Herdman new head coach

[MrR]

What would Herdman's coaching prospects be on July 19th, 2026 with a 0-6 World Cup record? Would the CSA offer him another contract? Would any other FA or club be interested in acquiring his services? The fact that the CSA does not have the money to properly prepare the CMNT for the 2026 World Cup makes that 0-6 record a distinct possibility. I'm sure this fact has escaped Herdman's attention. Why else would he be looking for another job?

Edited August 18, 2023 by MrR

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

2 hours ago, MrR said:

What would Herdman's coaching prospects be on July 19th, 2026 with a 0-6 World Cup record? Would the CSA offer him another contract? ...

He does a mean Powerpoint presentation by all accounts so who knows. More seriously, the New Zealand opportunity looked like a good way for both parties to move on but for whatever reason it didn't happen. Doubt the TFC thing has any substance to it beyond him being sounded out about potential availability and saying thanks but no thanks. Unless/until Insigne and Bernadeschi start producing the goods or move elsewhere that job is looking like a poisoned chalice out until 2027 or so.

[Cheeta]

Fun read.  Seriously.

Myself, for once I'm not over thinking things.  Herdman has had a fair long run at this MNT gig and 3 more years at the helm would have to be setting some kind of record.

He has to have some money in the bank, and he'll have a high level job in football somewhere in some capacity after he moves on it's just a question of when.  So he's keeping an open mind.  Not saying any tampering isn't going on, just that word has gotten out that he might be open to new opportunities.

And fair enough.  Think he knows he could spend the rest of his life trying to herd the cats at the CSA and in the end he'll just be older in a workplace surrounded by cats.  You can't fight DNA.

Maybe he's a dog person.  Or thinks he is.  Being surrounded by cats for too long can do that.

FA'K!  What were we talking about?

 

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Cheeta

[Bigandy]

12 hours ago, costarg said:

Sorry man, you're off.  I don't hate Herdman, I'm just pointing out his shortcomings.  

If we all know that Brym is coming on at 60', that's a clear indication that there is no tactical acumen involved.  Herdman was making the same changes if we were leading or losing.  That is just a man with a plan and does not, or cannot adapt to the situation.

Playing Bombito in the midfield is a tactical mistep.  There was one game at the GC where 6 out of 11 guys were out of their standard position.  I won't list them all.  That is not tactics, that's a guy that is trying too hard.

My expectation from the Croatia match was to actually try.  It's not just about winning or losing, it's about actually giving yourself a chance to compete, not showing up with 1.5 guys in the middle vs the best midfield in the world and making a joke out of it and then cover it up with excuses.  Yes, the answer to playing vs Croatia is to play defensive mids that will break up the play, not try to counter with more strikers.

Im all for pointing out his shortcomings but talking about brym (he also was put on after JRR so its not as rigid as you say) and playing bombito/players out of position is arguably what a development tournament is about. Bombito doesnt make our 11 at CB currently but with his playing profile, he could become our 6 easier to free up kone and staq. Is the gold cup not the perfect chance to test this theory out? Maybe its a failure but should we not explore a way to get the best out of kone and staq?  

As for croatia, I would say we absolutely tried. We came out flying. Things were going ok until the staq injury. I would argue that attacking one of the best nations in the world is trying harder than sitting back. As for trying to break up midfield play, how did that go when we played USA in nations league final.  

I guess my challenge is that the claim is herdman sucks at tactics. But when i say his tactics have worked, the conversation turns to player selection at a developmental tournament and 1 WC games formation. Thats not a comprehensive view of tactics. How we press, high lines vs low block, counters, overlaps, CDM's dropping between CB's etc are all tactical choices within a formation and player selection.  However, we never discuss his tactics. 

Lets talk about the WC. Nations like Saudi arabia beat argentina by playing aggressive. We were successful with our aggressive mentality until the 35th minute. Why is aggression considered not trying? 

You want 3 in midfield but what did you think of how well David closed down passing lanes defensively. Do you think a different 10 like a half injured oso would have closed those lanes better? If we played a 3rd midfielder where would they play in relation to staq and hutch. Those guys are occupying a double 6 so fraser, piette, MAK would awkwardly play as a 10? A green Kone as a 10 may have been an option but risky?  I just dont understand what player would replace larin/david in your line up and what role defensively they would do that david doesnt do defensively.  
 

[Bigandy]

12 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I'm sorry. Thinking we are going with a back 3 that includes Vitoria invalidates a good portion of that text. Or Miller for that matter considering you are counting on some big development from Bombito, for instance.  I just watched Cornelius run up and down the sidelines for his club last match, early days but a very good base for a LCB there for me.

Would you like to debate how we move forward with a midfield 3 that includes Atiba? It is just as valid an attempt at an argument.

I'm not talking down to you either, I guess, but if you think we have better overall players in 433, I honestly think you need watch more football and read less books about it.

 

Of course we have two strong wing backs.

Watch Davies when he plays as or like a wingback and compare that to when he doesn't have defensive responsibilities and edges towards hero-ball.  No comparison for me on his overall contribution to teams. Buchanan for me is more balanced but he plays equally well at wing back as at winger.  

