Steven Vitória

[canucklefan]

You don't develop pride in Canada by debasing yourself to every asshole traitor who might want to play for us now that it's in his interests.

If Vitoria was genuinely remorseful, if he was apologizing to his country on television for his childish betrayal, that would be one thing. But Canada's men's team already has too many mercenaries who don't really give a fuck about the maple leaf, and look how well that's done for us.

Pieces of disloyal shit should not have the honour of representing our country, and we shouldn't let talent throw off our moral compasses.

 

If players like Vitoria and JDG2 were NHL players good enough to be part of Team Canada at the Olympics, they would have never played for Portugal or Netherlands. When the CSA will manage to produce a more competitive MNT. with more depth players in both quantity and quality, this defection phenomenon will decrease. IMO, believing this situation is related to national pride is a myth. I know that we the Vees are rare species, but outside our community, the world of football and professional players psyche don't work that way.

[Lord Bob]

IMO, believing this situation is related to national pride is a myth.

If you choose to play for another nation for selfish reasons, you don't have pride in Canada. There's not much room for opinion there.

National pride is not just an idea, a warm glow you can carry around on whatever conditions you like. It needs to be expressed, and if you spit in the eye of your nation you don't get to claim it.

[canucklefan]

If you choose to play for another nation for selfish reasons, you don't have pride in Canada. There's not much room for opinion there.

National pride is not just an idea, a warm glow you can carry around on whatever conditions you like. It needs to be expressed, and if you spit in the eye of your nation you don't get to claim it.

You are mixing the notion itself with the notion of football. We as Vees may have a particular view a Canadian pride, but the players don't think the way we think. It's not first I posted this, we should cheer for the program instead of the players. I wish we could solve our problems with national pride but it's not as simple as that.

[Lord Bob]

If you can't carry your national pride into your profession, it's not really national pride.

This idea that "soccer is different, Canada doesn't count in soccer" is the whole problem.

[Keegan]

If you can't carry your national pride into your profession, it's not really national pride.

This idea that "soccer is different, Canada doesn't count in soccer" is the whole problem.

 

Amen and there is no gray area.  Otherwise we would all be on the forums of the most convenient national team we could support.  

[Obinna]

Not all of us. I have to admit I am not bursting at the seams with national pride, nor am I ashamed to call myself Canadian - far from it in fact.

I am just your average Canadian when it comes to national pride. When I was younger I just happened to play in tournaments against players who went on to play for our youth (and later senior) national teams. As I followed their progress I stumbled upon this website and haven't left.

But anyways, my opinion is that the average Canadian is pretty casual when it comes to national pride. I believe that most of our players fall in this category and are primarily motivated by career development. I also believe this is not limited to our national team only. It's just a reality for international football.

Another reality is that players want to play for a winner. To me this validates my belief that national pride is a secondary motivator at best.

Just consider the deflections (or players with choice) the USA had to deal with a few cycles ago. Now things are trending the other way since they have developed a stronger profile through WC results, GC victories, MLS hype, etc.

This is why image is everything and like the USA we need the image of a winner (or at least a contender).

If you allow yourself to be rational and unemotional, you'll see that the quickest (or dare I say, only) way to build a winning image is to win. The only way to win is to have a better team and a better team often needs better players.

You can say Vitoria would only be depth or that he wouldn't get us to the WC on his own, but getting enough of these guys to commit will get us closer to reaching critical mass like the USA. I think this idea of making an example of players would not only be ineffective but short sighted as well.

No

[Cheeta]

Critical mass is a better than fair phrase.  But there must be a point, some point, at which you draw a line and I thing Mr. Vitoria crossed it.  And so for him, on the pitch at least, it's over and done.

 

If he wants to pore his heart out for Canada in the South Stand at BMO Field during WC Qualifiers I'll be happy to have him.  We'll sing, we'll bounce, we'll spill beer upon each other.  But not one second will I abide him on the field of play.  By his own choosing that's his cross to bear from now to doomsday.

 

*Shrug*.  Either you get the reasons why or you don't.  It's a simple as that. 

 

Allez les Rouges.

[Ghonj]

I think the point at which a player crosses the line is when they're capped for another team...

 

Vittoria's an easy target since he's not in the picture, and he wouldn't make a huge difference. It's moot.

