Free kick

Regarding the offside call. I had never heard a soccer broadcast crew (broadcasting to a home audience) object to a ref's call, that benefited the home team, to that extend. Usually, as is the case with home town broadcasters in any sport, you will hear these kind of bad ref calls that benefit the home side mentioned sotto voce for about five seconds (IF AT ALL) and then they move on. But that one was unique, they talked about it at length and even into the intermission or post game. Steven Caldwell's point was that the defender could only do what was natural and that's exactly what he did. So, as you said, technically speaking its the right call but only in the same way that Erin Mcleod was technically guilty of holding the ball for more than six second in that semi final game at the Olympics. Both were technically correct but still bad calls. Regarding the 3.5 years versus 5 years. BTW i double checked before posting that, so ok lets say 3.5 but my point doesn't change and I could have said it was six years but that would have been unfair because the stats show that he played only a minute. But he was on the club for during this entire five years time, you don't just get to prove your stuff during games but also practices and scrimmages and pre season games and those voyageurs cup games. stuff that we either didn't see or they don't show up in the stats. It pretty safe to say that they have seen him and got a pretty damn good read. i stand by my point, if he had gone to Europe (or even another MLS team) there is no chance that they keep someone around (much less a foreigner) that long unless there is substantial improvement each year. They have to have really wanted him to succeed to keep him around that long. We can go back the 12 years and find a countless number of college super draft picks, for example, who were lucky to even get a year and/or less than 100 minutes to prove themselves. Also, its not just Vanney and TFC who see things differently than what your alluding to. Another coach, John Herdman, seems to see things in same manner as Vanney as witness by the fact that Hamilton didn't get any recent invites. I really cant argue the fact that Anthony Jackson Hamel (who is only two years older and has played comparable minutes in MLS) is more deserving of a callup. And their coach, Remi Garde, has been much more inclined ( like many European coaches) to call out players in the media. He did call out AJH publicly when explaining why Jackson Hamel wasn't starting ahead of Mancuso (i think it was). when it comes to this stuff, Vanney is softy in the mold of the North american pro sports coaches (especially NHL coaches), they dont throw their players under the bus, rather they do it with carefully crafted words that force you to read between the lines to that fact that this or that player got called out. I have some recollection of the recent Vanney quote in regards to Hamilton. it was in reference to his positioning and ability to read the play and react and recall thinking: "Yes" that is exactly what i have been seeing all along!. The players cant seem to find him on the pitch and he would score more often if he got more chances but he doesn't get many chance. You can say a fwd is poor when they fail too often to convert on their chances, but it worst if you are not getting chances. if saying that is akin to throwing someone under a bus, then what would we conclude of Remi Garde's style?and of what he said of AJH?. If Hamilton would shown me something comparable to what we see from AJH (who has been called up to the MNT several times) over the same period, we would not be be having this discussion. i have a distinct memory of one of Hamiltons first ever goals for TFC. i was convinced that this guy had a real future in the game. there was the effortless calm and coolness to it. it looked like the ease and instinct of an assassin. Got the ball at the top of the box and picked the corner with a clean strike making it look simple. Unfortunately, i dont think i ever saw that again. More importantly, there was no improvement or hint of having learned something new from year to year.

Yes. When all is said and done, he scored 11 goals in five years wearing a TFC jersey. I too wanted him to succeed but if you look closely at those numbers you would find many were scored in the soccer equivalent of the what they call the garbage minutes in basketball. One of the ones this year he was the beneficiary of one of the worst offside missed call that TFC ever benefited from. He came to the club as teenager and got five years out of it. When you get five year, you cant say that the club hasnt been patient. He is now 23, so he is not prospect or developing player anymore. With that kind of productivity over five years, it shows that TFC is giving a chance to developing canadian players because he would never get five years at the same club to show what you got in europe. He has played 1500 minutes last year and this year, over 900 minutes in 2016, thats more than enough time to show your stuff. that said, i hope he find his game in Columbus. Different faces and different suroundings, different tactics, different culture might work miracles.

