us because he felt there had been positive change at the CSA.

IE: Hoilett is seeing the international game as a way of raising his club game, and he wants to be challenged.

We need more games against CONCACAF teams like Guyana than playing Ukraine or Greece. We need points.

[Deebs]

I think we will get more players on board like Hoilett or JD2 by playing big nations like Ukraine and Greece. Playing CONCACAF nations is obviously of high value to our program, but high profile matches will help convince those player that are on the periphery of the Canadian program the it is on the right track.

[tovan1]

we need to organize more B camps for fringe players and test them out by playing minnows like Guyana, etc... this needs to be done in combination with bigger friendlies with the likes of Ukraine, Greece, etc where established players and the better performing players from the B camps can play. use the B camps to test out players like Bozic and use the big friendlies to attract Hoillet and JD2.

more games = more ranking points, big name friendlies = more chance of getting fence sitters on board, more camps and friendlies = larger player pool and better depth

[Keegan]

we need to organize more B camps for fringe players and test them out by playing minnows like Guyana, etc... this needs to be done in combination with bigger friendlies with the likes of Ukraine, Greece, etc where established players and the better performing players from the B camps can play. use the B camps to test out players like Bozic and use the big friendlies to attract Hoillet and JD2.

more games = more ranking points, big name friendlies = more chance of getting fence sitters on board, more camps and friendlies = larger player pool and better depth

Bingo!

[Tuscan]

It's a very tough call, and perhaps, even though none of us want to admit it, we might have to sacrifice our chance at taking one of the top 6 CONCACAF spots by beating minnows (which might push Hoillett and others away) and instead continue to play tough opposition (which might sway Hoillett et al to choose us). Are the US and Mexico not considered top quality opposition? Obviously we only play them in a blue moon these days (better known as WCQ) but we still play them.

[Tuscan]

we need to organize more B camps for fringe players and test them out by playing minnows like Guyana, etc... this needs to be done in combination with bigger friendlies with the likes of Ukraine, Greece, etc where established players and the better performing players from the B camps can play. use the B camps to test out players like Bozic and use the big friendlies to attract Hoillet and JD2.

more games = more ranking points, big name friendlies = more chance of getting fence sitters on board, more camps and friendlies = larger player pool and better depth

Love it. Do we have the resources to pull it off? And, sadly, with our B players, we still run the risk of either drawing or losing to the minnow as well.

[forster01]

Love it. Do we have the resources to pull it off? And, sadly, with our B players, we still run the risk of either drawing or losing to the minnow as well.

Buzzkill!!

But in all seriousness i believe we should name a squad made of mostly B players, with 3 or 4 A players.

This will allow us to test the abilities of the Julian Ucello (spelling?), Tosiant rickettes and Bozic's of our player pool

[TFCRegina]

It's a very tough call, and perhaps, even though none of us want to admit it, we might have to sacrifice our chance at taking one of the top 6 CONCACAF spots by beating minnows (which might push Hoillett and others away) and instead continue to play tough opposition (which might sway Hoillett et al to choose us). Are the US and Mexico not considered top quality opposition? Obviously we only play them in a blue moon these days (better known as WCQ) but we still play them.

I prefer tough opposition. The experience gained playing the tougher sides will be beneficial when we reach the final stages of the World Cup Qualifiers.

People seem to forget that if we practice against crap, we're probably going to play as if teams are all crap. Play against strong sides and you'll play like one. People worry about draws but seem to forget that the final stage of the WCQ is a group of death it is. You have to be prepared to play the toughest team you can.

And we've seen with the Ukraine match that we didn't need to play soft teams to win. We COULD have beaten Ukraine but we didn't hold out for the final 45. Instead of seeing this as a negative, we should be looking to build on this. That's why I'm stoked for the Greek match because I think we can have a similar, perhaps even better, performance there.

[TFCRegina]

Ya I don't understand the "pursuing" of Bozic at all. Certainy Bozic wouldn't need any incentive to play for Canada he would probably be all over it but he's definitely not playing at a level comparable to our current midfielders.

Good news on Hoillet! Im sure lots of Vs are just waiting for that final word so they can get his name on the back of their Canada kit. Im just wondering though why there would be a choice for David between Jamaica and Canada and not Janeil? Janeill played for us in U17 qualifiers and now for the U20s, so Canada's good enough for his one son but not the other? Janeill would definitely be good enough for Jamaica's u17/U20 squad but you never heard of any decision there.

And we could have said the same about Terry Dunfield, who has gone out and shown that despite spending a lot of time in League 2 he can fill in in a pinch.