And we are not using either Larin or David or both most effectively without playing them close together in the centre.

You have you opinions, fair enough, but they do not match what I see on the pitch and where I see football going.

Reasons for 3-5-2. 

1.Our best striker plays better with a second striker.  
2. It gets all of our top 5 league players on.
3. It maximizes our only truly world class player.
4. It provides an extra defender to cover our clearest weakness. 
5. We still get a midfield trio, even with our abundance of attackers on the field. 
6. Statistically speaking our switch to a back 3 made huge improvements. 
7. Most concacaf fields suck so playing through the middle is tough. Wing play with numbers in the box is an effective counter to this.

Reasons against 3-5-2 
1. we have to play AJ out of position 
2. Some silly argument that adekugbe would start in a back 4 (obviously davies would)? Some argument that laryea would start (Its either him or AJ, or we play laryea out of position at RM).  
3. A silly argument our CB's suck and would therefore improve when you remove one of them? 

[MrR]

What's best for the CMNT?

Having extended his contract with the CSA till the end of the 2026 Wortld Cup, should Herdman be committed to seeing the deal out? After all his years of CSA service, he should have a reasonable read on what the CSA's financial limitations are. By all accounts, he has the most lucrative contract ever signed by a coach of the CMNT. Therefore, should he be allowed to bail at any time prior to the 2026 World Cup Final. Cashing in his juicy paycheques every month and being allowed to start a new job 6 months or a year before the 2026 World Cup definitely is not in the best interest of the CMNT. 

[costarg]

10 hours ago, Bigandy said:

Reasons for 3-5-2. 

1.Our best striker plays better with a second striker.  
2. It gets all of our top 5 league players on.
3. It maximizes our only truly world class player.
4. It provides an extra defender to cover our clearest weakness. 
5. We still get a midfield trio, even with our abundance of attackers on the field. 
6. Statistically speaking our switch to a back 3 made huge improvements. 
7. Most concacaf fields suck so playing through the middle is tough. Wing play with numbers in the box is an effective counter to this.

Reasons against 3-5-2 
1. we have to play AJ out of position 
2. Some silly argument that adekugbe would start in a back 4 (obviously davies would)? Some argument that laryea would start (Its either him or AJ, or we play laryea out of position at RM).  
3. A silly argument our CB's suck and would therefore improve when you remove one of them? 

Dude, no offence, but I'm confident saying you've never coached or taken any kind of tactics training/course.  The info is out there if you look for it.

Saying adding another weak 3rd CB makes us stronger is as relevant and logical as saying we're not scoring with one striker, lets add another.  That's not how it works.  The back 3 has fundamentals which our players don't cover.  It's that simple.  Honestly, just google it.

[Bigandy]

On 8/18/2023 at 7:34 PM, costarg said:

Dude, no offence, but I'm confident saying you've never coached or taken any kind of tactics training/course.  The info is out there if you look for it.

Saying adding another weak 3rd CB makes us stronger is as relevant and logical as saying we're not scoring with one striker, lets add another.  That's not how it works.  The back 3 has fundamentals which our players don't cover.  It's that simple.  Honestly, just google it.

This is such a poor post. Trying to get personal but you literally did not provide any tactical information. 

You also extrapolated only 1 of my arguments and turned it into something I never said. I'll explain. My post is that removing one CB does not make our backline stronger. This is similar to what youre saying that adding 1 CB does not make our backline stronger. However, on that point, there are tactical moments in fames where pretty much all teams will sub off an attacker and put on a CB to deal with end game pressure. Conversely, teams will throw on extra strikers at the end of a game for a goal. Numerical supremacy is a tactical choice that can work. Think about holland vs argentina when weghorst was subbed on. Don't be silly and try to say that "google" will prove that this tactical choice is not a real option. 

Obviously numerical supremecy is not a comprehensive view of tactics which is why it was only 1/2 of 10 points I wrote in 5 minutes. However, I will even further explain why a 3rd cb helps improve our backline. Vitoria (during WCQ) was vital to our backline. His pace is such an obvious weakness. All our other CB's have an obvious weakness of aerially presence. This means we need vitoria centrally as much as possible. a 3rd CB prevents vitoria from getting pulled out as easily. Miller and AJ also make line splitting passes better than vitoria. As they step into midfield to find these passes, the other 2 cbs rotate and cover. Sure that can happen in a back 4 but then the cover comes from 1 CB, CDM, or FB. I personally would rather have davies and staq as an option to play through rather than them dropping in to cover for miller stepping into midfield. 

No offence dude, but picking 10% of a post, rewording it, trying to over simplify, and justifying your criticism by saying "google it" makes me confident that your not here for a tactical discussion and responded out of pure emotion because you dont like when I critique your opinion. Im confident in both my playing and coaching credentials but I would never try to use that as ammunition to elevate me above another forum poster.  However, I would love to know where youve coached that makes your tactical acumen so sharp and your communication so clear seeing as you have yet to provide any real tactical points other than "get our best 11 on the field" and "we dont want 2 strikers on the field" (which btw are contradicting statements).

