Herdman new head coach

[ECW]

13 hours ago, Bigandy said:

I 100% agree with tactics taking into account strengths and weaknesses but disagree that they made for individual errors.  For example, slow defenders should not play a high line. Being slow is a weakness, not an error (of course, a weakness may or may not increase the liklihood of an error occuring). Tactics do not take into account individual errors. It is not an error to be slow. It is an error to miscontrol a pass.  

I agree with the counter attack strategy but I dont think these teams really allowed us to do this. None of them played a high line. There simply was not space to run in behind them. You can say that if we bunkered down that maybe we could suck them upfield, but I doubt it. Surely teams with much better managers wouldnt have exposed themselves to our only real threat we have and most of these teams weakness (counterattack).

 also think its strange that we claim croatia has the best midfield in the tournament, yet claim they dont have players to break down a low block. Against a low block, you need to have fast ball circulation and passes into gaps created by movement. This is way more effective than having one player trying to dribble through many players. If the low block is done correctly, there is such low spacing that you will constantly have to beat 3+ players. 

Look at molina's goal vs the dutch. Not a single player was dribbled past. It was a clever pass from messi that broke down the dutchs low block. Other than that, the argentines didnt ever dribble through the dutch's low block. 

I don't think its fair to think a low block would have stifled croatias brilliance in midfield (a low block made of CMNT quality players, with very little experience using this tactic against top opposition, with 2 CB's who are extremely vulnerable to crosses). 

Basically, I think its wishful thinking that we can preform a low block to the standards required and that other nations would simply allow themselves to be exposed to the counter attack. 

It’s not our strength, for sure, the low block. And even when we set up to counter attack, it was getting onto the front foot (rather than the sitting back) that we did best. 

[Free kick]

20 hours ago, ECW said:

It’s not our strength, for sure, the low block. And even when we set up to counter attack, it was getting onto the front foot (rather than the sitting back) that we did best. 

Yes.   the prime example of what your talking about was that game versus the US in Hamilton.   We played, for the most part, a counter attacking game.   But we didnt exactly turtle in a low block with nine men behind the ball.   We played a counter attacking style while respecting some sense of positional structure.    We play a kind of game whereby its important that we don't fall behind (on the scoreboard) early.  

There will be plenty to digest and discuss about these three games over the next four years.  Lots of things to say that were good and lots of things to say that were weakness'es and lots of things that you can chalk up to misfortune (eg.: some referee decisions, PK decisions).  

 

[BearcatSA]

17 hours ago, Free kick said:

Yes.   the prime example of what your talking about was that game versus the US in Hamilton.   We played, for the most part, a counter attacking game.   But we didnt exactly turtle in a low block with nine men behind the ball.   We played a counter attacking style while respecting some sense of positional structure.    We play a kind of game whereby its important that we don't fall behind (on the scoreboard) early.  

There were too many instances of too many guys (including eight on the first half offside goal that got called back!) getting caught out by some basic, coordinated movement and passing by the Croatians through our midfield.  Positional structure was definitely an issue there.

Edited December 18, 2022 by BearcatSA

[VinceA]

16 hours ago, Free kick said:

Yes.   the prime example of what your talking about was that game versus the US in Hamilton.   We played, for the most part, a counter attacking game.   But we didnt exactly turtle in a low block with nine men behind the ball.   We played a counter attacking style while respecting some sense of positional structure.    We play a kind of game whereby its important that we don't fall behind (on the scoreboard) early.  

There will be plenty to digest and discuss about these three games over the next four years.  Lots of things to say that were good and lots of things to say that were weakness'es and lots of things that you can chalk up to misfortune (eg.: some referee decisions, PK decisions).  

 

I think we have blinders on with that US game. As many point out, the US absolutely had the middle of the park they just did nothing with it and Berhalter got roasted over the coals for how that game went.