What happens if our midfield goes down to injuries and suspensions. We need depth. We have a pool of 30 players or so. It needs to be larger.

[Keegan]

And we could have said the same about Terry Dunfield, who has gone out and shown that despite spending a lot of time in League 2 he can fill in in a pinch.

What happens if our midfield goes down to injuries and suspensions. We need depth. We have a pool of 30 players or so. It needs to be larger.

I doubt the Serbian 3rd division is even League 2 England tbh. I would look to players like Davies, Rosenlund, Ribiero etc before a player like that

[Stan10]

Is that article implying that Bozic could play for Serbia:confused: I have as good a chance as him, maybe better.

[loyola]

I think the idea that we are loosing prospects because of the opponents we are shceduling is a myth. We've been playing quality teams since a long time and it hasn't stop the defections.

Since 2002 we've played these teams who are quality (or were at the time we played them):

Peru, Ireland, Honduras(2), Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Poland, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela(2), Austria, South Africa, Costa Rica, Portugal, Scotland, Switzerland, Hungary. Even Estonia, Jamaica and Finland who we lost to were decent teams.

These games didn't help us keeping Begovic, Lensky and the others. Our problem is the number of games. While I have no problem playing good teams, I think we need to fill the blanks with teams weaker than us (little bit weaker). Learning to beat teams who are weaker or on par with us is the first step to success.

Playing Brazil and Argentina isn't giving us good prep in term of the opponents we are going to face in CONCACAF (except maybe Mexico away).

[Sam]

It's a very tough call, and perhaps, even though none of us want to admit it, we might have to sacrifice our chance at taking one of the top 6 CONCACAF spots by beating minnows (which might push Hoillett and others away) and instead continue to play tough opposition (which might sway Hoillett et al to choose us). Are the US and Mexico not considered top quality opposition? Obviously we only play them in a blue moon these days (better known as WCQ) but we still play them.

I've always been of the opinion we waste too much time chasing rankings. Our goal is to make the World Cup not make the final round of CONCACAF Qualifying. If we are really going to one of the best 3 or 4 teams in CONCACAF our ranking is not going to matter.

Play the CONCACAF big boys and if we get results great, but its better for the development of the team and potentially convincing the likes of Hoilett.

[Sam]

I think the idea that we are loosing prospects because of the opponents we are shceduling is a myth. We've been playing quality teams since a long time and it hasn't stop the defections.

Since 2002 we've played these teams who are quality (or were at the time we played them):

Peru, Ireland, Honduras(2), Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Poland, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela(2), Austria, South Africa, Costa Rica, Portugal, Scotland, Switzerland, Hungary. Even Estonia, Jamaica and Finland who we lost to were decent teams.

These games didn't help us keeping Begovic, Lensky and the others. Our problem is the number of games. While I have no problem playing good teams, I think we need to fill the blanks with teams weaker than us (little bit weaker). Learning to beat teams who are weaker or on par with us is the first step to success.

Playing Brazil and Argentina isn't giving us good prep in term of the opponents we are going to face in CONCACAF (except maybe Mexico away).

To say Estonia is a quality team is stretching it a bit too much. They are currently ranked 38th out of the 53 teams in UEFA

[TFCRegina]

I think the idea that we are loosing prospects because of the opponents we are shceduling is a myth. We've been playing quality teams since a long time and it hasn't stop the defections.

Since 2002 we've played these teams who are quality (or were at the time we played them):

Peru, Ireland, Honduras(2), Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Poland, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela(2), Austria, South Africa, Costa Rica, Portugal, Scotland, Switzerland, Hungary. Even Estonia, Jamaica and Finland who we lost to were decent teams.

These games didn't help us keeping Begovic, Lensky and the others. Our problem is the number of games. While I have no problem playing good teams, I think we need to fill the blanks with teams weaker than us (little bit weaker). Learning to beat teams who are weaker or on par with us is the first step to success.

Playing Brazil and Argentina isn't giving us good prep in term of the opponents we are going to face in CONCACAF (except maybe Mexico away).

So discounting the Jamaica, Estonia and Finland matches, we've played 20 quality games in 8 years? The US played as many in 4, maybe even fewer years.

That's the problem. We're so busy chasing the number that we can't just focus on the real prize. Play the tougher sides. You say it gives us no advantage to learn how to play against Brazil or Argentina, but I disagree. It teaches us valuable lessons about time on the ball and how quick you need to be making GOOD decisions.

When you get up against a Honduras or Costa Rica, those games are the ones that are going to be difference between a tie and a loss on the road, and a win or a tie at home.

