Grizzly Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Yes I agree that if we don't get at least a tie against Mexico it is time to give Hart a shot. It is a roll of the dice but it can't get worse than one point in three games. If Hart has success we keep him as long as it continues. If not we take the time to find a good coach who can build the program over the next four years. I think we need to ignore the big names because we can't afford them but should look at some up and coming coaches with a record of success who might be interested in establishing their international credentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaliam Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 quote:Originally posted by tellytubby Hart consistently got good results from Hutch, Dero, and deguzman because he played with a holding mid(Nash) behind them. This allowed them to push forward and get more involved. I don't think Nash is the guy because in the USA game his lack of pace was exposed, but the idea of having a holding mid behind those three proved to be beneficial. Why Mitchell chose not to do this is any ones guess. I've read on this board that the problem is the 4-5-1 formation. I don't believe this. Since our best players are midfielders, you should play to that strength. It worked in the Gold Cup. The problem is where Mitchell is playing his midfielders. I haven't seen Imhof play( I just figured streaming out a year ago), so I don't know if he's that guy. I was also impressed by how Hart was able to regroup after the loss to Guadeloupe in the Gold Cup. I just don't think that Mitchell has the confidence of the players to be calm and confident in times of adversity. I would think that with the limited time that a National manager has to work with players, sometimes it's more important how he deals with the personalities and where they will excel rather than pure x's and o's. That's why I stated in my first post that I thought it was silly to replace Hart last year. It cries of nepotism. Is Hart the next coming of Alex Ferguson? Probably not, but he seemed the right man for the job considering the paltry budget the CSA was willing to spend and the results that he got while being in charge. I don't think most people believe the 4-5-1 is necessarily bad, it is DM's inability to make any sort of a tactical alteration during a game that is the big problem. Edit: Grammatical error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 quote:Originally posted by maccaliam I don't think most people believe the 4-5-1 is necessarily bad, it is DM's inability to make any sort of a tactical alteration during a game that is the big problem. Bingo! We got a name-o. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melpomenus Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Michael Laudrup just signed with Spartak Moscow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly Yes I agree that if we don't get at least a tie against Mexico it is time to give Hart a shot. I think we need to ignore the big names because we can't afford them but should look at some up and coming coaches with a record of success who might be interested in establishing their international credentials. I agree. No result vs. Mexico = coaching change. Then a search for a new MNT manager should commence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamptern Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 quote:Originally posted by tellytubby Hart consistently got good results from Hutch, Dero, and deguzman because he played with a holding mid(Nash) behind them. This allowed them to push forward and get more involved. I don't think Nash is the guy because in the USA game his lack of pace was exposed, but the idea of having a holding mid behind those three proved to be beneficial. Why Mitchell chose not to do this is any ones guess. I've read on this board that the problem is the 4-5-1 formation. I don't believe this. Since our best players are midfielders, you should play to that strength. It worked in the Gold Cup. The problem is where Mitchell is playing his midfielders. I haven't seen Imhof play( I just figured streaming out a year ago), so I don't know if he's that guy. I was also impressed by how Hart was able to regroup after the loss to Guadeloupe in the Gold Cup. I just don't think that Mitchell has the confidence of the players to be calm and confident in times of adversity. I would think that with the limited time that a National manager has to work with players, sometimes it's more important how he deals with the personalities and where they will excel rather than pure x's and o's. That's why I stated in my first post that I thought it was silly to replace Hart last year. It cries of nepotism. Is Hart the next coming of Alex Ferguson? Probably not, but he seemed the right man for the job considering the paltry budget the CSA was willing to spend and the results that he got while being in charge. Great point! Guzman is a critcal palyer who shoul be freed from defence job. He is a play maker that nobody can alter. A decent centre back would be good enough to fill the gap when Guzman is up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.