Herdman new head coach

[Grizzly]

We played terrible in this game. There was no tactical vision or understanding of how to break through the bunkering defence of SKN even though we knew this was exactly how they were going to play. The team also did not seem to be very confident or motivated which is precisely what Herdman was supposed to bring to them. I continue to have serious doubts whether Herdman was the right hire and is the coach we need to start performing at the level we should be. Apparently there is more to coaching than hanging up hokey posters with slogans like "whatever it takes (isn't that an awful song by Imagine Dragons?), "warrior mindset" and "self mastery". 

[aloyol]

15 minutes ago, Grizzly said:

We played terrible in this game. There was no tactical vision or understanding of how to break through the bunkering defence of SKN even though we knew this was exactly how they were going to play. The team also did not seem to be very confident or motivated which is precisely what Herdman was supposed to bring to them. I continue to have serious doubts whether Herdman was the right hire and is the coach we need to start performing at the level we should be. Apparently there is more to coaching than hanging up hokey posters with slogans like "whatever it takes (isn't that an awful song by Imagine Dragons?), "warrior mindset" and "self mastery". 

But Herdman had the team practicing on a bumpy pitch, which was clearly a great piece of "coaching mastery" and should be enough for you to erase that poor performance out of your memory...

[dyslexic nam]

I thought about posting something critical last night but figured I would wait a bit in case I had second thoughts.  But I still feel like there wasn't much about last night's performance that suggests any kind of tactical evolution. 

We have the elements in place for a pretty effective high press - Cav has tons of energy, Davies (when on the wing) is explosive, Tiebert seems tireless, Tabla seemed to have lots in the tank, etc (Hoilett seems to go in bursts, so he may be the one exception, but I have seen him press a lot in previous games).   And we were playing a team where our conditioning should be superior - and yet the high press wasn't really happening.

In attack, our guys weren't making a ton of effective off-the-ball runs, and as a result we didn't get a lot of penetrating passes in the offensive end.  Things looked better as the 2nd half wore on, but it took too long (IMO) for us to look in any way organized in attack.

And even on defence, it looked like we were exposed a number of times.  They didn't get anything out of it, but that was often due to a really terrible final pass on their part rather than anything we seemed to do.  I think a better team would have had a few really solid chances with the way we seemed open at the back. 

Maybe it is optimistic to expect our national team coach to have any kind of quick impact on tactics, but I don't think it is unreasonable.  And I may just be overly critical, but  I want to see us playing visibly better footy in the next few games.   Until that time, I am not hopeful about our chances when the real tests come.

[Kadenge]

Perhaps part of our performance issues could be attributed to the starting lineup. Not sure what is going on with Tabla but he does not look like the  player he was with Montreal. It's safe to say that at this point David is a better option. Davies needs to play on the wing period. When you play 3 defensive mids you are going to struggle to get the forwards going. Not sure why no Spooner. Having said all that our set plays including coners are poor and that is a concern. 

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, Grizzly said:

We played terrible in this game. There was no tactical vision or understanding of how to break through the bunkering defence of SKN even though we knew this was exactly how they were going to play. The team also did not seem to be very confident or motivated which is precisely what Herdman was supposed to bring to them. I continue to have serious doubts whether Herdman was the right hire and is the coach we need to start performing at the level we should be. Apparently there is more to coaching than hanging up hokey posters with slogans like "whatever it takes (isn't that an awful song by Imagine Dragons?), "warrior mindset" and "self mastery". 

I was on board with your last critical post on Herdman, but not this one. 

First of all, I think we need to give SKN credit where it's due. They played a great game. None of our players were especially poor (perhaps Larin withstanding) and everyone gave an honest effort, but our opponents were brave and up for the occasion.

I was far more impressed with them than I was disappointed in us.

Secondly, I saw no evidence to suggest we lacked confidence and motivation. I saw two top teams in qualifying battling it out.

I think we arguably gave them a little too much respect, but that is understandable given our lack of experience. It was a first away game in Concacaf for Tabla, Davies, ZBG and Cornelius.

Not that any of those players in particular showed too much respect, but I think we expected too much if we thought we could psychology boss this particular SKN team away from home in concacaf with 4 inexperienced starters in the line up. That's not to say it was the wrong choice to start them, but you got to take the good (talent) with the bad (inexperience).

On the bright side, when was last time we started 4 players 20 and under in an away win in concacaf?

All things considered, it was good to escape with 3 points. Good teams grind out away wins and that's what we did. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Obinna

[red card]

Other than the first 15 mins, it was a comfortable match for Canada. Unlike others, I didn't break a sweat in the second half.

Going in, base case scenario would have been 2-0 for Canada. So, missed on achieving it due to a Larin miss, the woodwork and a good save. Scoring remains an issue for Canada.

