Jump to content
Binky

The Road to Qatar.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Alex said:

No, they are playing Trinidad in front of a packed house March 27 to try to get into the hex. 

No, because that is not enough to get into the HEX, they have to win both. March 27 is not enough, there would be no point playing it if it were.

The idea that it is easier to win without home support than with goes against stats, common sense, supporter culture, the Voyageurs as an entity, and common practice in world football. Imposing closed doors for a home friendly with Fifa points on the line is unheard of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

No, because that is not enough to get into the HEX, they have to win both. March 27 is not enough, there would be no point playing it if it were.

The idea that it is easier to win without home support than with goes against stats, common sense, supporter culture, the Voyageurs as an entity, and common practice in world football. Imposing closed doors for a home friendly with Fifa points on the line is unheard of.

Yes, agreed, but T&T also has a say in it, right? 

It would make sense that CANMNT approached them and said "we want to play, 2 games both at home, because we have no money to fly a team, with soccer balls and water bottles to Trinidad".  T&T thinks about the offer for all of 4 seconds and says, "why should we accept 2 back to back road games, against stronger opposition?"  So their retort is "fine, we accept, but one of the games must be on neutral ground, since neither of us have money to travel to said neutral ground, lets have it in Canada, but with no fans".  So less of an advantage to CANMNT.  

It makes total sense.  I must be missing something, because I don't understand why so many are getting all bent about this.  We have two games that can bring us points, whats the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BuzzAndSting said:

Sure, glass half empty or half full.

BTW I think the second game will be opened up to the public if the ticket sales for the first game go well.

Maybe it will be, and maybe it won’t be. It’s all just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, costarg said:

Yes, agreed, but T&T also has a say in it, right? 

It would make sense that CANMNT approached them and said "we want to play, 2 games both at home, because we have no money to fly a team, with soccer balls and water bottles to Trinidad".  T&T thinks about the offer for all of 4 seconds and says, "why should we accept 2 back to back road games, against stronger opposition?"  So their retort is "fine, we accept, but one of the games must be on neutral ground, since neither of us have money to travel to said neutral ground, lets have it in Canada, but with no fans".  So less of an advantage to CANMNT.  

It makes total sense.  I must be missing something, because I don't understand why so many are getting all bent about this.  We have two games that can bring us points, whats the problem?

If not having fans makes that neutral ground, we could get more Fifa points. But it's not, it is a home game, the potential for points is still less for a result, only that you lose the advantage that playing at home gives you, which is the Lake Side Buoys and Voyageurs in the area and plenty of other footie fans pushing you.

I can easily argue why this is even more ridiculous: Rugby Canada hosts the women's 7s international tournament at Langford, and fans come out to watch Canada 2 days in a row, Saturday and Sunday. So fans in Victoria are perfectly used to going to Westhills for more than one match or day to support Canada. It is not at all strange (first weekend of May this year).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kent said:

The formatting actually looks OK on my devices...

On desktop/laptop it's OK , you're right. On mobile...not so much. The post was more of a rant and an attempt to stop Robert from going any further. The man really does love to copy-paste marginally relevant or even extraneous information in giant tables when a simple URL link to the original source will do.

 

6 hours ago, BuzzAndSting said:

I think the second game will be opened up to the public if the ticket sales for the first game go well.

This is what Richard Scott from the CSA seemed to imply.

Edited by Olympique_de_Marseille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

If not having fans makes that neutral ground, we could get more Fifa points. But it's not, it is a home game, the potential for points is still less for a result, only that you lose the advantage that playing at home gives you, which is the Lake Side Buoys and Voyageurs in the area and plenty of other footie fans pushing you.

I can easily argue why this is even more ridiculous: Rugby Canada hosts the women's 7s international tournament at Langford, and fans come out to watch Canada 2 days in a row, Saturday and Sunday. So fans in Victoria are perfectly used to going to Westhills for more than one match or day to support Canada. It is not at all strange (first weekend of May this year).