 

The question is really only relevant when you have a star whose presence could be he difference between qualifying and not qualifying (which we don't). Then it boils down to whether you'd prefer to qualify with a guy who wavered, or crash out with guys who didn't. 

[squizz1402635577]

If you can't carry your national pride into your profession, it's not really national pride.

This idea that "soccer is different, Canada doesn't count in soccer" is the whole problem.

 

+1

 

I don't always agree with your absolutism, Bobbo. But it's difficult to disagree on this occasion.

[Lord Bob]

Just consider the deflections (or players with choice) the USA had to deal with a few cycles ago. Now things are trending the other way since

a generation of soldiers' sons from Germany not good enough to play for their homeland is coming of age?

they have developed a stronger profile through WC results, GC victories, MLS hype, etc.

Oh.

Anyway, that was just me being a smart-ass. This is the important part.

If you allow yourself to be rational and unemotional, you'll see that the quickest (or dare I say, only) way to build a winning image is to win. The only way to win is to have a better team and a better team often needs better players.

If I allow myself to be unemotional, with no attachment to anything beyond brute practicality, I would not be on this message board at all. Cheering for a national team is an emotional proposition and, as somebody who cheers for Canadian soccer out of a love for Canada and soccer, I cling to the belief that a national team cap should be an honour, to be bestowed only upon the worthy. It should not be a favour bestowed upon us by Canadians-of-convenience who would tell us to fuck off if they had a better choice.

Rationally, I should be a German supporter. But emotionally, the maple leaf over the heart matters.

[xcalibre]

As usual a large number of the Vees with a naive and myopic view of international allegiance.  At some point, especially when these players start having kids, they look at practical considerations.  They see Hargreaves, who dismissed the CSA and got a dream move to Man Utd on the back of a solid World Cup with England - for him, it was worth untold thousands.  They see Begovic, who played 3 games at a World Cup and got a move to Chelsea - likely partly due to that exposure.  They see JDG2, playing in the 3rd place game at a World Cup final.

 

And then, even if they were motivated by genuine Canadian pride, they see the sheer ineptitude of administration and coaching within the CSA that makes the CanMNT choice even less appealing.

 

I get it, in an ideal world they could tell their wife that it's worth having a less comfortable lifestyle to play for Canada.  But the CSA makes that choice a lot harder.  I don't think we should be faulting these guys, who are often making a decision in their late teens.  I definitely don't think we should be rejecting them - not like we're in a position to.

[Obinna]

You can be rational and unemotional when discussing the best course of action for duel nationals. You just choose not to be rational in this situation.

Cheering for your national team, an emotionally driven activity, is totally different than participating in a rational discussion on our how best to handle this problem with duel nationals. Am I wrong here?

[ted]

You can be rational and unemotional when discussing the best course of action for duel nationals. You just choose not to be rational in this situation.

Cheering for your national team, an emotionally driven activity, is totally different than participating in a rational discussion on our how best to handle this problem with duel nationals. Am I wrong here?

 

Yes you are wrong. You are so wrong as to be verging on trolling.

 

The place for rational discussion of this idea is NOT the forum deiditcated to a single national team.  If you can seriously think that Whoregreaves, Ass-Smear or anyone else did the right thing by turning their backs on Canada then you may be in the wrong place.

[Califax]

I quite enjoy how posters will cite practical considerations for their family and children as an excuse, while in the same argument say that the players were often in their teens when they made the decision.

Club is for money. Country is for love. If you have to betray one for the other that's fine, but your bed is made.

You chose money/exposure over us. We choose a more patriotic (read:committed) prospect over you.

[canucklefan]

I quite enjoy how posters will cite practical considerations for their family and children as an excuse, while in the same argument say that the players were often in their teens when they made the decision.

Club is for money. Country is for love. If you have to betray one for the other that's fine, but your bed is made.

You chose money/exposure over us. We choose a more patriotic (read:committed) prospect over you.

 

Believe me, I feel your pain. I love this country in a very particular way but also I am realistic and I think I'm part of a minority if you count every Canadian's point of view. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the defectors consider themselves Canadian, despite the fact they play or played for another NT.  The thing is, nobody can change others minds. I'd rather have players that love this country the way I do but I know that will never happen, and I stopped feeling angry every time a player represents another NT than Canada. That being said, the issue about defections is not about the lack of patriotism from the professional players. It's about the lack of prestige from this program (see the previous comments about the USMNT).

