AvroArrow

I've said this in other threads but Hamilton as a sub and Hamilton as a starter seemed to be two different players. Sub Hamilton would get himself in the right position to get those late goals. Starter Hamilton would disappear for large portions of the game. I want the guy to succeed, but a starting striker needs to at least have a presence on the field.

Would you like to start in a process where you have a shot at 3.5 spots for the World Cup or would you like to start in a process where you have a shot at .5 spots? The countries that benefit from this are the big ones (Mexico, US), as they no longer have to worry about upsets in the earlier rounds. Maybe this allows them to play more money making friendlies against major countries as opposed to having to play a qualifier against Caribbean minnow #4.

This would never fly in UEFA or CONMEBOL.

I sometimes think that the coaching staff got too hung up getting all of their best players on the field instead of ensuring we had people playing the correct positions. They wanted David, Cavalini, Hoilett, and Davies all playing, which means some one is going to be playing out of position. If you want to play with a true LB and play with wingers/1 striker, then 1 of those guys has to get dropped to the bench.

Just to point this out: Herdman didn't cause that idiotic first goal for Haiti. That's on the players. Herdman didn't cause the pk. I'm guessing Godinho didn't even know the 2nd player was there. That's the only logical explanation I have for that attempted clearance. Cavalini sub was still a bonehead decision. That's on him. Flashbacks of Hainault being brought on by Floro.

100% of those coaches have the letter "i" in their first names. I think we found the secret ingredient when it comes to coaching.

I can find a number of national team coaches that have made poor decisions that are female or Canadian. Don't know if I've seen one that is both female and Canadian, but I'm sure there are some out there. Don't sell yourself short!

Makes sense. Even if the US or Mexico screw up and lose a game in pool play, they still don't end up on the same side of the bracket. Effectively both of these teams need to screw up twice to not make the final.

Was just looking at the knockout bracket and it doesn't seem to make sense. If Canada was to beat Haiti, they would then likely face Mexico in the semis. Why are all of the A and B pool teams on the same side of the bracket? In theory you should have these teams on opposite sides in case you somehow started with a situation where the top 2 teams were in the same pool. I'm assuming that the answer to this is "Welcome to CONCACAF."

A team with decent strikers could have put us behind early and then we would have had 80 minutes of Canada trying to break down a bunker. But Martinique did not have any finishing today and Canada made them pay for that. Found Hoilett to be lacking today. Kept dribbling when he should have passed. Crossing was off too. I'll be curious to see how Davies does against Mexico.

The issue with Hamilton is that he dazzles as a sub and underwhelms as a starter. If he could score as a starter at the rate that he does as a sub, he'd be a monster.

You know what would make my life easier? Getting rid of TAM and just increasing the salary cap.

On both SJ goals, who was Mavinga marking? Or is his role to cover space? On the 2nd goal it looked like Moor was left to mark up on two players.

Of course not! Delgado runs and runs and runs. Have you ever seen a successful player not be a competent runner? I certainly haven't. Running is important.

Should we be shocked by this? Would a hockey fan in England more likely watch an NHL game or an Elite Ice Hockey league game? And I say this as someone who watches TFC regularly.