World Cup South Africa, 2010 Thread

[Addick]

Would having a World Class manager help? Yes. Is the lack of a 12th man at home an issue that should be considered? Yes. Are either of these two issues THE problem? No.

We need to stop spending so much of our efforts focusing on creating an environment where our players can preform at their peak and instead focus on raising that peak and the level Canadian footballers are able to preform at. It doesn't matter if the coach knows how to get 120% out of his squad and if his players don't even know how to pass the bloody football.

While England has hired a brilliant manager, they have also been working tirelessly on creating a knowledge management system that provides coaches at the grassroots level with sufficient coaching knowledge. This helps the coaches with knowing how and what to teach children in order for them to master the necessary footballing skills. While South American teams have fanatical support and some of the most intimidating parks for visiting teams, they also created and play futsal. A game that has helped develop many of their technically gifted players.

[NBC]

A friend of mine's father (Scot) always said that football is a game played by gentlemen for hooligans and rugby is a game played by hooligans for gentlemen.

And to think that the Labour Party doesn't think that 'broken Britain' exists. With headlines like this how can you not?

Warning of increased domestic abuse during World Cup

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8703030.stm

[Locke]

Originally Posted by NBC

I've long thought that Canada needs to create an unpleasant environment for visiting teams to play. Seeing some of the facilities in Central America and the Caribbean have convinced me of that. Fans right on top of the pitch, which is usually the condition of a field of summer fallow, throwing batteries, bags of feces, coins, anything to put the other team off. These are very difficult places to get results. Then the return fixture in Toronto, Vancouver or Edmonton typically sees the visitors eke out 0-0 draws, playing 9 men behind the ball. You need serious quality to break down that type of defence.

What would be great is when we host qualifiers in the autumn or spring, they should be played in cold climates. I can't see Trinidad and Tobago or even the Mexicans for that matter, enjoying Edmonton or Saskatoon in November. But I know people would complain that it isn't fair to do that. Russia hosted Italy in the first-leg of the 1998 WC playoffs somewhere in the cold and snow. It was so snow covered that they had to use an orange ball. Russia played to their advantage and drew 1-1 against a much better Italy side, who went on to win 1-0 in the reverse fixture.

Not that it is the same, but Tennis Canada used to love playing Davis Cup qualifiers at the Stampede Corral. Not a great place for tennis, as it is cold and the lighting sucks. I remember in 2003, Canada beat Brazil 3-2 in the World Group Playoffs. The Brazilians didn't like Calgary in late September. They were all wearing woolly hats, gloves and heavy jackets indoors. One could safely guess that the environment contributed to their less than stellar performance.

Having quality footballers helps obviously, but home field advantage means nothing to us like it does to almost every other country in CONCACAF. The Mexicans used to let visiting teams train on the pitch at Azteca for 1 hour prior to a qualifier, and they couldn't wear their football boots. I say we make them play at Commonwealth Stadium or University Stadium in Winnipeg in November.

I also recall one of the South American teams regularly holding matches at a pitch with insane altitude, which they're no longer allowed to use.

[NBC]

I remember that. I think that it is this...

Fifa, football's governing body, upheld the ban on international matches in stadiums located higher than 2,750m (9,022ft) above sea level, without a period of acclimatisation. The ban was introduced amid concerns about the effect on the health of players unaccustomed to thin air.
This decision means Bolivia cannot play qualifying rounds for the 2010 World Cup in La Paz, which is located 3,600m above sea level. While this has sparked outrage in Bolivia, it might also affect two other Andean capitals, Bogota and Quito.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Locke

I also recall one of the South American teams regularly holding matches at a pitch with insane altitude, which they're no longer allowed to use.

Games in La Paz and Quito were very unfair for the visitors. That is the only reason Bolivia ever qualified for a World Cup. Mexico City is high altitude too. It is a chore to climb a set of stairs in Quito.

Bolivia: La Paz - 3,600m (11,811ft)
Peru: Cuzco - 3,400m (11,154ft)
Ecuador: Quito - 2,800m (9,186ft)
Colombia: Bogota: 2640m (8,661ft)
Mexico City: 2,240m (7349ft)
Denver: 1,609 m (5,280 ft)
Calgary: 1,048 m (3,438 ft)

To put this in perspective, the highest peak in Alberta, Mount Columbia, is 3,747 m (12,293 ft).