[xcalibre]

I quite enjoy how posters will cite practical considerations for their family and children as an excuse, while in the same argument say that the players were often in their teens when they made the decision.

Club is for money. Country is for love. If you have to betray one for the other that's fine, but your bed is made.

You chose money/exposure over us. We choose a more patriotic (read:committed) prospect over you.

 

Because it's that simple?  Players are looking at their long-term financial security, whether they've got a young family at the time they make the decision or not.  It's easy for you to sit at your computer criticising them for making a choice that affects their day-to-day lives and retirement options, all so you have the benefit of seeing them wear red for a couple hours every few months and so it satisfies your own subjective idea of what they "owe" the country.

 

Either way, your idealistic perspective might make sense if the CSA wasn't a joke that effectively wastes players' international careers with poor decisions.

 

If we had a more realistic idea here of how actual professionals approach this issue, we might have more success with it in the long run.  If a player's on the fence, seeing the vitriol spouted by some keyboard warrior who is ignorant of their actual club and contract situation (and who may well be making more money than them) is hardly going to get them on board.

Edited August 4, 2015 by xcalibre

[Obinna]

This form is not the place for rational discussion of what to do about potential national team players who qualify for more than one nation? Okay got it - i'll remember you said that.

Look, I do not support the choice that any of those players made. I want our team to get to the point where players with choice choose Canada. You just don't get there by NOT picking up players like Vitoria if they want to come on board. The idea that it sends a message to everyone else is nonsense. Nobody is going to see it that way except us. Is there any other country that has used this tactic to effect?

I know it will make us all feel better to see Vitoria crawl back and shut the door in his face, I would feel great about it. However, it gets us no closer to improving the poor quality of our team and my desire for a better national team transends petty feelings of vendication.

The theory that "cutting all ties with those who pass on us a first time will make others think twice" is far less likely than the theory that "improving the quality by accepting said players will in turn draw other fence sitters".

Regardless it has to be a case by case thing. You can't accept every fence sitter or deny every fence sitter. The decision has to benefit Canadian soccer. In Vitoria's case, it's likely a net benefit to bring him in if he wants and the squad is cool with it. If that little bit of depth takes us a little bit closer to the World Cup than i'll take it.

I think if what Cavalini has said was proven to be true, that is much worse. I think Floro is playing it well to not invite him anymore but if he ever matures and becomes a notable player that can help us in the future perhaps it would be dumb to never ever call him again.

That being said, at this time I really never want to see him again.

[Califax]

Because it's that simple? Players are looking at their long-term financial security, whether they've got a young family at the time they make the decision or not. It's easy for you to sit at your computer criticising them for making a choice that affects their day-to-day lives and retirement options, all so you have the benefit of seeing them wear red for a couple hours every few months and so it satisfies your own subjective idea of what they "owe" the country.

Either way, your idealistic perspective might make sense if the CSA wasn't a joke that effectively wastes players' international careers with poor decisions.

If we had a more realistic idea here of how actual professionals approach this issue, we might have more success with it in the long run. If a player's on the fence, seeing the vitriol spouted by some keyboard warrior who is ignorant of their actual club and contract situation (and who may well be making more money than them) is hardly going to get them on board.

I wouldn't characterize anything on here as vitrol nor anyone as a keyboard warrior. But yeah, ad hominem is a great way to go.

I mean you call it myopic but I think it's a decision to be looked at on principle that's void of special circustamce. You are free to hold your opinion but if this were happening in hockey I'm betting almost no one would be on your side.

Guys go play for other countries cause they know they can come back. Nationalism aside, enabling that sends the wrong message.

Play nice.

[Califax]

This form is not the place for rational discussion of what to do about potential national team players who qualify for more than one nation? Okay got it - i'll remember you said that.

Look, I do not support the choice that any of those players made. I want our team to get to the point where players with choice choose Canada. You just don't get there by NOT picking up players like Vitoria if they want to come on board. The idea that it sends a message to everyone else is nonsense. Nobody is going to see it that way except us. Is there any other country that has used this tactic to effect?