There’s no difference in points based on who is the home team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Alex said:

Go a few pages back and @Kyle_The_Hill posted it. If we win both games we get 7.5 points and if Panama beats El Salvador, El Salvador loses 5.4 points 

So if we're on 1332 points after the January camp, this 13 point swing would put us just over a point back heading into June.  Not bad

I think that could be enough to get El Salvador to agree to play us in the final window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, archer21 said:

There’s no difference in points based on who is the home team.

Sorry, I thought there was. It used to be the case with Fifa points, an away win was worth more than a home win. Is it really not like that any more?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost positive that I read somewhere that tickets for the second game would go on sale if game 1 sold well, which to me just seems like a ploy to increase demand for game 1. Based on personal observations I think this game is already attracting far more interest than Pacific matches last year, so I can't imagine selling out being an issue. I'm not sure all this ire is needed at this point but I will also be choked if game 2 ends up being behind closed doors. Unless there's a very good reason for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

If not having fans makes that neutral ground, we could get more Fifa points. But it's not, it is a home game, the potential for points is still less for a result, only that you lose the advantage that playing at home gives you, which is the Lake Side Buoys and Voyageurs in the area and plenty of other footie fans pushing you.

I can easily argue why this is even more ridiculous: Rugby Canada hosts the women's 7s international tournament at Langford, and fans come out to watch Canada 2 days in a row, Saturday and Sunday. So fans in Victoria are perfectly used to going to Westhills for more than one match or day to support Canada. It is not at all strange (first weekend of May this year).

Yes, I understand your point.  It makes total sense, 100% correct.  However, we all need to understand that CANMNT is strapped for cash.  There is no money for travel, we can't go to Europe and aim for more points.  This is very likely the best they could do.  Lets take it and make the most of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BedBugs said:

 

Almost forgot. I sure hope I didn't make you look foolish Kent.

 

If you really wanted to make him look foolish, you should have got him to run for CSA President but not actually get any votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BuzzAndSting said:

You don't know Robert, aka @BedBugs, he's not a Canada fan, he's a Dutch fan. 

Didn't he get a permanent ban under his previous incarnation as @Binky? And for good reason after going full on radio rental. And now he is back? That is not good. The mods should be able to sort it out by tracking the IP address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lofty said:

Didn't he get a permanent ban under his previous incarnation as @Binky? And for good reason after going full on radio rental. And now he is back? That is not good. The mods should be able to sort it out by tracking the IP address.

@admin might want to weigh in on whether or not he'd like to ban this serial pest for the 4th time now, or wait until the inevitable next meltdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

@admin might want to weigh in on whether or not he'd like to ban this serial pest for the 4th time now, or wait until the inevitable next meltdown.

His posts are perfectly rational in this case, I think he's right. 

This business of calling for a ban on someone who bothered you in the past, I see it as bullying. And under forum rules would justify a warning and a ban. Because the way warnings and bans are handled here, terribly in my opinion, you would deserve it if you keep this up.

Reply to the post and the arguments, and stop with this conspiratorial stuff about what someone did that bothered you 8 months ago. And take a laxative, you are being very uptight.

Edited by Unnamed Trialist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

His posts are perfectly rational in this case, I think he's right. 

This business of calling for a ban on someone who bothered you in the past, I see it as bullying. And under forum rules would justify a warning and a ban. Because the way warnings and bans are handled here, terribly in my opinion, you would deserve it if you keep this up.

Reply to the post and the arguments, and stop with this conspiratorial stuff about what someone did that bothered you 8 months ago. And take a laxative, you are being very uptight.