[GirlySports]

Let's compare Canada to Australia. Both countries don't really care about soccer. Australian league matches barely get 10000 people. They don't play in any nasty places or have any weather/altitude advantages. SCG or the big MCG aren't really fortresses. They also have alot of immigrants that cheer for the opponent in those games. Australia would be happy to get 50% cheering for them in an international game. Players are the same make and style physically. They also have players that could have played for them choose other countries. So why is Canada so much worse than Austrailia?

Coaching.

Australia invests in the national team and gets coaches like Venebles, Hiddink and now Holland's Pim Verbeek. They've been to the World Cup or right on the doorstep in the last two decades.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Let's compare Canada to Australia. Both countries don't really care about soccer. Australian league matches barely get 10000 people. They don't play in any nasty places or have any weather/altitude advantages. SCG or the big MCG aren't really fortresses. They also have alot of immigrants that cheer for the opponent in those games. Australia would be happy to get 50% cheering for them in an international game. Players are the same make and style physically. They also have players that could have played for them choose other countries. So why is Canada so much worse than Austrailia?

Coaching.

Australia invests in the national team and gets coaches like Venebles, Hiddink and now Holland's Pim Verbeek. They've been to the World Cup or right on the doorstep in the last two decades.

A lot of this is inaccurate. Soccer is much higher profile in Australia than it is in Canada, the fact that they have a fairly strong domestic league alone demonstrates this. They obviously don't have a weather advantage, but as someone who was in the crowd at Telstra Stadium (now ANZ, they don't play in the SCG) when they beat Uruguay to advance to the 2006 WC I can tell you that there was an obvious home field advantage that night. There were a fair number of Uruguayans there (I was actually pulling for Uruguay as I worked with a half dozen Uruguayans), but the vast majority of the crowd were pulling for the home side. Having been to other internationals it's rare to see more than a handful of away fans, remember that most of their games are against the likes of Oman, Baharain etc.

I'm not sure how you can point at the coaching at the elite level and decide that is the difference maker when a simple glance at the rosters indicates otherwise. The Australian roster is packed with first team regulars in the elite European leagues. Canada has none. Coaching at the senior level doesn't account for this, it's about youth development and producing top level talent. None of the guys Australia has hired would have taken Canada to the world cup, the talent simply isn't there.

[Pastiche]

Weird. I thought this thread was about the World Cup and not how crappy Canada's soccer team is.

To reorient discussion. Can anyone recommend any good websites that offer World Cup primers? I'm looking for sites that break down each team's strengths, weaknesses, top players etc.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by valo403

A lot of this is inaccurate. Soccer is much higher profile in Australia than it is in Canada, the fact that they have a fairly strong domestic league alone demonstrates this. They obviously don't have a weather advantage, but as someone who was in the crowd at Telstra Stadium (now ANZ, they don't play in the SCG) when they beat Uruguay to advance to the 2006 WC I can tell you that there was an obvious home field advantage that night. There were a fair number of Uruguayans there (I was actually pulling for Uruguay as I worked with a half dozen Uruguayans), but the vast majority of the crowd were pulling for the home side. Having been to other internationals it's rare to see more than a handful of away fans, remember that most of their games are against the likes of Oman, Baharain etc.

I'm not sure how you can point at the coaching at the elite level and decide that is the difference maker when a simple glance at the rosters indicates otherwise. The Australian roster is packed with first team regulars in the elite European leagues. Canada has none. Coaching at the senior level doesn't account for this, it's about youth development and producing top level talent. None of the guys Australia has hired would have taken Canada to the world cup, the talent simply isn't there.

Aren't youth development coaches just an extension of the national coach? If the coach is good then those youth coaches are good too. Australia and Canada played in a playoff in 1994 and were bascially even. I would argue that Canada was unforunate not to win that series. Since then Canada has gone backwards and Australian forwards. Those Australian players at elite levels were kids in 94 and are the reward for that development. Where are Canada's players?

Those guys that Australia hired could have gotten Canada into a World Cup, or at least closer, like in the Hex. Once in the hexagonal, anything can happen. The fact that Canada can't even make it into the top 6 or top 10 in CONCACAF is pretty embarassing.

------

ok back to the World Cup.

Lassana Diarra is out of the WC roster after being diagnosed with intestinal pain and unpredictable illness. He won't be replaced, so France will go with only 3 def-mid, even though Domenech always plays with two DM even against teams like Faeroe Islands. What the heck is going on over there?