Been following for too long. For the first time in as long as i can recall, i thought that we were on the upswing this time. Even despite the loss to Haiti at the GC, i had seen positives in our play. So I actually thought that under the old format, there was chance this time. This was not how i felt going into the WCQ for 2018 whereby, personel-wise, i thought we were regressing. Also thought coaching-wise, we had an imposter.

Ok. Thanks. But then my assumption stands when indicated that the best that those 7-35 teams can hope four is a quarter spot. Which means teams from four regions battling for one spot.

Unless missed something (which is entirely possible) i thought in concacaf it was 3 1/4 spots that they allocated. And, that hence this intercontinental playoff was supposed to involve one side from each of four regions

Its depends on how you look at it. If you look only at the performance at the WC, then i completely agree. I have mentioned before here that, yes, Mexico has shown that they are very much competitive or better than many of the 10-15 ranked (hypothetically) qualifiers from Europe. But i was looking at it in different way and from the perspective of who Canada might be facing in that mini tournament. And, based on history, it NOT the kind of side that Mexico might have previously beaten at the WC finals. In Europe the final qualifier come from the final phase involving a two legged tie involving the second place finishers. In the first phase its something like 9 groups of 6 teams give or take. In those groups of six you have guarantee of 2 minnows or near minnows in each group. There might be 1 clear cut favourite and a clear second who is a solid side and every now and then the teams 2 to to 3 might be realistic contenders. Occasionally there are three good sides but never where three are truly on par in terms of pedigree. So in 95-98 percent of the time all games result in a “Clockwork” predicability. But in the second phase of the two legged tie everything changes because of this: The pairings are determined via random draw. Hence, unlike the group stage, the strong sides and weaker sides are not even distributed (like the group stage) in order to ensure a seeding-like matchups. You will see two of the weaker second place sides matched up and vice versa. Getting back to the group stage for a moment, recall i said that there is often a generally accepted top seed. If that top seed, for example, slips on a banana peel for what ever reason (ie.; overconfidence , bad ref calls, poor preparation etc) and earns, say, a draw in the home leg on their matchup against the second strongest side (ie.: the 2-5 percent) then, given that all the rest of the group results are always predictable like a clock and that means that you will almost always have a superpower team or two that slips in into that second phase. And it might or often does get paired with a decent or even good side. Or they will get paired with just a good or decent who decides to parks the bus. All this to say this: what i described above explains why in past world cups, sides like France, Italy, Holland, England, Portugal etc have failed to qualify. Do we really believe that Mexico are this level? Or even the fifth place Conmebol side? And thats the kind of side that you would see in an intercontinental play off. Not sides like Slovenia or Poland or Ireland whereby we believe that Mexico can matchup well against. In other words, the 10-14 ranked Euro sides at the WC are seldom stronger than one or two that just missed out because that random draw has alot to do with it. Also, the emergence of Belgium has complicated things as far as group seedings. Also dont forget, since nine is not devisable by two, one of those randomly drawn second placers might be the one gets sent to the intercontinental playoff. I recall that Ireland was one of those sides once. Because the draw is random, it could easily be one of the superpowers.

Thanks for the clarification. I was trying to look it up to see if Europe was one of the four but couldn’t find anything. If it actually was, then I would have said we have literally no chance what so ever given that the top concacaf side (Mexico) would have been a significant underdog against the potential 15th qualifier from Europe. Going from what we saw at recent World Cup qualifiers, that last team that just barely finished out of qualifying in UEFA could have been a side like Holland, Ireland or Italy. Not even Mexico would stand chance. Mexico might even be hard pressed against the hypothetical South American side.

At the very least , yes, the sides outside of the hex should have been given a chance to win a full spot at the world cup instead of having to play in the intercontinental playoff. I dont know if the intercontinental playoff will include Uefa and or Conmebol so the frustrating and unjust aspect, that irritates me, is that a concacaf side outside that top six could end up playing in the intercontinental playoff and face the kind of teams that Mexico would would be an underdog against. whereas Mexico, because of the format, can qualify be facing easier opponents in its own region.