I disagree, the last ban was for a meltdown that was completely unwarranted and highly offensive. Combined with multiple previous warnings and even more instances in which his insulting behaviour was simply tolerated there’s no value in allowing him to keep posting here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert/binky/ovi/bedbugs and I’m sure there’s more alter egos, seems like a very passionate and knowledgeable Canadian fan that clearly hates the csa and how they do things, and that’s fine. Be pissed off just don’t tell us every damn post you make. Add to a conversation, fine, tell us about all the games you went to and why you are pissed this *might* be a closed door friendly on March 30th (I actually enjoyed that post) but reel yourself in a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the same as when UT got banned.  Is there a time frame? Is it permanent?  There must be some set of clear rules and sentences.  If someone can just create a new avatar and come right back bans are toothless.  If his ban is up and he can come back, then why make a new persona??  He is changing his name to circumvent the rules.  And the fact that he continually breaks the rules even after being banned multiple times is perfectly acceptable to bring up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alex said:

Robert/binky/ovi/bedbugs and I’m sure there’s more alter egos, seems like a very passionate and knowledgeable Canadian fan that clearly hates the csa and how they do things, and that’s fine. Be pissed off just don’t tell us every damn post you make. Add to a conversation, fine, tell us about all the games you went to and why you are pissed this *might* be a closed door friendly on March 30th (I actually enjoyed that post) but reel yourself in a bit. 

He did not get banned for his views on the CSA, or anything else for that matter. He got banned for completely random and unprovoked harassment of one of the very few female posters here. I seriously wondered whether he had lost his marbles. A mod stated the ban was permanent. If it has now been lifted then why does he need a new login name? And if it hasn't been lifted then why is it not being enforced?

I'm certainly not in favour of banning people lightly or because of their views but in this case I thought the permanent ban was appropriate.

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone watch LA last night in Champions League? They lost 2-0 but Jakovic was, for the most part, solid in his performance away to Liga MX side Leon. 

We know CB is not our strongest spot, so does Dejan deserve to be in the conversation, or do you need to see more to be convinced?

It was said pre-match that he's had a good pre-season and he was trusted in the 2019 MLS Cup playoffs...

I have noticed that Vitoria has been left on the bench recently for Moreirense. Should Jakovic be rotated in? Perhaps to give Vitoria the chance to win back his club spot? Or, do we bring him in and free up Cornelius to play in the Olympic qualifiers?

Too early to have this talk? 

(Beats talking about Robert being banned though...)

Edited by Obinna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lofty said:

He did not get banned for his views on the CSA, or anything else for that matter. He got banned for completely random and unprovoked harassment of one of the very few female posters here. I seriously wondered whether he had lost his marbles. A mod stated the ban was permanent. If it has now been lifted then why does he need a new login name? And if it hasn't been lifted then why is it not being enforced?

I'm certainly not in favour of banning people lightly or because of their views but in this case I thought the permanent ban was appropriate.

All the banning talk and everything doesn’t matter to me, I don’t think anyone needs to be banned unless they discriminate, threaten or borderline do something criminal. I was hoping to give him some advice that’s it. 

 

We should call in jakovic. I didn’t see him play last night but it sounds like he was solid. To be honest I’m not a fan of Henry at all. Call in Vitoria, Cornelius and jakovic, but that’s just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

His posts are perfectly rational in this case, I think he's right. 

This business of calling for a ban on someone who bothered you in the past, I see it as bullying.

Wrong in so many ways.

Just because he makes a rational statement does not overturn his ban. A ban is a ban is a ban. Signing up for the forum again is simply not allowed and he must be removed.

Calling for the enforcement of the rules meets no test for "bullying". 

And for the record, he was not banned for just bothering someone. He was banned for harrassing and disruptive behaviour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Lofty said:

He did not get banned for his views on the CSA, or anything else for that matter. He got banned for completely random and unprovoked harassment of one of the very few female posters here. I seriously wondered whether he had lost his marbles. A mod stated the ban was permanent. If it has now been lifted then why does he need a new login name? And if it hasn't been lifted then why is it not being enforced?

I'm certainly not in favour of banning people lightly or because of their views but in this case I thought the permanent ban was appropriate.

This particular outburst came shortly after he posted a ton of Nazi imagery following Holland's loss to Germany in Euro qualifiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...