[Stoppage Time]

I appreciate that Herdman had a huge role in getting Canada to the WC. We have all seen his positives and his negatives, the latter which include a need to recognize and use appropriate tactics as a game evolves, or in response to the strengths of a particular opponent. In contrast to Herdman, we saw France's Deschamps today make decisive first half substitutions against Argentina when it became apparent that some French players were not up to the task or tactics of the day.

Herdman deserves a chance to learn and grow with his understanding of match tactics and player selection, but not an open-ended chance. The Nations League and the Gold Cup must be seen as  accomplishments and clearly progressive for Canada. If Canada bombs out early or plays poorly due to selections or tactics, then Herdman would need to be replaced (perhaps to take over the lower U levels for the duration of his contract). In a real soccer nation, the fans will see decisive action by their Association when higher standards are not attained. 

Herdman is a smart guy and should learn from his experience, but the onus is on him to do so. Going sideways will not be acceptable.

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 hours ago, Stoppage Time said:

 In contrast to Herdman, we saw France's Deschamps today make decisive first half substitutions against Argentina when it became apparent that some French players were not up to the task or tactics of the day.

I agree Herdman has to show more in Nations League and the Gold Cup, and that he cannot not learn from errors. But still: those Deschamps changes were poor and made no difference to the game.

First, the Argentines let them back in stupidly. France had no shots on, off or blocked until m. 70, meaning the changes by Deschamps were useless for half the second half. 

Second, he eliminated key attacking pieces and the replacements did not do anything of note. 

He missed that the real problem was his midfield, Rabiot and Tchouaméni, Griezmann. In fact none of them clicked and he left them on. 

As I see it, Deschamps made an arrogant move, refused to acknowledge the problem, played favourites, and had his ass saved by Mbappe, who else? And by the inability of Argentina to hold onto a lead.  If we are going to talk about good examples, that is not one.

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[phresh]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

 Second, he eliminated key attacking pieces and the replacements did not do anything of note. 

Wrong, Kolo Muani drew France's first penalty, but he also missed a big chance near the end of the match that would've sealed it. Also, Thuram was the one who lobbed the ball over Romero to Mbappe on his second goal. World class finish, but still. Dembele was poor, repeatedly got smoked by Di Maria and clipped him inside the box to give Argentina a penalty.

Edited December 18, 2022 by phresh

[BearcatSA]

Was Deschamps asked about those changes in the post match presser?  It may have been more than just tactical.  I think more will come out in the wash in the coming days.

Grieszman was off the pace today and that was a key factor here.

Then after those bang bang goals, the French notably outmuscled the Argentines in 1 v 1 battles, getting the ball back far too easily without drawing fouls.  When they stopped trying to make telegraphed incisive passes that were picked off and instead ran at the defence more or started hammering in some crosses, things changed.

For all the pressure goals, it was the Martinez point blank reflex leg save that stood out the most for me.

Edited December 19, 2022 by BearcatSA

[ted]

2 hours ago, Stoppage Time said:

If Canada bombs out early or plays poorly due to selections or tactics, then Herdman would need to be replaced...

Absolutely. This should not have to be said. Herdman is the man until he isn't. Right now he absolutely is and I hope he will lead us through 2026.

[BearcatSA]

8 minutes ago, phresh said:

Wrong, Kolo Muani drew France's first penalty, but he also missed a big chance at near the end of the match that would've sealed it.

He ran at guys with the ball at his feet and asked questions of the Argentine d that needed numbered interventions

[Unnamed Trialist]

22 minutes ago, phresh said:

Wrong, Kolo Muani drew France's first penalty, but he also missed a big chance at near the end of the match that would've sealed it. Also, Thuram was the one who lobbed the ball over Romero to Mbappe on his second goal. World class finish, but still. Dembele was poor, repeatedly got smoked by Di Maria and clipped him inside the box to give Argentina a penalty.

I don't want to let Herdman off the hook, because he failed in a few critical moments and has to improve. He even had chances to fix things that did not get fixed (long ball over the middle, Japan, Belgium, even the counter by Morocco).

