Was this a good decision?

[Robert]

Was the decision to play Canada's Centennial Match against the United States a good one? Consider the fact that when perennial World Cup contender, Argentina played their Centennial match on May 24th, 2010 they chose to do so against Canada. Was that done because they were unable to find a more attractive opponent, or did they want to make sure that their fans were treated to a joyous victory to mark this occasion? Will Canadians supporters be treated to a 5-nil goal-fest on June 3rd? Argentina also used the match against Canada as a confidence builder leading up to South Africa. Will Canada's match against the United States get our boys pumped up for their semi-final World Cup qualifying matches in a similar way? From a gate-receipts point of view, the United States is without a question the best choice. Therefore, what was the reasoning behind this decision? Was it made to maximize the profit that can be made playing against a much higher FIFA-ranked country and hope and pray we get a result? Since in North America we consider a tie like kissing our sister, what are the chances of Canadian fans going home happy after the Centennial and what effect will it have on the our national team in Cuba and then at home against Honduras in the days that follow?

[El Hombre]

Yes, it was a good decision. This is why:

Confidence - Blowing teams out just before entering WCQ has not worked for us in the past (see: St. Vag in 2008 and Belize in 2004). I, in fact, think it had the opposite affect. I believe that on some level, at least some of our players may not have respected their opponent or the gravity of the situation when the real games started because they just walked through the previous round. I think a good humbling can be a good thing, especially in preparation. This is why I wasn't too upset when we didn't walk through the first round. I think the players need to get their compete-level up and playing the US will do that, especially if we can get a pro-Canada crowd out for that one. Win or lose, they know they will have to compete in this game and that is good preparation.

Type of Game - The US is a good game because they will carry the majority of the play and that is what we should expect in the next 6 games. Outside of the Armenia game, we haven't had to defend since we last played the US in the Gold Cup. We actually had to attack, which we aren't used to doing, but that will not be the case when we play Panama, Honduras and Cuba (in Cuba specifically). Ideally this gives Hart a chance to get his tactics right before the real games start. I pray he uses that opportunity. Bringing in a whipping boy just to guarantee that the fans go home happy is a bad idea because it doesn't prepare you tactically for the games to come and it could have disastrous results if things go south.

Gate Receipts - The CSA should do well in selling this game. Nothing puts fans in the seats like bringing the US to town. And putting a little bit of money in the coffers is a good thing.

I know you're looking for a reason to crucify the CSA, but I don't think this is it. Your comparison with Argentina is a bad one for many reasons, most egregious of those is that we don't have the talent or pedigree of an Argentina to use their approach as a model.

[theaub]

My matrix of WCQ-related hype creation

Beat/draw team no one cares about: No increase in hype

Lose to team no one cares about: Small decrease in hype

Beat/draw USA: Significant increase in hype

Lose to USA: Small decrease in hype

In conclusion, playing the US creates hype, and on the off chance we're competitive, hopefully it puts a few more Canadian fans in the seats for Honduras.

[johnyb]

Good Decision, it's the one way to gaurantee a pro canadian crowd!

[Scottie]

This is a game where even the euro-snobs can get behind canada.

[The Ref]

The U.S. is not one of my favourites, I would have chosen to play Mexico instead. Lots of hype and Mexicans around. Like the latino support and chanting from the stands.

[squizz1402635577]

The U.S. is not one of my favourites, I would have chosen to play Mexico instead. Lots of hype and Mexicans around. Like the latino support and chanting from the stands.

Um, no. A match meant to celebrate Canada should not, in any way, shape or form, be tailored towards encouraging away support.

[Soccerpro]

Um, no. A match meant to celebrate Canada should not, in any way, shape or form, be tailored towards encouraging away support.

Exactly. I don't want to watch a stadium full of Mexico supporters for this game celebrating Canadian soccer.