Winning also 4-0 wouldn't have meant much for matches against the top 6 of Concacaf. That's a different beast. Instead, it was good prep for a future World Qualifying match against a Caribbean nation ex Jamaica and T&T.

Edited November 19, 2018 by red card

[Boominbooty]

Just went back through soccerway's site and looked at the number of games Canada has played on an annual basis:. We only played four games this year! The last time we played so few games was 2001! I know we have a solid team on paper but they actually need to play together to develop cohesion and understanding of each other. Last night there were moments when some of the guys looked great together and others where it was painfully obvious that there has been no match play. There was no connection between players -- this was most obvious in the attacking end with passes going to the chain link fence in the corner or shots hitting the shipping container behind the net. This has to change if the team is going to progress.

 

[RS]

10 minutes ago, Boominbooty said:

Just went back through soccerway's site and looked at the number of games Canada has played on an annual basis:. We only played four games this year! The last time we played so few games was 2001! I know we have a solid team on paper but they actually need to play together to develop cohesion and understanding of each other. Last night there were moments when some of the guys looked great together and others where it was painfully obvious that there has been no match play. There was no connection between players -- this was most obvious in the attacking end with passes going to the chain link fence in the corner or shots hitting the shipping container behind the net. This has to change if the team is going to progress.

 

Assuming qualification for the Gold Cup, Canada will play at least 8 official games (5 CNL and 3 GC) in 2019. Add in a January camp and hopefully advancement past the GC group stage and we're looking at 10ish games for the year.

[hamiltonfan]

3 minutes ago, RS said:

Assuming qualification for the Gold Cup, Canada will play at least 8 official games (5 CNL and 3 GC) in 2019. Add in a January camp and hopefully advancement past the GC group stage and we're looking at 10ish games for the year.

Was the January camp confirmed by anyone? 

[Keegan]

23 minutes ago, hamiltonfan said:

Was the January camp confirmed by anyone? 

I believe I recall Herdman all but confirming that we wouldn’t have a January camp.  He basically said not to expect friendlies until after qualifiers, which end in March. 

[Obinna]

It really bugs me that we are just skipping these windows. If we don't have the money than fair enough, but it puzzles me how smaller nations seemingly don't have this problem. Does the Honduras program, for example, have more money than the CSA? If so, I can accept that's where we are at, but as a fan I feel I deserve an explication.

[Grizzly]

4 hours ago, Obinna said:

I saw two top teams in qualifying battling it out.

All things considered, it was good to escape with 3 points. Good teams grind out away wins and that's what we did. 

You are vastly overrating SKN. They have one good player. But I will say this, they played better than expected with their lineup on paper, we played much worse than one would expect with our lineup on paper. We need to have a coach who is getting the maximum out of our lineup and that is exactly what Herdman has been selling us that he will do. Last night we got the minimum and if it wasn't for Atiba we tie or lose that game. We play like this away in Honduras and it is 8-1. I expect to see a tactical formation that can break down bunkering teams and if it is not working then a coach who can analyze what to change to be effective. Most professional coaches who have experience in lower divisions are able to do this. Even if a random Voyageur were coach we should expect to beat SKN 1-0 just on the strength of our superior squad. If this is how we are going to play against SKN we have no business playing against teams like Honduras let alone Mexico. What I saw last night was a return to the type of play we did under the string of amateur coaches we had. So far we have gotten a lot of talk and bragging from Herdman but not much proof that he has the ability he says he does. I hope he turns out better than I expect but until we see some proof of that I am going to continue to be skeptical and to demand results.

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, Grizzly said:

You are vastly overrating SKN. They have one good player. But I will say this, they played better than expected with their lineup on paper, we played much worse than one would expect with our lineup on paper. We need to have a coach who is getting the maximum out of our lineup and that is exactly what Herdman has been selling us that he will do. Last night we got the minimum and if it wasn't for Atiba we tie or lose that game. We play like this away in Honduras and it is 8-1. I expect to see a tactical formation that can break down bunkering teams and if it is not working then a coach who can analyze what to change to be effective. Most professional coaches who have experience in lower divisions are able to do this. Even if a random Voyageur were coach we should expect to beat SKN 1-0 just on the strength of our superior squad. If this is how we are going to play against SKN we have no business playing against teams like Honduras let alone Mexico. What I saw last night was a return to the type of play we did under the string of amateur coaches we had. So far we have gotten a lot of talk and bragging from Herdman but not much proof that he has the ability he says he does. I hope he turns out better than I expect but until we see some proof of that I am going to continue to be skeptical and to demand results.

I am only calling it as I see it.

Perhaps their performance against us was an outlier, but their other results suggest otherwise.