I am at a loss in understanding the logic to this format. Its totally inequitable. What problem or issue was this format trying to solve? I would go so far as to say that as a soccer association, its almost worth boycotting. I thought that the grand pooba in Concacaf was a Canadian? Cant believe he could have signed off on this. Because Canada, Panama and maybe Haiti are the countries that are most adversely impacted by thus format. And big time. The 20 or so nations in Concacaf that, because of their size, will not ever qualify for a WC will likely not complain too much. The six who got assigned to the hex, have been gifted a fifty percent chance to qualify. Who got screwed? The 4-5 just outside the hex who now statistically have something like a one or two percent chance to qualify. And, unlike the six in the hex, they have no games that they can afford to slip up on. Unless i have misread it, if everything goes perfect for Canada in Concacaf, we would have to play in tournament with best non automatic qualitiers from Europe and other regions. That european side is certain to win that. So our chances are pretty much zero percent. This worst and most unjust competition format that i have seen. Be it soccer basketball, hockey, tennis etc etc.

Thats the problem with these tournaments. How old were these kids when they held the qualifying tournament? In one year, at those age levels, a lot can change. For example, many kids who were unknown or off radar entirely (from national teams) during the qualifying tournament may suddenly emerge and gain prominence. So it wouldnt be unreasonable that teams show up at the U17 WC with totally different squads from what they qualified with. So what does that ultimate say about the value of the qualifying process? another big issue that i have with these events at this age level is: How the hell are you supposed to evaluate players properly for national team selection? Realistically I see it as impossible to do properly. There just isnt information or metrics (public) for comparaison (ie.: an extensive competition system where they all belong to). A couple camps do not suffice because the sample size is too small or narrow. Canada is too large of a country so there is no way from one or two evaluation camps that a coach could say with a straight face that little Johnnie from Nova Scotia is better or more deserving of that spot at right back than Paul from Winnipeg. So inevitably they will resort to “politically correct” motivated selection criteria such as: make sure that there are an equal amount players from each of the MLS academies, make sure that there is regional balance (eg.: a couple of players from province A, then province B, then region C....etc). Once you have even slightly to resorted to “Politically correct motivation” in the selection, you have discarded the notion of “Merit”, and next comes resentment and low morale. Merit is a key to what makes organized sports what it is. Dont know why FIFA doesnt change the age for this world cup. Would a U19 or maybe a U18 make a little more sence? Maybe a U21 and a U19. Or just a U20 by itself.

Anyone who has not seen the goal by York 9’s Ryan Telfer tonight versus Montreal, i say, google it. Or look for it on Youtube. It the the nicest goal that i have seen live all year. All competitions including MLS.

HI believe that If investors have the money and are willing to pay the money, MLS will let you in. I said the same thing about Ottawa ten years ago when there was the civic discussion regarding stadium and whether to go with the Melnyk plan that included a stadium for MLS only or the Jeff Hunt plan that included a stadium for the the CFL with a token USL team. The civic authorities went with CFL instead. Garber at the time was quoted and i recall it distinctly: “ if investors have the required investment and are willing to pay the required investment, then why would we not seriously consider an expansion team”. Thats about at categorical as you can get. Of all the cities that have been bandied around as possible expansion, who has not been eventually awarded an expansion? Eventually everyone who has been interested and has investors who are willing to pony up, has gotten in eventually. Same thing applies to Calgary. Owners want/love getting expansion fees, thats why leagues expand and it never stops. I dont live in Calgary. But what we know from afar is that it is fourth largest market in Canada and its catchment area exceeds a potential client base of many existing MLS cities. Plus there are not that much competition like you would have in a similar sized (or smaller) US city where you might have an MLB and NFL. Competition counts for alot in terms of success. For example, why on gods green earth would one think that it cant work in Calgary but it can work in places like Cincinnati or Minneapolis. Another reason why i think this story has legs is that Calgary needs a new CFL stadium. And when you have to finance a stadium, its really hard to justify economically such venture when its only going to be used for 9-10 dates a year (ie.: averae number of home games a CFL team plays) . The ROI will certainly get more interesting if the stadium is going to be used for those 9 games plus another 20. The only challenge that i see for Calgary is the climate. The League starts in March and ends potentially in November.

Yes. But they chose to not protect him. I recall posting at the time, that i was surprised that it was him that they chose not to protect.