[nolando]

I'll go on record saying we will lose by two goals but that we won't be totally embarrassed unless the States brings their VERY best. That said, I think an opponent we are slightly more likely to beat (if only because at home) might have been a better option. Maybe a Commonwealth connection like a Wales or Scotland or Australia or would have done the trick. Or (despite the logistical challenges, a three team Canada Cup where even one loss could have been vindicated with a hard fought draw. They all might have beaten us in the long run, of course, especially the way we looked the other day, so perhaps it is a moot point. But our eggs certainly are in one basket and there is every possibility of a blowout.

[Robert]

Now if I may play the Devil's advocate for a moment, what would kind of hype would be created if Canada's Centennial match turned out to be anything like what happened at the Johan Cruijff farewell match, when Ajax hosted Bayern Munich on November 7th, 1978, and were humiliated to the tune of 0-8 by the visitors? Where would something like that rate on the "theaub creation?" I'm not suggesting that the States would humiliate us to such an extent, but based on the recent form of both teams I would not say it's beyond the realm of possibilities. All I ask is: was wise of the CSA to invite the United States on an occasion where we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of our national association? Why would the CSA risk a potentially catastrophic outcome at such a critical time?

[Keegan]

This is a game where even the euro-snobs can get behind canada.

Exactly, the USA was the only choice really for this game. We want it to be a sell out, pro-Canada crowd and a match people can be excited about. They are really the only opponent that can guarantee those are met.

[theaub]

Now if I may play the Devil's advocate for a moment, what would kind of hype would be created if Canada's Centennial match turned out to be anything like what happened at the Johan Cruijff farewell match, when Ajax hosted Bayern Munich on November 7th, 1978, and were humiliated to the tune of 0-8 by the visitors? Where would something like that rate on the "theaub creation?" I'm not suggesting that the States would humiliate us to such an extent, but based on the recent form of both teams I would not say it's beyond the realm of possibilities. All I ask is: was wise of the CSA to invite the United States on an occasion where we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of our national association? Why would the CSA risk a potentially catastrophic outcome at such a critical time?

If we lose 8-0, we'd probably lose 5-0 to a minnow which would be even worse.

[Robert]

If we lose 8-0, we'd probably lose 5-0 to a minnow which would be even worse.

Great counter point.

[The Ref]

When we used to play the Canada Cup in the Commonwealth Stadium we had no qualms playing other teams beside the U.S.

[Joe MacCarthy]

And we still shouldn't. One of the hazards of playing a game is losing and sometimes losing badly. Especially when the team you're playing is ranked higher. I always get a kick of the auld country boys who criticize our women's team for losing to higher ranked top five teams. That's what's supposed to happen! You lose to better teams in the hopes of learning something and getting better.

[Soju]

I think this match will be a good indicator of whether or not we have any balls. If our boys can't find the heart or ability to give the American B team a good match at home on our centennial, sack the coach, rebuild the squad and start over because we're not going to qualify for ****.

[Scottie]

I think this match will be a good indicator of whether or not we have any balls. If our boys can't find the heart or ability to give the American B team a good match at home on our centennial, sack the coach, rebuild the squad and start over because we're not going to qualify for ****.

We're not the Edmonton Oilers! If we throw WCQ in the tank we don't come out with a first overall draft pick and our player pool remains the same. Also, how can we expect players to want to play for us if we give up right out of the gate?

[Soju]

Wait, you're saying we don't get a draft pick?

[Robert]

I am still curious as to why the CSA chose the United States to be our opponent for this match. What is the purpose of this match?

A) To make as much money as possible?

To celebrate the CSA's 100th anniversary?

C) To have a final tune-up match before commencing our semi-final World Cup qualifying campaign?

As mentioned earlier, from a financial point of view the United States was the best possible choice. However, the odds of the fans, who are laying out this money, leaving the stadium satisfied are not that promising against the United States. Also, El Hombre's argument that Canada needs to have a match where are forced to play defensive because that's what our next six matches hold in store is a crock. We are going to face only one of the three CONCACAF countries that played at the last World Cup Final, and fortuitously it happens to be the weakest one of those three. Canada needs to demonstrate that it can play creatively in mid-field and show some finish up front for their matches against middle of the pack CONCACAF opponents, if we are to have any chance of finally progressing to the Hex. Against the United States both of these tasks will be extremely difficult. In my opinion, the United States was the most difficult opponent to try and execute such a game plan against. Oh well, we'll see in a couple of months time whether or not the CSA'S decision was right.

