The Road to Qatar.

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

8 minutes ago, BedBugs said:

Is it Robert or the CSA who needs to start looking at who plays when?

You will find that this exact thread was filled with posters tracking which teams were available for March (and I'm sure the same thing will happen for June). These posters actually take the time to look at which teams have booked friendlies or are otherwise engaged in international competition. Please do the same.

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

8 minutes ago, BedBugs said:

I really don't think that you have to spend a lot of time trying to figure this out...is that you get to pick your opponents...

Yes, you pick your opponents amongst those that are not otherwise engaged in competition or have not already booked another opponent. There is no point asking why the CSA doesn't schedule a March/June game against an African opponent when we all clearly know that it is a scheduling impossibility.

Speculate and make suggestions if you want, but keep it within the realm of the possible.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

The beauty of friendlies is that you get to pick your opponents

12 minutes ago, BedBugs said:

I really don't think that you have to spend a lot of time trying to figure this out. If you want to move up in the rankings, whether its soccer or boxing, you simply have to take on higher-ranked countries or fighters. Your never going to get a title- shot or make the HEX by taking on the 105th or 162th ranked contenders. When are John Herdman and the CSA finally going to quit being scared and fix Alphonso and the boys up with some meaningful friendlies against top-6 ranked CONCACAF nations? If we lose, big deal. We'll just have to go the 7 to 35 route, but at least we gave it a good and honest effort, instead of this chicken-poop approach of trying to get in through the back door by playing minnows ever since we got eliminated from the Nations League. The beauty of friendlies is that you get to pick your opponents, unlike the minnow we are forced to play in the Nations League, Gold Cup and World Cup qualifying competitions. 

Not sure I want to get into this whole thing - but this is not true. You can pick an opponent that will agree to a friendly with you.  There is a difference.

You can try with whoever you like, but they have obligations and concerns of their own.  Other nations for the most part do not care 1/10 as much about FIFA rankings as Canada does as this juncture.  But even if a top 6 side were looking for some easy points for some reason, why pick Canada who are probably under-ranked.  But really they aren't, so why bother playing a side you only have a small chance of facing in the future that may not draw the crowds of a more local rival. 

It is a bit like saying your club should sign X player because you have Y million in your coffers and getting mad when it does not happen. The player, agent, other clubs all have their say.  You can't just choose to sign him if you have the money. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

Clearly the criteria of Fifa points to qualify for the HEX is lazy and incoherent on the part of Concacaf. Just the fact that the confederation has many official teams and thus matches that are not official in Fifa demonstrates this. It's a real cheap chicken shhtt way of determining such an important matter. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Unnamed Trialist

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

Two wins against T&T would give us ~7.5 points

Panama play both Nicaragua and Guatemala outside of the FIFA window first, so their ranking will change but if we stick to the:
+4.6 -0.4 -5.4 line for El Salvador vs Panama and if we are about ~14.2 points behind now, then,

Best case scenario:
We beat T&T twice and Panama beat El Salvador - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~1.3

2nd/3rd best case scenario:
We beat T&T twice and Panama draw El Salvador - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~6.3
We beat T&T in one game but draw the other and Panama beat El Salvador - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~6.3

4th best case scenario:
We beat T&T twice and but prior to that, El Salvador declare their match against Panama is a training match - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~6.7

Other scenarios that kill our Hex chances:

We beat T&T twice and El Salvador beat Panama - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~11.3

We beat T&T in one game but lose the other and Panama beat El Salvador - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~11.3

In all other scenarios the point gap grows.
Of course, the arithmetic gets more complicated if El Salvador schedule a second friendly.

Please correct any mistakes if I've made any. Thanks to @Kyle_The_Hill for the points from different match outcomes.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Olympique_de_Marseille

[archer21]

1 hour ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

Two wins against T&T would give us ~7.5 points

Panama play both Nicaragua and Guatemala outside of the FIFA window first, so their ranking will change but if we stick to the:
+4.6 -0.4 -5.4 line for El Salvador vs Panama and if we are about ~14.2 points behind now, then,

Best case scenario:
We beat T&T twice and Panama beat El Salvador - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~1.3

2nd/3rd best case scenario:
We beat T&T twice and Panama draw El Salvador - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~6.3
We beat T&T in one game but draw the other and Panama beat El Salvador - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~6.3

4th best case scenario:
We beat T&T twice and but prior to that, El Salvador declare their match against Panama is a training match - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~6.7

Other scenarios that kill our Hex chances:

We beat T&T twice and El Salvador beat Panama - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~11.3

We beat T&T in one game but lose the other and Panama beat El Salvador - The gap shrinks from ~14.2 to ~11.3

In all other scenarios the point gap grows.
Of course, the arithmetic gets more complicated if El Salvador schedule a second friendly.

Please correct any mistakes if I've made any. Thanks to @Kyle_The_Hill for the points from different match outcomes.

