We Need A Friendly

[El Hombre]

Hey someone email that link to Robert so he can shut the hell up finally.

I fully expect to read a thread about how T&T are a terrible choice for an opponent.

I'm glad it got done. Don't care where it is or whether it's open or not. The point is to play 90 minutes against a capable side.

[Lord Bob]

First, let me be clear. I am pleased there is a friendly. This is a good thing. It is also a thing that the CSA would not have done in some previous years.

But here's my concern:

1) The scuttlebutt is that there are going to be a lot of "B"-squad players because oh, this is such a tough FIFA date to get players for and so on.

2) If the guys who'll be in this friendly aren't the guys who'll be going to Panama, then obviously the value of this friendly as World Cup prep is seriously reduced.

3) So if that is the case, why wouldn't we do another one of those European neutral-site friendlies of which we used to be so fond with the best players we could get for a day over there? Because of the greatly reduced travel and physical strain it would be easier to get players, plus we could probably ensure a higher quality opponent. If we had an A team it would be better to play Trinidad and Tobago in Florida, arguably, because that would be a closer experience for World Cup qualifying. But it sounds like we won't have one.

Again, the mere fact that this friendly is happening makes me happy. It is good. But that doesn't mean we can't look for improvements, right?

[JamboAl]

Good job CSA for setting something up by ways of a friendly. T&T is a decent opponent if for nothing else to get a bit of time together for the players.

By the way, that cricket pitch hosted two Twenty 20 matches between the West Indies and New Zealand a few weeks ago. If Robert wants to have a go at anyone, he should ask why the Canadian Cricket Association can't have something like that oval somewhere in Canada. That looks like a fine facility.

[BuzzAndSting]

3) So if that is the case, why wouldn't we do another one of those European neutral-site friendlies of which we used to be so fond with the best players we could get for a day over there? Because of the greatly reduced travel and physical strain it would be easier to get players, plus we could probably ensure a higher quality opponent. If we had an A team it would be better to play Trinidad and Tobago in Florida, arguably, because that would be a closer experience for World Cup qualifying. But it sounds like we won't have one.

I'm with you. It seems very unlikely that a bunch of our core Euro players will be there. Another game in Antalya would have made a lot of sense.

Glad to see some of the group getting together though.

[Jcm144]

This is good to hear. You can see the improvements coming along. In the past the CSA would have not scheduled a friendly. Even though some players from the A squad won't be playing, it will be good to give some young players a chance.

[sose]

vs Trinidad in Florida

http://www.canadasoccer.com/canada-set-for-august-friendly-against-trinidad-and-tobago-p151292-preview-1

what do I win for correct prediction???

[paul-collins]

There are direct flights from some Euro centres to Miami, so I suppose it's possible for Euro based players to attend...

[El Hombre]

1) The scuttlebutt is that there are going to be a lot of "B"-squad players because oh, this is such a tough FIFA date to get players for and so on.

2) If the guys who'll be in this friendly aren't the guys who'll be going to Panama, then obviously the value of this friendly as World Cup prep is seriously reduced.

3) So if that is the case, why wouldn't we do another one of those European neutral-site friendlies of which we used to be so fond with the best players we could get for a day over there? Because of the greatly reduced travel and physical strain it would be easier to get players, plus we could probably ensure a higher quality opponent. If we had an A team it would be better to play Trinidad and Tobago in Florida, arguably, because that would be a closer experience for World Cup qualifying. But it sounds like we won't have one.

Isn't it 6 of one, half dozen of the other in this situation though? If we have a game in Europe, then our MLS based players might not make it. Then we're missing Hainault, Jakovic, De Rosario, Jazic, Johnson, JDG, Bernier, Morgan etc. No matter how we cut it, with such a short international break, we're only going to get half a squad.

[Lord Bob]

Isn't it 6 of one, half dozen of the other in this situation though? If we have a game in Europe, then our MLS based players might not make it. Then we're missing Hainault, Jakovic, De Rosario, Jazic, Johnson, JDG, Bernier, Morgan etc. No matter how we cut it, with such a short international break, we're only going to get half a squad.

Indeed, but my point is that the European friendly would overall be better for everybody than the Florida friendly, which would only really benefit whichever players were going to Panama.

[Joe Keeper]

First, let me be clear. I am pleased there is a friendly. This is a good thing. It is also a thing that the CSA would not have done in some previous years.

But here's my concern:

1) The scuttlebutt is that there are going to be a lot of "B"-squad players because oh, this is such a tough FIFA date to get players for and so on.

2) If the guys who'll be in this friendly aren't the guys who'll be going to Panama, then obviously the value of this friendly as World Cup prep is seriously reduced.