I'd argue that the matches we played this year lead in large part to that win over Honduras and played a role in the draw against the Ukraine. You can (and probably will) disagree with me. But it's about the experience.

Guyana, for all the FIFA points we get, gives us jack in terms of preparation against the US, Mexico, Honduras or Costa Rica.

All it means is we get to play a bunch of weak teams on the path to the WCQ Third Round, and leaves us, once again, unprepared for that final step against the tough teams.

[loyola]

So discounting the Jamaica, Estonia and Finland matches, we've played 20 quality games in 8 years? The US played as many in 4, maybe even fewer years.

That's the problem. We're so busy chasing the number that we can't just focus on the real prize. Play the tougher sides. You say it gives us no advantage to learn how to play against Brazil or Argentina, but I disagree. It teaches us valuable lessons about time on the ball and how quick you need to be making GOOD decisions.

When you get up against a Honduras or Costa Rica, those games are the ones that are going to be difference between a tie and a loss on the road, and a win or a tie at home.

I'd argue that the matches we played this year lead in large part to that win over Honduras and played a role in the draw against the Ukraine. You can (and probably will) disagree with me. But it's about the experience.

Guyana, for all the FIFA points we get, gives us jack in terms of preparation against the US, Mexico, Honduras or Costa Rica.

All it means is we get to play a bunch of weak teams on the path to the WCQ Third Round, and leaves us, once again, unprepared for that final step against the tough teams.

We need a mix of that, good and weaker opponents. When I say weaker I mean the team who are around us in CONCACAF (El Salvador, T and T, Guyana, etc). We need to learn how to beat these teams because they are the one we are most likely gonna be fighting with in 2011.

BTW, my point was to challenge the notion that we aren't scheduling stong opponents is the reason why we are loosing players. When are we scheduling cupcakes? The last I remember was in 2007 (Bermuda). Playing more games is the key and since we have already schedule quality teams it might be helpful to play weaker ones, specially if we are talking about a January camp (where we'll be missing some key players).

Let's also remember how winning is good for confidence. PLaying the Bahamas is one thing but getting a result in Guatemala or Guatemala is another thing.

I think it's a question of balance.

[taitanti]

What players and people look to in general is consistency. The CSA and the mens national team hasn't done anything consistently. If your a young player choosing a country to play for and it's a choice that you have to live with for the rest of your life, you will choose the team with the best plan, not the best potential. I believe that SH gets this. It's not about who we play or rankings but rather how we play and how often. The B team idea is complicating things. It's a waste of resources. If you have enough A friendlies then half your games will be a B team with a spattering of A players. See Venezuela.

[tovan1]

What players and people look to in general is consistency. The CSA and the mens national team hasn't done anything consistently. If your a young player choosing a country to play for and it's a choice that you have to live with for the rest of your life, you will choose the team with the best plan, not the best potential. I believe that SH gets this. It's not about who we play or rankings but rather how we play and how often. The B team idea is complicating things. It's a waste of resources. If you have enough A friendlies then half your games will be a B team with a spattering of A players. See Venezuela.

I don't think anyone is advocating for formalized A and B teams. I can't speak for the others but when I suggested having a B camp, I meant it in the sense that the majority of the players would be lower division/level players playing for a regular spot on the national team and not established regulars. What I call an A team would consist of a majority of squad regulars such as Hutch, Peters, Simpson, etc. It shouldn't need to be complicated nor a waste of resources as they would essentially be the same team albeit with different squads selected according to who our opponents would be.

What I was suggesting in my previous post was that Canada should be playing on every FIFA international date. An A or B squad will be selected based on whom we will be playing. For example, let's say we play Haiti in Jan, Greece in Feburary, T&T in March, Guyana in April, and Russia in May we would probably send a B, A, B, B, and A squad for each respective fixture. We don't have to play top level competition on each international date, but if we get somewhat regular fixtures with top sides we can attract the fence-sitters. At the same time, filler fixtures with relatively weaker sides would allow us to give other players a chance to prove themselves (like Dunfield in Venezuela) and get some ranking points while we're at it. If we are able to get positive results consistently when playing higher level opponents, the likes of JDG2 and Hoilett would see the national team program heading in the right direction. There's no need to call them to smaller friendlies as it is already clear what level they are playing at.

In short, there's no need for 2 national teams. We just need to get a combination of high profile and local/weaker friendlies so that we can exercise all our possible options when it comes to player selection. The question is, however, whether the CSA has the resources to make this happen.

[taitanti]

Ok. I agree. Basically on the same page.