adrenaline11

Don't think it has anything to do with that. It's more so down to the fact that 1) Pearson airport is an easy place to get direct flights in and out of 2) It's financially lucrative to play in Toronto 3) The MNT loves the facilities at the Nottawasaga Inn

Not impressed at all with our play down the left. This game is screaming for Borges to come in and do something special.

Not tonight. There will be streams for Friday and next Wednesday though.

The Serbian Superliga is off until Valentine's Day. The Scottish Premiership is off until Jan 22. It's probably wishful thinking to think that we might get Borjan or Arfield but you never know.

No. If he's coming to MLS, he should go somewhere where he can be a starter.

El Salvador vs Iceland = 1.9 points at stake El Salvador vs USMNT = 3.4 points at stake If they lose both, they will lose 5 points.

How the costs for WCQ is divided up is ultimately settled by the relevant member associations but FIFA's recommendations (p. 34) are as follows: 1. The visiting association will cover all expenses for travel and lodging when traveling in between countries. 2. Once the visitors have landed, the host association will cover all domestic transportation expenses. 3. The host association covers the cost of lodging and domestic transportation for referees. For friendlies, it's usually that host that covers everything above unless there's a third party promoter.

Depends whether by "organiser" he means "to host" or "to play" in this context.

Even if El Salvador lost against Iceland and the US, they would only drop 3.5 points and the gap between us and them would be ~12 points. It wouldn't be much help to us.

@BuzzAndSting covered it but I'll add the hard numbers. You can find the Football Federation of Australia's financial statements here. I've done a comparison of the 2016 and 2017 numbers as the CSA hasn't released a statement for 2018 yet. Note: The currency exchange rate used was $1 AUS = $0.9 CAD The way that the numbers are added up might be a little bit different but even considering that, the difference in numbers is staggering. The FFA is making 3.5-4.5x what the CSA is bringing in and spending 4x as much.

Geography, economics and lack of obligation to fund a women's program. If every province had it's own national team and we were supporters of the Manitoba national team, of course we'd see our team play every window. It's so much cheaper to fly to/from Nova Scotia or BC than it is to fly to/from Grenada. On top of that, you must pay the visiting country a fee. Both of these factors make it harder for us to both invite teams to come over or to be invited to go over. It helps that countries like El Salvador have a large expat community in the US. They've played Guatemala, Peru, Brazil, and Honduras in the US and that's just in the past two years. Why? Because promoters see that the expats will show up and so they pay El Salvador a fee to play all these neutral site friendlies. That alone makes scheduling much easier and more lucrative for them than it is for us. In the very document I linked, it states that the CSA spent $5.8 mil on our senior teams in 2017. The 2018 Annual report, the most recent one I could find with a men's vs women's spending comparison, indicates that we spend slightly more on our women than our men - and this was a non World Cup/Olympic year. I wonder how people would react if we spent more on our men than our women next year. I wonder how the general public would react if we didn't fund a women's program outside of WWC/Olympic qualifiers like so many nations in CONCACAF do.

This wasn't a problem until CONCACAF decided to use the FIFA rankings instead of the CONCACAF rankings. Yeah the CSA is frugal because THEY HAVE NO MONEY! Did you know that at the end of 2017 the CSA had just $2.3 mil in cash on hand? Read it. It's in their 2017 Financial Statement. That was in a year when nothing was going on. What money they had for this year went into preparing the women for the WWC. Next year, they'll be even more stretched with men's and women's Olympic qualifying. Yet somehow, they're supposed to find money to (presumably) set up a training camp in Florida in January and play two friendlies. And not just that, after the WCQ schedule is announced, they have accept making less money so as to "reward" Halifax/Calgary/Winnipeg with a game. I'm sorry, not just one game. Maybe two. Or three. Give me a break.

You've misrepresented what he said. What he said was, "When the system changed we went through a deep analysis on different scenarios...but you play against France, you beat France in France, you get 8 points. That's the reality with these windows. You have be strategic. 'The big question is who wants to play Canada in that (March) window?" You're free to not like Herdman but what he said is not untrue. I did the math. We would indeed only pick up 8 points if we were to beat France and they're #2 in the world. It's not like that calibre of team would even want to schedule us either. It doesn't matter who we schedule, we're not going to be picking up a lot of points.

Take Osorio off, put in Miller at LB, push Davies up to LW.

Here's the second half as they had to fix the stream at halftime.