[Redcoatsforever]

I am still curious as to why the CSA chose the United States to be our opponent for this match. What is the purpose of this match?

A) To make as much money as possible?

To celebrate the CSA's 100th anniversary?

C) To have a final tune-up match before commencing our semi-final World Cup qualifying campaign?

A) Yes, and the US match will draw a crowd, one more likely to be pro-Canadian than against other opponents.

Yes.

C) Yes.

As mentioned earlier, from a financial point of view the United States was the best possible choice. However, the odds of the fans, who are laying out this money, leaving the stadium satisfied are not that promising against the United States. Also, El Hombre's argument that Canada needs to have a match where are forced to play defensive because that's what our next six matches hold in store is a crock.

So, you think having played some matches against minnows in the last round was good prep for the speedy, highly technical, all-out attacking play of Honduras and Panama? You don't think that maybe, just maybe the likes of Najar, Lozano, or Pérez could have us on our backheel at some point in the match?

We are going to face only one of the three CONCACAF countries that played at the last World Cup Final, and fortuitously it happens to be the weakest one of those three. Canada needs to demonstrate that it can play creatively in mid-field and show some finish up front for their matches against middle of the pack CONCACAF opponents, if we are to have any chance of finally progressing to the Hex. Against the United States both of these tasks will be extremely difficult.

Just to be clear: You're suggesting that playing a match against a highly skilled opponent who will present us with a real challenge, requiring us to actually punch above our weight, is a poor way to prepare for matches against those of equal to or lesser skill than our own?

Is that really something you believe?

In my opinion, the United States was the most difficult opponent to try and execute such a game plan against. Oh well, we'll see in a couple of months time whether or not the CSA'S decision was right.

In order to make your opinion more accurately presented, I'll rephrase: The CSA can do no right, and Mont Pete has hired his Towrads to Sponson the ever-loving **** out of this match.

[Robert]

...good prep for the speedy, highly technical, all-out attacking play of Honduras and Panama?

...prepare for matches against those of equal to or lesser skill than our own?

[El Hombre]

Also, El Hombre's argument that Canada needs to have a match where are forced to play defensive because that's what our next six matches hold in store is a crock.

Maybe I didn't express my thoughts clearly. Playing a team like the US will better prepare us for the upcoming games than would a minnow who we would walk all over and send the supporters home happy.

If you don't think that Panama and Honduras have more than we do in an attacking sense, then I don't think you fully understand their teams. I'm as optimistic as the next guy but we should prepare ourselves to be defending against their attack for a fair bit of the game.

[gator]

Personally I think the US is probably a good choice of opponent for preperation, you can make valid arguments either way on this one! My concern is more about the timing and location, there's a huge match being played at the same venue just over a week later which has to be priority, we absolutely have to sell the tickets for Honduras and keep the away supporters to a minimum! The other thing that really sucks is it eliminates any of us travelling to the Cuba match, bad timing!

[Redcoatsforever]

"...good prep for the speedy, highly technical, all-out attacking play of Honduras and Panama?

...prepare for matches against those of equal to or lesser skill than our own?"

I really think that you should work for the CSA. Just who are we preparing for?

I think it's funny how you quote selectively around the names of fast, coordinated attackers with a history of goal-scoring, and then ask who we're preparing for. As I said, Lozano and Najar from Honduras, Pérez from Panama. Cuba could even shock us. These teams have fast, coordinated attacking play, and regardless of how well our attackers play, they will have our defenders under pressure for a good chunk of the match.

[Fort York Redcoat1555362293]

Has the OP neglected to voice his opinion on which team he believes the CSA should have got for us to play? No? Shocker.

Maybe the 200yr anniversary game we'll get a minnow so the OP will have a good feeling about our progression. It's nice to think about our progress for the WCQ but one could argue that happens every four years while an opportunity to get the best comp for a very special milestone happens less.

But whatever. Slag on if you wish.