I find soccernet a really good source of information.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/?ver=us&cc=5901

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Aren't youth development coaches just an extension of the national coach? If the coach is good then those youth coaches are good too. Australia and Canada played in a playoff in 1994 and were bascially even. I would argue that Canada was unforunate not to win that series. Since then Canada has gone backwards and Australian forwards. Those Australian players at elite levels were kids in 94 and are the reward for that development. Where are Canada's players?

Those guys that Australia hired could have gotten Canada into a World Cup, or at least closer, like in the Hex. Once in the hexagonal, anything can happen. The fact that Canada can't even make it into the top 6 or top 10 in CONCACAF is pretty embarassing.

No, they're not. It's about revamping the entire program. Guus Hiddink had nothing to do with developing talent in Australia, he coached the senior national team. That's it. Most national coaches have little influence over youth programs, maybe over U-20's but not over the entire development system. That's where Australia pulled away from Canada, they created a strong youth system. They've done the same thing in a number of sports.

And the guys Australia hired couldn't have put Canada into a World Cup, I'm sorry that's just reality. Canada doesn't have the skill to get to the WC right now and throwing millions at a mercenary coach would be the absolute worst decision the CSA could have made. Spend a years budget on a coach when your players are largely second tier talent? Makes no sense. The fact that Canada can't make it into the top 10 in CONCACAF demonstrates how far the gap is, no coach can close that without players.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by valo403

No, they're not. It's about revamping the entire program. Guus Hiddink had nothing to do with developing talent in Australia, he coached the senior national team. That's it. Most national coaches have little influence over youth programs, maybe over U-20's but not over the entire development system. That's where Australia pulled away from Canada, they created a strong youth system. They've done the same thing in a number of sports.

And the guys Australia hired couldn't have put Canada into a World Cup, I'm sorry that's just reality. Canada doesn't have the skill to get to the WC right now and throwing millions at a mercenary coach would be the absolute worst decision the CSA could have made. Spend a years budget on a coach when your players are largely second tier talent? Makes no sense. The fact that Canada can't make it into the top 10 in CONCACAF demonstrates how far the gap is, no coach can close that without players.

But Canada's not that bad at youth level. They qualified for youth tournaments or get close. Played in the 2003, 2005 and 2007 World U-20s (hosts). The 2003 quarterfinal loss to Spain is still a bitter defeat. They're not the lost cause that the national team is at. What happened to these guys? Canada can beat these teams when they're 20 but not when they're 25? That's senior coaching and systems. The gap at senior level should not be this wide.

I don't expect Canada to make the World Cup every time. Or even 1 out of 4 times. But it shouldn't be this bad. They should be in the HEX or in the 4th position getting knocked out by the South American team. And with a little luck getting that 3rd spot. Even beating USA and Mexico once in a blue moon. Not losing every single time at the 12 team semifinal stage to teams like Panama and Guatemala! CONCACAF sucks!

We'll disagree. I want the mercenary coach to put Canada back on the map and make something of these good young players. The talent is there, there's just no structure at senior level.

[Locke]

The notorious Divers of the World Cup. Interesting article.

his behavior against England at the 2006 World Cup was inexcusable. Up against Wayne Rooney, then a teammate at Manchester United, Ronaldo took pleasure in watching the feisty striker earn a red card, delivering one of the most famous winks in World Cup history.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-c...cc=5901&ver=us

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

But Canada's not that bad at youth level. They qualified for youth tournaments or get close. Played in the 2003, 2005 and 2007 World U-20s (hosts). The 2003 quarterfinal loss to Spain is still a bitter defeat. They're not the lost cause that the national team is at. What happened to these guys? Canada can beat these teams when they're 20 but not when they're 25? That's senior coaching and systems. The gap at senior level should not be this wide.

I don't expect Canada to make the World Cup every time. Or even 1 out of 4 times. But it shouldn't be this bad. They should be in the HEX or in the 4th position getting knocked out by the South American team. And with a little luck getting that 3rd spot. Even beating USA and Mexico once in a blue moon. Not losing every single time at the 12 team semifinal stage to teams like Panama and Guatemala! CONCACAF sucks!

We'll disagree. I want the mercenary coach to put Canada back on the map and make something of these good young players. The talent is there, there's just no structure at senior level.