Deschamps: though Thuram was a bit livelier, both were basically non factors for the end of the first half and most of the 2nd half. Kolo did nothing for half an hour. Until m. 70. Then, true, they got better, but mostly because Argentina failed to manage the lead. The penalty on Kolo was as badly taken as Dembele tripping De Maria (though that case Kounde, the right back, was sitting so far back and failed to challenge him, which would have let Dembele off the hook). 

If you think that Giroud and Dembele would not have created any chances in the entire 2nd half, I guess you think those were good changes.

Deschamps has a long history of playing little favouritisms. Rabiot should have come off far earlier, Griezmann perhaps as well. It was a question of establishing a few scapegoats and saving face for himself, not the team. Because the only reason France got back in at all was because Argentina lost the midfield and lost track of Mbappe. There are times when tiki taka is most definitely the way to go.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[ECW]

11 hours ago, Stoppage Time said:

I appreciate that Herdman had a huge role in getting Canada to the WC. We have all seen his positives and his negatives, the latter which include a need to recognize and use appropriate tactics as a game evolves, or in response to the strengths of a particular opponent. In contrast to Herdman, we saw France's Deschamps today make decisive first half substitutions against Argentina when it became apparent that some French players were not up to the task or tactics of the day.

Herdman deserves a chance to learn and grow with his understanding of match tactics and player selection, but not an open-ended chance. The Nations League and the Gold Cup must be seen as  accomplishments and clearly progressive for Canada. If Canada bombs out early or plays poorly due to selections or tactics, then Herdman would need to be replaced (perhaps to take over the lower U levels for the duration of his contract). In a real soccer nation, the fans will see decisive action by their Association when higher standards are not attained. 

Herdman is a smart guy and should learn from his experience, but the onus is on him to do so. Going sideways will not be acceptable.

Among Herdman’s strengths are his adaptability and flexibility. We saw that often in qualifying. More than most national team managers he tailors his formation and the approach within the formation to the opponent. 

Maybe because of the willingness to shift from match to match he sometimes seems slow to remake things over the course of a game. And he still hasn’t quite figured out a few things about his roster, for example, how to use Davies. I get the feeling that the strength (openness to tactical change from opponent to opponent) can also be a weakness (things are sometimes a bit unfocused and misconstrued). 

I don’t think we had anything like enough high quality opponents to play to prepare for the world cup… especially with quite a few guys not seeing that sort of competition with their club teams. And with Herdman not having seen this sort of opposition either. And playing Mexico or the US on bad turf in the Canadian winter is great fun if we win but little to do with what we encountered in Qatar. We also lack roster depth. To have a chance I think we needed to be 100% healthy and stay that way the whole tournament. 

But hey, Belgium was good! (the penalty aside). Canada was the talk of the world cup there for a few days… and for the right reasons. 

 

 

[TGAA_Star]

Herdman is not wrong in anything he's saying because in order for Canada to even be threatening or to be a threat in CONCACAF, they do need more dual nationality players to switch to Canada to play for the team

[Cheeta]

15 hours ago, ted said:

Absolutely. This should not have to be said. Herdman is the man until he isn't. Right now he absolutely is and I hope he will lead us through 2026.

Speaking academically, does anyone think CanadaSoccer will pay Herdman to stay away whilst also paying for his replacement?  Doubt it.  Not on his wages. 

Everything else aside the cost of closing out his contract itself provides for some serious job security. 

[TGAA_Star]

29 minutes ago, Cheeta said:

Speaking academically, does anyone think CanadaSoccer will pay Herdman to stay away whilst also paying for his replacement?  Doubt it.  Not on his wages. 

Everything else aside the cost of closing out his contract itself provides for some serious job security. 