I said, “GIVEN A CHOICE” between the two. Unless you missed that part. Of course, we would like to keep both. And yes, given choice, i still stand on what i said. Pozuelo makes 3.8 million per year. Giovinco made 5.6 million in his final year. If we ever doubted that there is an efficient market for soccer talent, this comparaison in salaries dispelled the myths of an inefficient market and reinforces the notion that you get exactly what you pay for. 5.6 mill. versus 3.8 mill suggests that you should get approx 45% more value from the 5.6 million dollar player and from what i have seen so far, i would say that’s exactly what TFC got. To reiterate, Pozuelo is good. He looks like one of the top players in the league. I knew little about him when he arrived and i would say that he hasnt disappointed. He has delivered what i would have expected from a 3.8 million dollar player judging from past comparaisons in MLS. I noticed that just like giovinco, he can deliver those pin point goal producing diagonal balls aerial balls. But Giovinco could deliver goal producing balls in many more different ways. He was much more dangerous in one on one situations. And you could tell by how often defenders had to foul him. Pozuelo looks good on free kicks, but Giovinco may have been the best ever in MLS when it came this area. Ball distribution: All player will muff some balls, but from my vantage point Giovinco was consistent and slightly better on the ball in tight spaces. The team could play a possession game with Giovinco because of the attention he drew from defenders. TFC seems to have become a team that almost exclusively relies on crosses to create scoring chances now. This is not exactly Pozuelo’s fault but he just doesnt command the same respect from opponent that creates spaces for others. TFC is also not as strong on the ball now. Again, not exactly Pozuelo’s fault. There are other factors. Secondly, they use to have a lot of formation flexibility by being able to switch easily from a diamond to a 4-4-2 for example. Now they are pretty much exclusively a 4-4-2 with balls played in space down the wing. That was because of the greater diversity in skills on the attacking third that Giovinco had over Poz in the attacking third. And, the greater respect from opponents. Tfc was far less predictable than they are now. You can also be sure that Pozuelo will be even greater next year when he has a year to acclimatize under his belt. And a proper off season, but, not a slag, one would have to be blind to not notice that you are not getting the same level of impact on the game from the two players. The spanish media in the Mexico and the US talked more about Giovinco than any other MLS player during the CCL. Doubt you will ever see that again with any other MLS player unless its someone like Vela. MLSE wanted to save about 45% on the salary of their number 10 and thats exactly what they got.

I still dont get why Edwards was let go so quickly. Obviously it looks very much like an internal issue. But they never replaced him and Vanney went so far as to suggest (in the off season) that getting a winger was a priority. I am all for getting Edward back. Getting Giovinco back would be top priority for me. Even if it meant losing Pozuelo. Pozuelo is a very good and maybe excellent player. But he is not a game changer like Giovinco is. Giovinco can do more things to change a game. I wont comment on Boyd because he hasn’t even played all that much. And besides, i wasnt all that impressed with his pedigree to begin with. You could argue that Ricketts had a similar professional background. And he was let go. I am torn on the Bradley point. Thats because (looking at it from the cold hard numbers) on a dollar for value basis, the gap is so extreme between what they are paying him versus the alternative that in salary cap world, where these things get magnified, It doesnt make financial sence to keep him instead of someone like Fraser. But on the flip slide, there is no way that you a better team (right now or even next year) by replacing him with the alternatives. Bradley is a starter on his national team, fraser didnt get called to his national team. Ultimately, its what makes the team better that should count. Unless they are rebuilding, and i dont thinking that rebuilding will ever work in MLS. As for Morrow and Delgado. Morrow, in retrospect, may have been a beneficiary of playing on a good team. When the team was good, he looked good. Thats probably because when the team was good, they were strong possessing the ball and moving it around. Hence he was pushing forward a lot. Now i dont see him pushing forward much, he just looks like any other run of the mill MLS guy out there. In a salary cap league where is only so much $$$ to allocate, Left back is not a position i would trade for. Rather, its a position for grooming home grown talent. Thats because they are cheaper and it allow you to spend more for players who play more central roles like AM, DM, FWD, and CD. Delgado, needs to move on for his own good i think. He has just not progressed.