Jump to content

RJB

CSN
  • Content Count

    1,767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RJB

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Converted

  • Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  1. I think it's worth bringing these back up, given that I thought the exact opposite. This Canada team surprised me, and were full marks for the victory. I was heartened by how well they played, and thought in many ways the score flattered the USA. So now that step one is complete, they need to take points in November. I risk be a downer here, but if they lose in November, then don't win the group, that really does negate the progress we've made here. Unlike this game however, I'm immediately encouraged to think that in fact they can succeed away.
  2. Fair enough. I guess what would I should have argued was that he never waivered - unlike ********** - and said all along he wanted to play for the Netherlands. I have a hard time seeing it as nation shopping when he didn't nation shop. ********** did, Begovic did, and perhaps even Tomori too.
  3. And this is most disappointing. I have always thought that you play for your club for money, and you play for your country for love. George Weah, George Best, Jari Litmanen, these are three that come to mind who never got the chance to play in a World Cup because their country was inept. I don't know what other options they had, but they were loyal servants to nations that had no chance. I lose respect for players that go nation shopping. Now with Tomori, I'm not certain he did that. It's disappointing he played for us then switched, but as with de Guzman, I get more of a sense that he grew up there and so is in fact much more English than Canadian. With that, I let him go and wish him luck. We need a scale for these types of things: A working scale might be something like ********** on one end, and de Guzman on the other. Or maybe Arfield should be at the far end? Something that we can rank the defections based on their egregiousness.
  4. Goal difference is out the window now (assuming USA win again against Cuba, which we all would expect). So now we need to take four points against them to win the group. Depending on what they do against Cuba in the return leg and what the score looks like, it looks more and more likely that we will need to win by more than one goal, and potentially more than two, or get four points.
  5. RJB

    De Gea's New Deal

    And good for him. They could have sold him for something close to the 97.5 million they chose to spend on him rather than receive. Where will it end? The fact is that these clubs - especially the big ones - are still profitable. So, it will end when they stop making a profit and going up in value. Well done De Gea, though I suspect he's regretting it a little now
  6. C’mon, take off your rose coloured glasses. We’re doing very well presently, yes, but that doesn’t take us to their level. I reject that we need to heighten expectations - I would argue the opposite. We haven’t had a meaningful result since maybe Honduras at home in WCQ. And our recent tests v Mexico and then Haiti were failures. Just because David and Davies are promising, doesn’t mean the USA doesn’t have a superior lineup in the vast majority of positions. To draw this game would be a sign of progress, the first real evidence of progress in a very long time.
  7. No Noble Okello for this squad. Not playing a MLS game for a full season - or ever! - is probably the reason. I've said this before, and I'll keep on about it: Though I agree we are capable of beating the USA, I would be delighted with a point. We haven't beaten them since 1985, and as much as we're improving, we have to admit this will be a tough task.
  8. Am I the only one here who thinks that 2 or 3 points against the USA is a really difficult task?
  9. Yes it would. That would be progress as far as I'm concerned. Anything can happen, and I'm quite hopeful, but we have to be honest with ourselves and say it will be quite tough to get more than one point against them in the pair of matches - which makes one point a great result.
  10. Sure it's possible, but we have to be realistic. If we can get a single point against the USA over two games that would be a success in my opinion. Nothing has happened under Herdman to suggest we can punch at their weight. In fact, the opposite has happened: we failed miserably in our one test against Haiti. Of course we can beat them, but we are not at their level - even during this slump they are in. When was the last time we beat them? 1985, which means it would take a generational result. https://www.11v11.com/teams/usa/tab/opposingTeams/opposition/Canada/
  11. As much is this is possible, I disagree completely that it is likely. Points against the USA are not likely: A draw at home would be a great result, and to get anything on the road would be amazing.
  12. The Nations League was created in part to provide more meaningful games to the lower ranked associations. But now WCQ is being used for that. I think this format is going to be a disaster. Entertaining and intense, but a disaster nonetheless.
  13. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019/08/29/canada-target-perfect-nations-league-campaign-world-cup-hopes
  14. We cannot forget that Milan Borjan is playing regularly, and routinely plays in the Champions League. With respect to Crepeau and Carducci, he is playing at a far higher level.
×
×
  • Create New...