3) So if that is the case, why wouldn't we do another one of those European neutral-site friendlies of which we used to be so fond with the best players we could get for a day over there? Because of the greatly reduced travel and physical strain it would be easier to get players, plus we could probably ensure a higher quality opponent. If we had an A team it would be better to play Trinidad and Tobago in Florida, arguably, because that would be a closer experience for World Cup qualifying. But it sounds like we won't have one.

Again, the mere fact that this friendly is happening makes me happy. It is good. But that doesn't mean we can't look for improvements, right?

I see your points, but we dont know the roster yet. It is too early to say that alot of the core of the team Hart has been using wont be there. We may be surprised by the inclusions.

However, if this will be a mixture of players from the depth chart, I am happy too. Hart seems to be reluctant to bring in any new players at all for this round. This friendly could provide the chance Hart needs to take a look at some players who could help our stagnant offence like Edwini-Bonsu, Cavalini or others from the U-23s or other teams.

I agree with Harts strategy of using the same core of players, but his reluctance to bring in new striker options could be our undoing in the next 2-4 games unless the usual suspects get their scoring boots on finally. I hope they do, but it's nice to have depth options, especially at forward. Any coach expecting to make a long run in any tournament or league has to recognize the improtance of depth.

[El Hombre]

Indeed, but my point is that the European friendly would overall be better for everybody than the Florida friendly, which would only really benefit whichever players were going to Panama.

Maybe I don't follow. How would it be more beneficial for everyone? If it was in Europe we'd be bringing in a bunch of guys that wouldn't be going to Panama either, perhaps even the same amount as we're going to have to bring in for this one.

(At the risk of being dubbed a CSA-sympathizer in Robert's next missive:) I think doing it in southern Florida is a lot cheaper than doing something overseas. Also, I would think going overseas would limit the number of available opponents, particularly if you are trying to do this on the cheap, which I would hope they were for a 3-day camp.

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

Will Sportsnet broadcast? TV or online stream?

[madmonte]

First, let me be clear. I am pleased there is a friendly. This is a good thing. It is also a thing that the CSA would not have done in some previous years.

But here's my concern:

1) The scuttlebutt is that there are going to be a lot of "B"-squad players because oh, this is such a tough FIFA date to get players for and so on.

2) If the guys who'll be in this friendly aren't the guys who'll be going to Panama, then obviously the value of this friendly as World Cup prep is seriously reduced.

3) So if that is the case, why wouldn't we do another one of those European neutral-site friendlies of which we used to be so fond with the best players we could get for a day over there? Because of the greatly reduced travel and physical strain it would be easier to get players, plus we could probably ensure a higher quality opponent. If we had an A team it would be better to play Trinidad and Tobago in Florida, arguably, because that would be a closer experience for World Cup qualifying. But it sounds like we won't have one.

Again, the mere fact that this friendly is happening makes me happy. It is good. But that doesn't mean we can't look for improvements, right?

Not everyone would make it for Europe either, because it's about clubs releasing them from training, apparently, or risk the injury. Considering it's a FIFA date, I don't really see how that makes sense, but that's how I've heard it spoken. Either way, I don't think it's going to be a "B" team so to speak, but more like our "A" team, missing a few components, so that guys that would have been subbing will get actual PT.

Nothing wrong with that. But as you say, always room for improvements. To improve, I hate to say it given the talk on the boards the last few days, but you'd probably want to announce your friendlies a little more in advance.

[Keegan]

Maybe I don't follow. How would it be more beneficial for everyone? If it was in Europe we'd be bringing in a bunch of guys that wouldn't be going to Panama either, perhaps even the same amount as we're going to have to bring in for this one.

(At the risk of being dubbed a CSA-sympathizer in Robert's next missive:) I think doing it in southern Florida is a lot cheaper than doing something overseas. Also, I would think going overseas would limit the number of available opponents, particularly if you are trying to do this on the cheap, which I would hope they were for a 3-day camp.

100% agree, the CSA is right here. North America wins out in every scenario for this camp. Even players who may be on the fringe and need a look at the moment could be available.. guys like Dunfield, Bernier, Henry and Saiko have all done some good things in the last little while.

[Scottie]

It seems like the last few times we've had friendlies for european based players we end up having to call up one or two MLS guys to fill certain positions i.e. Johnson, Dero, Jakovic, often at the last minute. I guess that's likely to still be the case, just for different positions this time. Our top keepers and strikers are all based in europe, while we could put together a pretty good midfield and back line with MLS players.

[Lord Bob]

Maybe I don't follow. How would it be more beneficial for everyone? If it was in Europe we'd be bringing in a bunch of guys that wouldn't be going to Panama either, perhaps even the same amount as we're going to have to bring in for this one.

My logic is that if the friendly can't be good World Cup prep itself (i.e. the same players taking on a similar opponent in similar conditions), then the friendly should be under the most convenient possible circumstances against the best possible opponent, which would point to Europe. Your mileage may vary. As I said, I'm pleased this is happening at all.