Yeah then why not have Jason De Vos take over as manager for 2026 or have one of our former players in charge? I mean assuming they are good enough to coach

[Bigandy]

20 hours ago, Stoppage Time said:

I appreciate that Herdman had a huge role in getting Canada to the WC. We have all seen his positives and his negatives, the latter which include a need to recognize and use appropriate tactics as a game evolves, or in response to the strengths of a particular opponent. In contrast to Herdman, we saw France's Deschamps today make decisive first half substitutions against Argentina when it became apparent that some French players were not up to the task or tactics of the day.

Herdman deserves a chance to learn and grow with his understanding of match tactics and player selection, but not an open-ended chance. The Nations League and the Gold Cup must be seen as  accomplishments and clearly progressive for Canada. If Canada bombs out early or plays poorly due to selections or tactics, then Herdman would need to be replaced (perhaps to take over the lower U levels for the duration of his contract). In a real soccer nation, the fans will see decisive action by their Association when higher standards are not attained. 

Herdman is a smart guy and should learn from his experience, but the onus is on him to do so. Going sideways will not be acceptable.

Its not quite an apples to apples comparison when herdman can put on MAK and an unfit oso, and deschamps can put any of his subs on who are world class. 

To use Deschamps as a measuring stick for herdman is unfair. We arent a nation that can attract and pay coaches of his calibre, we dont have the players that he has at his disposal, and his subs were pretty much like for like replacements. He didn't switch his formation or tactics. He changed the personnel. He wasnt a tactical genius that changed the in game approach. He also has a better squad than argentina so you could argue that losing the game with the better squad makes him a poor manager. (not that i believe 1 game makes or breaks a coach, but if we are roating herdman for croatia, we should roast deschamps for argentina).

If staq didnt go down injured, we likely see a very different game. But losing Staq killed us and theres nothing herdman couldve done to replace him. Herdman tried to replace him by going to a 3 man midfield, which is exactly what everyone says he shouldve done. As soon as we go to a 3 man midfield, we get crushed. The next argument is he left atiba on for too long. However, atiba didnt have the legs to close down the croatia midfield, but piette/MAK dont have the IQ to do it. Either way, the player in the holding position was going to get roasted. At least with Atiba on, we have some leadership skills. Maybe not the correct decision, but bringing on Piette/MAK is also not the answer. Theres not enough respect towards the impact that losing staq made. He is 100% irreplaceable 

To summarize 
-Herdman got the tactics correct for the first 30 minutes or so as evidenced by 1-0. Staq gets injured at the 30th and the wheels fall off. 
-Herdman sees that we cant play a 2 man midfield without staq and he changes to a 3 man midfield. We get roasted.
-Herdman didnt leave hutch in because of favourtism, He kept him in for the experience and lack of viable options. Arguably the wrong decision, but does anyone believe that MAK/Piette at half would have changed the outcome? 

The 2 main criticisms of herdman are:
1. He didnt start a midfield 3 - when he changed to a midfield 3, it didnt work. 
2. He didnt sub out atiba early enough - When he subbed out atiba, things didnt get any better. 

Are these criticisms fair since they didnt work out when he implemented them? We all saw some glaring weaknesses for Canada. Im sure that herdman saw them too. That doesnt mean he has the players to find a solution.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Bigandy

[costarg]

22 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Deschamps has a long history of playing little favouritisms. Rabiot should have come off far earlier, Griezmann perhaps as well.

You think?  Did I understand the commentator say that Griezmann has started 74 straight matches for France!?  That's absolutely crazy.

[dyslexic nam]

7 hours ago, TGAA_Star said:

Yeah then why not have Jason De Vos take over as manager for 2026 or have one of our former players in charge? I mean assuming they are good enough to coach

Normally I don’t respond to these posts,  but what you are suggesting is ridiculous.  DeVos was a great defender but there is no evidence whatsoever that he could successfully coach a national team.  You are suggesting that someone with no experience whatsoever as a head coach be given control of our national team in the build up to what will be the biggest moment in Canadian soccer history (on the men’s side).   