If the talent is there why are there so few Canadian players playing important roles for clubs in the elite leagues of the world? I mean if CONCACAF is so bad and Canada has the talent they should be able to beat the likes of Panama with an average coach, and that's simply not happening. I fail to believe that throwing money at a coach would do anything more than waste money in return for a marginally better result.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by valo403

If the talent is there why are there so few Canadian players playing important roles for clubs in the elite leagues of the world?

That's a very good question. That's the market side of the sport perhaps?
Bad agents? Not getting name recognition? These World U-20 championships are well scouted and Canada was there 3 tournaments in a row. I don't know. Stalteri playing in EPL and Bundesliga. Few others in the Bundesliga too. De Guzman with Deportivo La Coruna until coming back to Toronto. Players in the English Championship and Division 1.

But I know what you mean, other countries have players on bigger teams.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's a very good question. That's the market side of the sport perhaps?
Bad agents? Not getting name recognition? These World U-20 championships are well scouted and Canada was there 3 tournaments in a row. I don't know. Stalteri playing in EPL and Bundesliga. Few others in the Bundesliga too. De Guzman with Deportivo La Coruna until coming back to Toronto. Players in the English Championship and Division 1.

But I know what you mean, other countries have players on bigger teams.

I think the presence in the U20's is being overstated a bit. Canada performed pretty well in 2003, but has otherwise been stomped on at those tournaments. And presence alone doesn't necesarilly mean anything, not out of a weak qualifying area. There are world soccer powers who don't qualify for age restricted tournaments but feel little effect at the senior level, as well as weak senior teams who make a run at age restricted tournaments from time to time. IT's obviously better to be there than not, but it doesn't necesarilly indicate that the senior squad will experience success in the future.

BTW, sorry for the late edit on the previous post.

Pastiche, I like to read "The Spoiler", it's a decent mix of comedy and insight. Keeps my day moving along nicely.

[GirlySports]

No problem on the late edit. I'm notorious for late edits
Canada's got to get into the HEX. That's more than a marginally better result. They haven't been there since 1998! The Hex is 10 more games, 5 at home. That's huge for development and competitive edge and more support. Give people some hope. Right now it's just a joke.

Even if the performance in U-20 is bad (3 and out) at least they got there. World Cup qualifying they're not even close

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

No problem on the late edit. I'm notorious for late edits
Canada's got to get into the HEX. That's more than a marginally better result. They haven't been there since 1998! The Hex is 10 more games, 5 at home. That's huge for development and competitive edge and more support. Give people some hope. Right now it's just a joke.

Even if the performance in U-20 is bad (3 and out) at least they got there. World Cup qualifying they're not even close

Is it $5-7mil a year better? That's half of the annual budget the CSA has been operating under. With all of the cuts that would have to be made to bring in an elite coach the program would be dead. More funding would be great, but that's a whole different issue.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Weird. I thought this thread was about the World Cup and not how crappy Canada's soccer team is.

To reorient discussion. Can anyone recommend any good websites that offer World Cup primers? I'm looking for sites that break down each team's strengths, weaknesses, top players etc.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/teams/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...10/default.stm

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by valo403

Is it $5-7mil a year better? That's half of the annual budget the CSA has been operating under. With all of the cuts that would have to be made to bring in an elite coach the program would be dead. More funding would be great, but that's a whole different issue.

That much? Hiddink signed for $4 million/year with Turkey which will take him to 2014. We don't need someone as high calibre as him. Half that? 2 million? Again using Australia I think Verbeek is around 2 million.

I want to see a big foreign coach in my lifetime :P

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That much? Hiddink signed for $4 million/year with Turkey which will take him to 2014. We don't need someone as high calibre as him. Half that? 2 million? Again using Australia I think Verbeek is around 2 million.

I want to see a big foreign coach in my lifetime :P

Media reports pegged his Russia salary at 2-3mil pounds.

Even at $2mil you're commiting 1/6 of your budget to a coach when your players don't have the ability to get out of the first group stage of qualifying. It doesn't make sense, it's putting the cart before the horse. Spend the money on developing the youth system and churning out truly international level players, then worry about clearing the final hurdles. A coach can only take you so far, and going from 10th in CONCACAF to 8th isn't worth 1/6 of your budget.

Line up the Australian and Canadian rosters side by side. That's the comparison that shows you why one is in the WC and the other isn't, not who's on the touchline.