Jump to content

hectorj

CSN
  • Content Count

    327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hectorj

  1. I apologize if this can be found elsewhere here, but I can't seem to find info on this anywhere. I will be in Peru this summer and would like to see us play. I was wondering when the fourth spot for CONCACAF will be determined and if Canada still has an opportunity to qualify.
  2. OPTION A) More minnow friendly Assuming 35 teams participating, you'd have the top 4 teams (Mexico, Costa Rica, USA and Honduras) based on the past six World Cups go straight to final groups ( 2 comprised of six teams each) . The remaining 8 teams would be determined like this: In round one, 31 teams divided into seven groups of 4 and one of 3. The top team from each group would go to round two. This would allow for all the minnows to play for real. Most would get six guaranteed games. Teams like Canada, Guatemala, El Salvador and Jamaica would each have a moderately difficult opponent and a couple of minnows between them and a place in the final qualifying tourney. OPTION B Everyone gets Mexico It isn't fair for whatever teams get Mexico, so why doesn't everyone get Mexico? Have a South American style final group of ten teams, with the top 3 getting a ticket to Qatar and the 4th place team getting the intercontinental spot. The top 4 teams (Mexico, Costa Rica, USA and Honduras) based on historical performance would get a bye to final round. The next top nine teams (say Canada, Panama, T and T, Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador and Curacao) would get a bye to the second round. The remaining 22 minnows would play off and the six survivors go to round two. In round two, you'd have three groups comprised of five teams. The top two in each group would go to the finals to join the four teams with the bye. I like the one group of ten teams best, but under this format, Canada would have 26 qualifying games. Good for the fan, but I can see this being problematic. There are ways to reduce the games, but the minnows would suffer. I think everyone should have to suffer the possibility of playing Mexico.
  3. Yeah, it was when the CSL was in operation and they only allowed 2 or 3 players from each team to be play, so Waiters couldn't get the side he wanted. Forrest's replacement never got another cap.
  4. If I remember correctly, there was a dedicated page for CMNT videos here. I cannot find it. I put a 15 minute video on Youtube with all the goals from a World Cup qualifier from 1992 between Canada and Jamaica as well Canada's first ever Gold Cup match in 1991 against Honduras.
  5. The proposed breakdown for 2026 would comprise: Europe 16 teams (13 currently); Africa 9 (5); Asia 8.5 (4.5), South America 6 (4.5), Concacaf 6.5 (3.5), Oceania 1 (0.5), Host nation 1 (1). This would be good for Canada as even if all three hosts get an automatic berth, CONCACAF would still have 4.5 spots available. Based on this reasoning, I bet we get an automatic berth. It would also help convince dual citizens to think hard about leaving Canada.
  6. I voted for Mitchell. I'm not saying he's better than Hutchinson, DeRosario or Radzinski, but he got **** on a lot on this board (for coaching) and a lot of it was undeserved. In his era, Canada never played the likes of St Kitts or Dominica in qualifying. Take away the goals from the minnow-bashing qualifiers and see the totals of those near him on the top. He always came through in qualifiers and from my view in Estadio Irapuato, he scored Canada's first ever World Cup goal against the USSR. Well, we celebrated until we realized it was in the top netting. The inclusion of Ricketts got its deserved response in earlier posts, and also, Wilson and Segota deserved to be on the list.
  7. 36000 frenzied fans, real grass, two Canadian teams. What more could we ask for? I bet this will gain the game quite a few more fans. It was thrilling, positive football.
  8. ROUND ONE: 10 teams involved: ( 26-35 RANKED TEAMS) (Montserrat, Caymans, etc) 2 home and away games ROUND TWO: 12 teams involved: Winners of Round one + teams ranked 19-25 2 home and away games ROUND THREE: 24 teams involved: Teams ranked 1-18 + winners of round 2 (8 groups of 3) Winners qualify for Round 3 ROUND FOUR: 8 teams (1 group) Top three direct qualification/1 playoff The advantage of a system like this is that to get to the 'Octo" teams like El Salvador, Canada, Guatemala, T and T, Jamaica, etc would only have to play each other most likely in Round 3 as they would be most likely be teams ranked 7-12. The top ranked teams would only get minnows in round three. Also, the best of the Caribbean teams would get 4 to 8 games. Additionally, if FIFA wanted more games for the weaker nations, the minnow teams could be involved in a mini tourney in Round 1 ( two groups of five/ top 2 advance and the third place teams play off for last sport) for Round 2.
  9. I disagree. Playing Honduras and El Salvador in Vancouver is fine, as our ability is fairly close. Mexico is leaps ahead and we needed to play them in Winnipeg or Edmonton. In the past is has worked to a degree, so I don't understand why we didn't this cycle.
  10. I haven't seen this much energy and passion in a long time. Yeah, maybe.
  11. With Mexico looking uninterested, our only hope is 4-0 and Mexico winning 1-0. Am I naive to think we can at least do our part?
  12. In 1993, I was teaching in Honduras for a short time. My students, aged 11, knew all our players by name and who were the ones who they really had to be concerned with. They knew more about our national team than 99.9% of Canadians (at least at the time). Football is an obsession with most, and international competitions are taken very seriously. I still have a soft spot for the country and wished they took the bronze in Rio for their country's first ever medal. Even more, I hope they crap the bed tomorrow.
  13. It was around -4 in Winnipeg when we hosted Mexico in Vancouver in March. Can you imagine 35000 pro-Canadian fans and Mexico playing in the cold Canadian prairie? They don't win 3-0 in my opinion. That was a big mistake. Saying that, the scheduling has worked in our favour. If Mexico can pop in a couple of quick ones and Honduras is down 2-0 before 25 minutes, it'll boost our team and it will make Honduras **** their pants. I honestly think we'll both end up with 7 points and it'll be close regarding goal difference.
  14. I am pretty sure the game is at the same time to prevent shenanigans.
  15. Based on their mentality and how much they loathe Honduras, I think Mexico will do its part with a 3-4 goal win, but can we score 2?
  16. ES vs Mexico on youtube.......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgZjvGw1KlI
  17. This was to be expected. Winning in SPS is challenging for any team, let alone Canada. Honduras, like the Bolivians in La Paz and the Mexicans in Azteca, make the most of their natural advantage. For some bloody reason, we don't. Our biggest mistake was not playing Mexico in Winnipeg, Edmonton or Iqaluit and trying to get a point. That one point would mean that as long Mexico took care of business a win against ES would see us through.
  18. Exactly! Branko Segota was a youngun of about 20 in 1980 and he's probably a grandpa now.
  19. Thirty six years of this and you'd think it would get easier. It's all I can think about. I feel positive but I felt positive every other time. The 8-1 last time is indicative of Honduras' ability to capitalize on momentum. Look what they did against Nigeria in bronze medal game-two quick goals. When we have been successful down there (1985, 1993) we didn't let them score early and gain momentum. They always seem to be a streaky type of team.
  20. a. Canada 1 Honduras 2 It'll be close but some CONCACAF shenanigans (bad penalty, 8 minutes of flopping but only 3 minutes of stoppage time, etc) will do us in one more time. b. Canada 3 El Salvador 0 El Salvador will be eliminated and won't care. We'll pile it on. c. Mexico will handily beat Honduras at home and we qualify second. Mexico will want to rid themselves of the more dangerous and unpredictable Hondurans.
×
×
  • Create New...