Jump to content

WCQ: Aruba vs Canada - Saturday, June 5th, 8pm Eastern/5pm Pacific - IMG Academy, FL


Recommended Posts

On 5/30/2021 at 11:43 AM, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

I think Arfield, just like @MtlMario is underestimating Suriname.

I am far from convinced that there will be any fall matches. I am just as worried about Suriname as I was 5 years ago in San Pedro Sula.

 

 I think deep down inside you wish I'm right though.😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we cruise through these games and we look solid in the midfield, Arfield should not be called in September.  That is the risk players take by missing camps.  In September, if Arfield is playing well with his club, wants to come back and play, and our MLS midfielders haven't stepped up their games in WCQ, or the GC, then we will see him back.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% you can't pick and choose when to play for the national team, full stop. Anyone who has refused a call up should be banned for life. Unless you are...

Atiba Hutchinson
Lucas Cavallini
Stephen Eustaquio
Junior Hoilett
Steven Vitoria

Did I miss anyone else from this camp? I'm not 100% sure about Eustaquio but 2 years under the Portuguese flag makes me think he probably could have played for us sooner than he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kent said:

100% you can't pick and choose when to play for the national team, full stop. Anyone who has refused a call up should be banned for life. Unless you are...

Atiba Hutchinson
Lucas Cavallini
Stephen Eustaquio
Junior Hoilett
Steven Vitoria

Did I miss anyone else from this camp? I'm not 100% sure about Eustaquio but 2 years under the Portuguese flag makes me think he probably could have played for us sooner than he did.

I don't think Eustaquio was called at any point before he was playing with Portugals U21 team. And from interviews he gave his plan was to always play for Portugal at youth level then switch over to Canada.

One might remember reports of him inviting Zambrano to see him play and Zambrano ignoring him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, VinceA said:

I don't think Eustaquio was called at any point before he was playing with Portugals U21 team. And from interviews he gave his plan was to always play for Portugal at youth level then switch over to Canada.

One might remember reports of him inviting Zambrano to see him play and Zambrano ignoring him. 

Again, Kents joining in on the attempts to be funny.

But I can’t remember Vitoria skipping out on any camps, nor Hoilett - only that they held out/took long to make a decision to commit. Totally different. 

Cavallini is probably the only one, but he doesn’t get put on a pedestal here or nor was given the armband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BrennanFan said:

If we cruise through these games and we look solid in the midfield, Arfield should not be called in September.  That is the risk players take by missing camps.  In September, if Arfield is playing well with his club, wants to come back and play, and our MLS midfielders haven't stepped up their games in WCQ, or the GC, then we will see him back.

 

  

could have just compressed that entire statement to:  "In September, if Arfield is playing well with his club, wants to come back and play then we will see him back"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kent said:

100% you can't pick and choose when to play for the national team, full stop. Anyone who has refused a call up should be banned for life. Unless you are...

Atiba Hutchinson
Lucas Cavallini
Stephen Eustaquio
Junior Hoilett
Steven Vitoria

Did I miss anyone else from this camp? I'm not 100% sure about Eustaquio but 2 years under the Portuguese flag makes me think he probably could have played for us sooner than he did.

I'm fact no one said ban. We said you have to justify absences, and can't cherry pick. A player who is not committed and can't justify absences has less chance of playing further on just because he feels like it one day. 

Our real problem is our results don't show continuity, so we are always starting over. Which is like a mass pardon every couple of years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Shway said:

Again, Kents joining in on the attempts to be funny.

But I can’t remember Vitoria skipping out on any camps, nor Hoilett - only that they held out/took long to make a decision to commit. Totally different. 

Cavallini is probably the only one, but he doesn’t get put on a pedestal here or nor was given the armband.

Vitoria didn't take a long time to commit, he actually played for another country on Canadian soil.  That I'll never forgive.  He only took a long time to see if he remained in that country's plans.  Henry and Kennedy for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Shway said:

Again, Kents joining in on the attempts to be funny.

But I can’t remember Vitoria skipping out on any camps, nor Hoilett - only that they held out/took long to make a decision to commit. Totally different. 

Cavallini is probably the only one, but he doesn’t get put on a pedestal here or nor was given the armband.

Those guys were called, and didn't come. How is "I'm going to wait years to see if another country will let me play for them" or "I don't wanna do international football now, I want to focus on my club" more legitimate than someone that perhaps is worn out from a long season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I'm fact no one said ban. We said you have to justify absences, and can't cherry pick. A player who is not committed and can't justify absences has less chance of playing further on just because he feels like it one day. 