Before the match they sat 5th on +11 GD. We sat in 3rd on +13 GD. They were the home team and this was our first true away match, both in qualifying and under Herdman.

Going into this fixture, all those signs pointed to a tight match. To suggest a random Voyageur could have coached Canada to a 1-0 result, given the circumstances and where both teams stood in the table, is very silly to say the least.

And to say we have no business playing against teams like Honduras based on this game is way too alarmist for my liking. You are entitled to your own opinion obviously, but to me it seems like your negative perception of the result is colored by your general disapproval of Herdman. At least that is how you come off to me, based on the tone of your recent posts.

We are second overall with a 3-0 record and +14 GD. Our final game is at home against a side who look destined to miss the Gold Cup and play in league B.

I don't know exactly what proof you are looking for, but if we finish at the top of the standings with a perfect record, I don't think we have much to complain about in terms of results.

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Obinna

[Kent]

Canada gets a win on the road, but doesn’t break any margin of victory records (for the first time in Nations League qualifying), and people complain about results.

[Gian-Luca]

The biggest problem we have under Herdman is not knowing what we have under Herdman. 

By this I mean we still really haven't been tested after nearly a full year on the job and won't until next summer, a year and a half after he started on the job. The US are taking too long to hire a new coach but their current interim coach will have coached them for 10 games in the same period of time. 

[Blackjack15]

I think a January camp would be beneficial 

[Ansem]

23 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

The biggest problem we have under Herdman is not knowing what we have under Herdman. 

By this I mean we still really haven't been tested after nearly a full year on the job and won't until next summer, a year and a half after he started on the job. The US are taking too long to hire a new coach but their current interim coach will have coached them for 10 games in the same period of time. 

Have you seen them against England? They looked so "old school Canada" out there.

Total crap on the pitch and a clear lack of direction. The USSF are doing a huge disservice to that team. Those 10 games went to waste while they could have hired someone and be 10 games in behind the new coach and work on chemistry + new tactical approach. The organization as a whole looks so "old school Canada"

It was already bad under Arena while the culture problem started under Klinsmann in the WCQ. That choke against Trinida B team was so "vintage Canada"

When they finally get a coach, they'll have to start all over. Really bizarre. Coach drama...like "vintage Canada"

The golden age of the USMNT is behind them. They peaked in Brazil if you ask me and "wonderboy" wont save them on his own just like Hutchinson couldn't do it for us on his own... like Vintage Canada

USMNT = Vintage Canada right now 

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by Ansem

[kacbru]

5 hours ago, Obinna said:

I am only calling it as I see it.

Perhaps their performance against us was an outlier, but their other results suggest otherwise.

Before the match they sat 5th on +11 GD. We sat in 3rd on +13 GD. They were the home team and this was our first true away match, both in qualifying and under Herdman.

Going into this fixture, all those signs pointed to a tight match. To suggest a random Voyageur could have coached Canada to a 1-0 result, given the circumstances and where both teams stood in the table, is very silly to say the least.

And to say we have no business playing against teams like Honduras based on this game is way too alarmist for my liking. You are entitled to your own opinion obviously, but to me it seems like your negative perception of the result is colored by your general disapproval of Herdman. At least that is how you come off to me, based on the tone of your recent posts.

We are second overall with a 3-0 record and +14 GD. Our final game is at home against a side who look destined to miss the Gold Cup and play in league B.

I don't know exactly what proof you are looking for, but if we finish at the top of the standings with a perfect record, I don't think we have much to complain about in terms of results.

 

 

 

True, if we finish top of the standings with a perfect record, we meet the barest of bare minimums in terms of expectations.  But the fact that we beat a bunch of largely amateur teams tells us nothing about Herdman as a coach (positive or negative) or  the quality of our new players (while it certainly looks more promising than it has in the past).  It is frustrating to wait two years, as Gian-Luca says above, to have a true sense of where we are at.

[aloyol]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Canada gets a win on the road, but doesn’t break any margin of victory records (for the first time in Nations League qualifying), and people complain about results.

I don’t think we ve read the same thing. Most criticism are about the lack of cohesion and organization of the team yesterday. From what I ve seen, we were far from convincing in that regard.

The win is nice but the way we played, with a full squad, was very average at best. That was our first real test and while it wasn’t a failure, it wasn’t a strong showing that could be an indication that we are about to experience some positive changes. 

[dyslexic nam]

6 hours ago, aloyol said:

I don’t think we ve read the same thing. Most criticism are about the lack of cohesion and organization of the team yesterday. From what I ve seen, we were far from convincing in that regard.

The win is nice but the way we played, with a full squad, was very average at best. That was our first real test and while it wasn’t a failure, it wasn’t a strong showing that could be an indication that we are about to experience some positive changes. 