I know it will make us all feel better to see Vitoria crawl back and shut the door in his face, I would feel great about it. However, it gets us no closer to improving the poor quality of our team and my desire for a better national team transends petty feelings of vendication.

The theory that "cutting all ties with those who pass on us a first time will make others think twice" is far less likely than the theory that "improving the quality by accepting said players will in turn draw other fence sitters".

Regardless it has to be a case by case thing. You can't accept every fence sitter or deny every fence sitter. The decision has to benefit Canadian soccer. In Vitoria's case, it's likely a net benefit to bring him in if he wants and the squad is cool with it. If that little bit of depth takes us a little bit closer to the World Cup than i'll take it.

I think if what Cavalini has said was proven to be true, that is much worse. I think Floro is playing it well to not invite him anymore but if he ever matures and becomes a notable player that can help us in the future perhaps it would be dumb to never ever call him again.

That being said, at this time I really never want to see him again.

I'll just say this, I really don't want to close the door on him for spite. I have nothing against him.

I firmly believe that saying no to a career path like Vittoria's sends a strong message for the next generation and since they next generation is where we will likely qualify, not now, I'm fine with that.

Just a difference of perspective I suppose.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Califax

[xcalibre]

 

 

I wouldn't characterize anything on here as vitrol nor anyone as a keyboard warrior. But yeah, ad hominem is a great way to go.

I mean you call it myopic but I think it's a decision to be looked at on principle that's void of special circustamce. You are free to hold your opinion but if this were happening in hockey I'm betting almost no one would be on your side.

Guys go play for other countries cause they know they can come back. Nationalism aside, enabling that sends the wrong message.

Play nice.

 

 

My point is that it's easy to pass judgement from our keyboards, while we work in fields that would never ask us to choose between patriotism and financial security for our families.

 

If you want a hockey comparison, we're far more like, say, Italy (with a role reversal).  If you moved to Italy and your son was a top ice hockey prospect, but waited for Canada's call-up until he was in his late 20s - do you think Italy's hockey team would turn him down when he realized they were his best option?

 

Key thing is that if our squad has no problem with it, I don't think we're in a position to turn down any help we can get.

 

I'll just say this, I really don't want to close the door on him for spite. I have nothing against him.

I firmly believe that saying no to a career path like Vittoria's sends a strong message for the next generation and since they next generation is where we will likely qualify, not now, I'm fine with that.

Just a difference of perspective I suppose.

 

I'd like to think this, but for the generation growing up playing FIFA and watching Champions League, they'd probably choose to go with the 1% chance of a Portugal/Italy call then a 95% chance of a long career with the CanMNT

[Obinna]

I'd like to think this, but for the generation growing up playing FIFA and watching Champions League, they'd probably choose to go with the 1% chance of a Portugal/Italy call then a 95% chance of a long career with the CanMNT

This x 1000.

I hate that it's this way but it's better to deal with that reality than pretend it doesn't exist.

[Califax]

I think you are reading too much into this financial security for families argument. I'm not really inclined to believe that's why most people make the call to abandon Canada. None of us know so let's not assume, but I don't think that should pass as fact. But even if that were the case, no one here is passing judgment, we are merely saying if you go the money route, don't expect a place on the national team.

 

Anyway, I've typed out and deleted like 10 different angles to take this but I think we are so far away there's no real point. I just don't see any benefit in letting 18 year old kids call the shots.

[Obinna]

Letting 18 year old kids call the shots? These kids call the shots whether we like it or not. After all, international football is a choice not a requirement (although I prefer it much more than club football - I have trouble getting attached to a club I have no connection to). Anyways, as we have seen so far with Junior, you can foolishly hold out as much as you please. I sincerely doubt that any posturing on our end is going to have any sway, sadly.

[ted]

I'll just say this, I really don't want to close the door on him for spite. I have nothing against him.

 

Me neither. I am sure Whoregreaves is an OK guy with only love in his heart but we will still taunt them as much as possible.

If at some point in the future this guy flogs himself with the proverbial wet noodle on national TV and begs to come back and actually appears for Canada he would be welcomed back as a redeemed sinner.

Until then he is a dirty, dirty whore and will be abused without mercy for his treason.

 

[Shway]

Daniel Fernendes just signed with San Antoino Scorpions on loan for the rest of the season. Is he cap tied to Portugal due to his switch?