Our real problem is our results don't show continuity, so we are always starting over. Which is like a mass pardon every couple of years. 

Who do the absences need to be justified to? Us? Or the coach? No doubt if the coach doesn't think Arfield's absence is justified, he won't call him again. We can only speculate what Arfield's reason is. At this point it doesn't look good, but if it is the worst that we are expecting, he wouldn't accept another call anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Kent said:

Who do the absences need to be justified to? Us? Or the coach? No doubt if the coach doesn't think Arfield's absence is justified, he won't call him again. We can only speculate what Arfield's reason is. At this point it doesn't look good, but if it is the worst that we are expecting, he wouldn't accept another call anyways.

And his praises should be done. 

Moving on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our team has guys that played for other nations, refused to play for us when called, strung us along for years hoping to get calls from other teams, ran down the program, said they didnt feel CDN and wished they hadnt played for Canada.  And now you advocate taking a hard line with guys that skip a camp when they are coming off an injury and are prob not match fit anyways??  If we can welcome in Cav, Vitoria, Hoilett, Akinola, Singh, Eustaquio, Leutweiler, Sturing, Feriera, TWardek, Wotherspoon and Arfield in the first place then I think we can agree that there can and usually are exceptions made for all sorts of reasons.  We can have our own opinions about players and the motivations, but dont tell me there is some hard and fast rule.  El Hombre is sore over Vitoria, Shway is sore over Arfield, I am still sore over Cavallini etc etc...but the PROGRAM moves on and Herdman knows the actual details of each guys situation and he'll decide who gets the calls to rep us.  And there is plenty of precedent that not being 100% commited to the program, 100% of the time doesnt mean you cant continue to contribute.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

 El Hombre is sore over Vitoria, Shway is sore over Arfield, I am still sore over Cavallini etc etc...but the PROGRAM moves on and Herdman knows the actual details of each guys situation and he'll decide who gets the calls to rep us.  And there is plenty of precedent that not being 100% commited to the program, 100% of the time doesnt mean you cant continue to contribute.  

You can add me to the list with my view of Hoillet but at the end of the day, the gaffer has to figure out which guys are going to give him the best chance of winning (btw, I still really like Hoillet in the role of a Quaresma-like latter game supersub on the wing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Our team has guys that played for other nations, refused to play for us when called, strung us along for years hoping to get calls from other teams, ran down the program, said they didnt feel CDN and wished they hadnt played for Canada.  And now you advocate taking a hard line with guys that skip a camp when they are coming off an injury and are prob not match fit anyways??  If we can welcome in Cav, Vitoria, Hoilett, Akinola, Singh, Eustaquio, Leutweiler, Sturing, Feriera, TWardek, Wotherspoon and Arfield in the first place then I think we can agree that there can and usually are exceptions made for all sorts of reasons.  We can have our own opinions about players and the motivations, but dont tell me there is some hard and fast rule.  El Hombre is sore over Vitoria, Shway is sore over Arfield, I am still sore over Cavallini etc etc...but the PROGRAM moves on and Herdman knows the actual details of each guys situation and he'll decide who gets the calls to rep us.  And there is plenty of precedent that not being 100% commited to the program, 100% of the time doesnt mean you cant continue to contribute.  

Stop it with your ridiculous common sense.  It has no place here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly I am one of those that gets riled up when this happens.  Hoilett doesn’t care enough to choose us early?  Screw him.  Cav doesn’t “feel Canadian”?  Screw him.  Arfield doesn’t want to play in these important games? Well, you get the idea.  

But inevitably we cheer them on if/when the powers-that-be welcome them back and get them on the field.  It is annoying for sure when they don’t fee the sam way we do about it, but I suspect those in charge will generally take a pragmatic and results-oriented view of things.  And in that respect it is probably a bit silly to forever close the door on a guy like Arfield - even if we get pissed off that he seems to now be picking and choosing when to play.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bison44 said:

El Hombre is sore over Vitoria, Shway is sore over Arfield, I am still sore over Cavallini etc etc...but the PROGRAM moves on and Herdman knows the actual details of each guys situation and he'll decide who gets the calls to rep us.  And there is plenty of precedent that not being 100% commited to the program, 100% of the time doesnt mean you cant continue to contribute.  

 

20 minutes ago, BearcatSA said:

You can add me to the list with my view of Hoillet but at the end of the day, the gaffer has to figure out which guys are going to give him the best chance of winning (btw, I still really like Hoillet in the role of a Quaresma-like latter game supersub on the wing).

Yeah, but the difference between y'all and me is that Herdman reads all my posts and takes them to heart.  I'm an unofficial assistant coach (I assume).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...