I think that’s basically all correct. Don’t wanna take the time to make sure the numbers are exact but there are a couple other scenarios that get us 11.3 points behind, such as we draw both and Panama beats ES, or we win and draw and Panama draws with ES.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

16 minutes ago, BedBugs said:

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but since you have brought up some hypothetical scenarios  here's one of mine:

It is of course no surprise that all 4 of the countries still in contention for the CONCACAF Nations League championship are ranked in the top 6 countries of CONCACAF. No matter how the final stage plays out in June, one of those four is going to incur 2 losses (as there will be a third place match) at maximum-weighted points, which based on the number of points Canada lost in their last match against the United States could added up to a drop of 40 points in the FIFA rankings. Now for the sake of argument let's say that the unfortunate country happens to be Honduras. Add to this, the fact that Honduras will be playing a friendly against the Czech Republic in Fort Lauderdale on March 29th, would it not have been a more strategic and beneficial move on the part of the CSA to chose to play 2 matches behind closed doors (which seems to be the CSA's preferred MO in recent times) in Fort Lauderdale against Honduras and the Czech Republic? If we are, like many on this board believe, better than El Salvador, then would the ideal HEX not include both Canada and El Salvador?

You can't lose points in the knockout rounds of finals of competitions.   The first game for the 4 teams is a semi-final of the Nations League. 

"Teams that earn negative points in the knock-out round of a final competition (e.g. as a result of losing, or even winning after PSO against a weaker team) do not lose any points...
This condition was introduced in order to protect the point totals of teams that have progressed to the knock-out round."

I would be interested to see a hard and fast documentation on whether that includes the third place game. The justification at the end would lead me to think so. 

Edited February 23, 2020 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[archer21]

36 minutes ago, BedBugs said:

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but since you have brought up some hypothetical scenarios  here's one of mine:

It is of course no surprise that all 4 of the countries still in contention for the CONCACAF Nations League championship are ranked in the top 6 countries of CONCACAF. No matter how the final stage plays out in June, one of those four is going to incur 2 losses (as there will be a third place match) at maximum-weighted points, which based on the number of points Canada lost in their last match against the United States could added up to a drop of 40 points in the FIFA rankings. Now for the sake of argument let's say that the unfortunate country happens to be Honduras. Add to this, the fact that Honduras will be playing a friendly against the Czech Republic in Fort Lauderdale on March 29th, would it not have been a more strategic and beneficial move on the part of the CSA to chose to play 2 matches behind closed doors (which seems to be the CSA's preferred MO in recent times) in Fort Lauderdale against Honduras and the Czech Republic, rather than a pair of matches against Trinidad and Tobago? If we are, like many on this board believe, better than El Salvador, then would the ideal HEX not include both Canada and El Salvador?

Theoretically we could play Honduras and Czech Republic but there’s no guarantee those teams will agree to play us. Also, I don’t love our chances of beating Czech Republic. As has been said, Honduras will not lose points in the Nations League knockouts, so there’s no way we catch Honduras.

[Kyle_The_Hill]

34 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

You can't lose points in the knockout rounds of finals of competitions.   The first game for the 4 teams is a semi-final of the Nations League. 

"Teams that earn negative points in the knock-out round of a final competition (e.g. as a result of losing, or even winning after PSO against a weaker team) do not lose any points...
This condition was introduced in order to protect the point totals of teams that have progressed to the knock-out round."

I would be interested to see a hard and fast documentation on whether that includes the third place game. The justification at the end would lead me to think so. 

It's not in the document but nations don't lose points for losing in the 3rd place game.

England didn't drop any for their loss to Belgium in the World Cup. Switzerland actually gained points when they lost to England in the UEFA Nations League Finals 3rd place as it was in a shootout.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Kyle_The_Hill

[RS]

You've said some really stupid things on here over the years, but lamenting that Victor Montagliani isn't more like Jack Warner may just be the dumbest.

[dyslexic nam]

1 hour ago, BedBugs said:

All I said was that Jack Warner did more to help Trinidad qualify for a World Cup Final than Victor Montagliani has thus far done for Canada.

I will repeat what I have said a few times: Canada would be in far better shape right now if we had simply don’t the job against Haiti in the Gold Cup.  We were up 2-0 against a lower ranked team.  If we had just finished them off, we would have gained valuable points and had an extra SF game to earn even more.  If we had just done what we were supposed to do (and were entirely capable of doing), we would be in great shape to qualify for the hex for the first time in decades, and everyone would be thanking Victor for a format that would have basically delivered us into the hex.  

Hard to blame him for our team’s complete collapse against an inferior team at a crucial time.  

[Kent]

3 hours ago, BedBugs said:

In spite of all of this, I would never thank Vic, nor anyone else, for coming up with this asinine qualifying format. The old format was absolutely perfect compared to this new shite-format of his!