That sums it up for me.  Yeah, we are 3 and 0, which is awesome (and let's be honest, could realistically be worse).  And that includes an away CONCACAF win, which we have screwed up before.

But in the actual play, there doesn't seem to be any sort of quantum step taken yet.  I think we will see it over time - especially with the age of our squad.  Not even considering the talent levels (which are hugely encouraging) the youthfulness of our side is great.  But the critics among us just want to see that potential translate into a visibly better team, and so far the performances haven't been the kind of dominance we are hoping for.

[shamrock]

Looking at how hard this game was, I'm happy with the call to keep the youngsters with the MNT. I mean, what would have happened without them? 

15 hours ago, Obinna said:

It really bugs me that we are just skipping these windows. If we don't have the money than fair enough, but it puzzles me how smaller nations seemingly don't have this problem. Does the Honduras program, for example, have more money than the CSA? If so, I can accept that's where we are at, but as a fan I feel I deserve an explication.

Do they also have a women's program? 

[Gian-Luca]

11 hours ago, Ansem said:

Have you seen them against England? They looked so "old school Canada" out there.

Total crap on the pitch and a clear lack of direction. The USSF are doing a huge disservice to that team. Those 10 games went to waste while they could have hired someone and be 10 games in behind the new coach and work on chemistry + new tactical approach. The organization as a whole looks so "old school Canada"

It was already bad under Arena while the culture problem started under Klinsmann in the WCQ. That choke against Trinida B team was so "vintage Canada"

When they finally get a coach, they'll have to start all over. Really bizarre. Coach drama...like "vintage Canada"

The golden age of the USMNT is behind them. They peaked in Brazil if you ask me and "wonderboy" wont save them on his own just like Hutchinson couldn't do it for us on his own... like Vintage Canada

USMNT = Vintage Canada right now 

 

Whether that is true or not, it doesn't really help us at all. To illustrate my point, I have no idea if Herdman went with 3 defensive midfielders in the centre of the park yesterday because that's the sort of thing we should expect under Herdman for any road game, or because we were without both Osorio and Arfield therefore Herdman thought "I'll just play my best midfielders that are available to me and base my team strategy on that". Because we've had a total of one game on the road (the NZ & USVI games - and the latter is pretty much useless for analytical purposes) were on neutral sites.

If Osorio and Arfield were available, would they have started instead of Piette & Teibert? My guess is yes, but I'm only speculating because we know so little about what Herdman will do on the road with a full squad - what he did on Sunday (three d-mids against St. Kitts) strikes me as extremely conservative in approach. Personally I would have preferred seeing Chapman instead of one of those two, not because I necessarily think he's a better player but because we've seen enough from these three players (Chapman, Piette & Teibert) in MLS league play to know that he can bring more offense and creativity to the centre of the park and I feel that if you already have Atiba there and also one of Piette and Teibert, what do you need all three of them for? It is not a surprise that we struggled to create offense in the first half and only started to with any frequency late in the 2nd as our opponents got tired - the positive flipside to that was that we allowed zero scoring chances for the opposition, with our three defensive midfielders. But we don't know really what the team might be like with Chapman playing above Atiba and one of Piette or Teibert at the top of a diamond and whether that would make for a more balanced midfield because we don't play any additional friendlies to even test this out.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Gian-Luca

[Keegan]

Those saying we went with 3 defensive midfielders are just wrong.  Piette was the only defensive midfielder.. all you have to do is watch the goal to see that.  I’d describe it as a holding midfielder with two box to box mids. Whether Arfield and Osorio were available is probably irrelevant  from a tactical standpoint as they would slot into Hutchinson and Teibert spot and Hutchinson would probably drop into Piette’s spot.  

Canada with one holding mid and two central mids/box to box mids is a tale as old as time. 

It was unfortunate we didn’t have Arfield/Osorio as both are skilled at making late runs into the box and used to doing it at club level.  But in the circumstances I think having Teibert and Hutchinson in that role was the obvious decision.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Keegan

[RJB]

17 hours ago, Obinna said:

I am only calling it as I see it.

Perhaps their performance against us was an outlier, but their other results suggest otherwise.

Before the match they sat 5th on +11 GD. We sat in 3rd on +13 GD. They were the home team and this was our first true away match, both in qualifying and under Herdman.

Going into this fixture, all those signs pointed to a tight match. To suggest a random Voyageur could have coached Canada to a 1-0 result, given the circumstances and where both teams stood in the table, is very silly to say the least.

It very much sounds like you are putting St Kitts on par with us.  

[Obinna]

Just now, RJB said:

It very much sounds like you are putting St Kitts on par with us.  

They were nearly on par with us statistically.