[TGAA_Star]

27 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Normally I don’t respond to these posts,  but what you are suggesting is ridiculous.  DeVos was a great defender but there is no evidence whatsoever that he could successfully coach a national team.  You are suggesting that someone with no experience whatsoever as a head coach be given control of our national team in the build up to what will be the biggest moment in Canadian soccer history (on the men’s side).   

Yeah well Scaloni with him when he became manager of Argentina he had next to no experience as manager but then he went on to be an assistant which DeVos is now currently for Canada. But then Scaloni was named interim manager of Argentina and he was given control of the team and look at what happened with them. I'm just saying if we gave someone either DeVos or some of our former players a chance to be manager for Canada, who knows what could happen? Well provided they have some kind of experience.

[El Hombre]

3 minutes ago, TGAA_Star said:

Yeah well Scaloni with him when he became manager of Argentina he had next to no experience as manager but then he went on to be an assistant which DeVos is now currently for Canada. But then Scaloni was named interim manager of Argentina and he was given control of the team and look at what happened with them. I'm just saying if we gave someone either DeVos or some of our former players a chance to be manager for Canada, who knows what could happen? Well provided they have some kind of experience.

See Bob Lenarduzzi, Frank Yallop, Dale Mitchell, Colin Miller.  If you want to talk about giving people in and around the CSA a chance, you could then expand that list to include Stephen Hart, Tony Fonseca, Michael Findlay....

In fact, the majority of our managers over the last 25 years have been exactly what you're suggesting.  I don't think we need to do too much more market research on this.

[jordan]

14 minutes ago, TGAA_Star said:

Yeah well Scaloni with him when he became manager of Argentina he had next to no experience as manager but then he went on to be an assistant which DeVos is now currently for Canada. But then Scaloni was named interim manager of Argentina and he was given control of the team and look at what happened with them. I'm just saying if we gave someone either DeVos or some of our former players a chance to be manager for Canada, who knows what could happen? Well provided they have some kind of experience.

Please no, see the u20 team

[The Beaver 2.0]

10 hours ago, TGAA_Star said:

Herdman is not wrong in anything he's saying because in order for Canada to even be threatening or to be a threat in CONCACAF, they do need more dual nationality players to switch to Canada to play for the team

What we need, specifically, are higher quality players, and more of 'em.  They need not be dual-nationals, but if you want to improve your program very quickly, then landing dual-nationals CAN get you there. It is one piece of the puzzle. Challenging our existing players to improve is another, as is finding and developing emerging quality players who are not non-dual-national Canadians.

[Bigandy]

42 minutes ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

What we need, specifically, are higher quality players, and more of 'em.  They need not be dual-nationals, but if you want to improve your program very quickly, then landing dual-nationals CAN get you there. It is one piece of the puzzle. Challenging our existing players to improve is another, as is finding and developing emerging quality players who are not non-dual-national Canadians.

I agree with what youre saying. Dual nationals are absolutely critical at this point though. Imagine canada without 
Borjan
adekugbe vitoria 
Staq Kone Spoony  Oso (i think) 
Davies David Ugbo Corbeanu Hoilett Cavallini akinola 

Obviously the degree to which these guys associate with canada vary, but all are technically duals. 

Crepau/St Clair 
Laryea waterman kennedy miller Edwards
Kaye hutch/Piette
Buchanan Larin Millar 
 This lineup would never have make the world cup.  

[RJB]

11 hours ago, TGAA_Star said:

Yeah then why not have Jason De Vos take over as manager for 2026 or have one of our former players in charge? I mean assuming they are good enough to coach

I find it hard to believe that anyone other than De Vos will get the job after Herdman.

[RJB]

4 hours ago, costarg said:

You think?  Did I understand the commentator say that Griezmann has started 74 straight matches for France!?  That's absolutely crazy.

That a coach has players he trusts and prefers is not exactly a shock. And in this case, it's Griezman, not some journeyman who plays for Brest or something like that. Whereas he played poorly in the final he had a pretty good tournament. And if the first half was the measure, then every french player should have been subbed so singling him out proves little. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by RJB