This. Regardless of what team I cheer for, I wouldn’t thank anyone for the unfair format that CONCACAF has this time around.

[Kyle_The_Hill]

5 hours ago, BedBugs said:

Make that 22. It's time to blow out the candle.

Can you try to add value to the discussion next time you make a post? Every other comment on the last two pages in this thread have been from you.

They are either like this one, a wall of text with random data for no reason. Or they're wild statements like "Man I miss the good old days of Jack Warner and Sepp Blatter".

[BuzzAndSting]

42 minutes ago, Kyle_The_Hill said:

Can you try to add value to the discussion next time you make a post?

That is not Robert's move.

[ted]

20 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

I will repeat what I have said a few times: Canada would be in far better shape right now if we had simply don’t the job against Haiti in the Gold Cup.  

I will repeat what I have said a few times: The Gold Cup win under Holger was a highlight of my soccer memories.

WTF does that have to do with the quoted post above?

Nothing.

Just like the reply quoted above had nothing to do with the question of Warner and Montagliani. 

It's like watching a U7 team sometimes around here: "Ethan, the ball is over there! Stop picking the dandelions!"

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by ted
spelling error

[dyslexic nam]

25 minutes ago, ted said:

I will repeat what I have said a few times: The Gold Cup win under Holger was a highlight of my soccer memories.

WTF does that have to do with the quoted post above?

Nothing.

Just like the reply quoted above had nothing to do with the question of Warner and Montagliani. 

It's like watching a U7 team sometimes around here: "Ethan, the ball is over there! Stop picking the dandelions!"

Robert was saying that Vic had done nothing to help Canada qualify for the WC and was praising Warner because at least he had facilitated T&T's progress to the WC.

I was pointing out that under the qualification format ushered in under Vic's watch, Canada had a clear path to the hex, entirely within our reach and by all accounts a pretty probably outcome. All we had to do was take advantage of the opportunities at the GC, and we would have been in the hex.  We needed to win one very winnable game and we would have been positioned to achieve something we had failed to do for over 30 years.  So to me, the response I posted was very much on topic.  

I am not praising Vic or the qualifying format.  But to blame him for not spoon-feeding us a path to qualification (which was the point of Robert's post to which I was responding) seems foolish.  The pathway was there for the taking.  We just failed.

 

[Kyle_The_Hill]

Oh and now he's banned. Didn't know I had that much power.

[RS]

28 minutes ago, Kyle_The_Hill said:

Oh and now he's banned. Didn't know I had that much power.

He'll be back.

[dyslexic nam]

14 minutes ago, RS said:

He'll be back.

Sorta like herpes.

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

1 hour ago, dyslexic nam said:

Sorta like herpes.

No, like his latest name suggests - BedBugs.

[Kyle_The_Hill]

7 minutes ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

No, like his latest name suggests - BedBugs.

Back on topic. Still nothing about about a potential second match for El Salvador yet right?

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

Just now, Kyle_The_Hill said:

Back on topic. Still nothing about about a potential second match for El Salvador yet right?

When I checked earlier today there was nothing on the usual sites.

I still find it strange that they want to play Panama. It seems like an unnecessary risk. Maybe they think Panama will play a "B" team and they can get the win at home and get to the Hex?

[SpursFlu]

I think there is 2 sides to the coin. If they play a minnow, its entirely possibly they loose or tie. Then they're really in trouble. If they loose to better teams the point lose is minimal and it still keep the pressure on us to keep winning. People have pointed out this system sucks but the process hasn't played itself out yet. I think the truth might just play out here by July

[Yoginess]

10 hours ago, Kyle_The_Hill said:

Can you try to add value to the discussion next time you make a post? Every other comment on the last two pages in this thread have been from you.

They are either like this one, a wall of text with random data for no reason. Or they're wild statements like "Man I miss the good old days of Jack Warner and Sepp Blatter".

a least we don’t have a tg11 2.0

[Rivaldo]

6 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

I was pointing out that under the qualification format ushered in under Vic's watch, Canada had a clear path to the hex, entirely within our reach and by all accounts a pretty probably outcome. All we had to do was take advantage of the opportunities at the GC, and we would have been in the hex.  We needed to win one very winnable game and we would have been positioned to achieve something we had failed to do for over 30 years.  So to me, the response I posted was very much on topic.  

I am not praising Vic or the qualifying format.  But to blame him for not spoon-feeding us a path to qualification (which was the point of Robert's post to which I was responding) seems foolish.  The pathway was there for the taking.  We just failed.

CONCACAF intended to use their own ranking system, where Canada was in the top 6, so we stood to benefit from this terrible WCQ format. I doubt we'll ever know how much influence Montagliani had over that, but he is the President.

When FIFA told them they have to use FIFA's crap rankings, that put us on the outside, and beating Haiti wouldn't have changed that. We haven't failed. We still have a chance to get in the top six, where we deserve to be.