[costarg]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

This is such a poor post. Trying to get personal but you literally did not provide any tactical information. 

You also extrapolated only 1 of my arguments and turned it into something I never said. I'll explain. My post is that removing one CB does not make our backline stronger. This is similar to what youre saying that adding 1 CB does not make our backline stronger. However, on that point, there are tactical moments in fames where pretty much all teams will sub off an attacker and put on a CB to deal with end game pressure. Conversely, teams will throw on extra strikers at the end of a game for a goal. Numerical supremacy is a tactical choice that can work. Think about holland vs argentina when weghorst was subbed on. Don't be silly and try to say that "google" will prove that this tactical choice is not a real option. 

Obviously numerical supremecy is not a comprehensive view of tactics which is why it was only 1/2 of 10 points I wrote in 5 minutes. However, I will even further explain why a 3rd cb helps improve our backline. Vitoria (during WCQ) was vital to our backline. His pace is such an obvious weakness. All our other CB's have an obvious weakness of aerially presence. This means we need vitoria centrally as much as possible. a 3rd CB prevents vitoria from getting pulled out as easily. Miller and AJ also make line splitting passes better than vitoria. As they step into midfield to find these passes, the other 2 cbs rotate and cover. Sure that can happen in a back 4 but then the cover comes from 1 CB, CDM, or FB. I personally would rather have davies and staq as an option to play through rather than them dropping in to cover for miller stepping into midfield. 

No offence dude, but picking 10% of a post, rewording it, trying to over simplify, and justifying your criticism by saying "google it" makes me confident that your not here for a tactical discussion and responded out of pure emotion because you dont like when I critique your opinion. Im confident in both my playing and coaching credentials but I would never try to use that as ammunition to elevate me above another forum poster.  However, I would love to know where youve coached that makes your tactical acumen so sharp and your communication so clear seeing as you have yet to provide any real tactical points other than "get our best 11 on the field" and "we dont want 2 strikers on the field" (which btw are contradicting statements).

 

Honestly, It's just time consuming and kinda pointless.  It's ok if we don't agree, I still respect you and your opinion.  Nothing I write on this site is personal, sometimes a little emotional, but never mean or judgemental.  
I can elaborate....
 
 
1.Our best striker plays better with a second striker.  

- Perhaps he's not an out and out Drobga type striker, but he still does more than well enough as a loan striker for his club.  Also it's not like we need all the goals to come from him when we have wingers like Tajon and Davies who are also more than capable to contribute to scoring.

2. It gets all of our top 5 league players on.

- Who do you feel are our top 5 league players?  I feel a 4-5-1 gets all of our heavyweights on except for Larin.  And that's ok since only a rare few teams can afford to play with 2 strikers.

3. It maximizes our only truly world class player.

- If we're being honest, 4-5-1 probably suits Davies more than a 3-5-2 for CANMNT.

4. It provides an extra defender to cover our clearest weakness. 

- Adding an able body at CB does not make a D stronger.  Miller/Vitoria/Johnston has holes and weaknesses that are obvious and easy to beat.  A defensive Adekugbe/Macraw/Vitoria/Johnston is a stronger backline.  More cover up high and quick legs from the flanks. MacGraw/Vitoria is obviously just an example.  We can also throw in Kennedy, Bombito for quicker CB'S.  Ideally we would have seen this at the GC, which like you say was supposed to be a development exercise, but we didn't really develop anything.  Which is kinda my point that Herdman has no answers to the questions being asked.  We know the weaknesses, but he isn't trying anything to fix them.
 
5. We still get a midfield trio, even with our abundance of attackers on the field.

- 4-5-1 also has a midfield trio and stronger defensively, without wasting bodies up top who will never get the ball against better competition.
 
6. Statistically speaking our switch to a back 3 made huge improvements.

- This is purely hypothetical.  Early in the WCQ phase Herdman was reverting to 4-4-2 during games quite successfully.  We became predictable and weaker when we started only playing the 3-5-2 later in WCQ.
 
7. Most concacaf fields suck so playing through the middle is tough. Wing play with numbers in the box is an effective counter to this.  

- That's cheap, you're pulling a Trump and doing exactly what you're accusing me of.  We're not talking about playing Haiti - from my first message I was specifically talking about WC and beating the better teams, not the minnows.  Bundling CONCACAF games with playing Croatia is what you don't seem to understand.  It's not the same, what worked for CONCACAF will not work vs better teams.  That's where Herdman reached his obvious limit.
 
"Conversely, teams will throw on extra strikers at the end of a game for a goal."

- Throwing on an extra striker with 15 minutes remaining is not the same as giving up possession and build up play for 90 full minutes.  It's a gamble coaches take when they're already behind.  Last ditch attempt with nothing to lose.  If you don't understand that, I'm really wasting my time here.  That's 101.

Edited August 21, 2023 by costarg

[Bigandy]

20 minutes ago, costarg said:

 

Honestly, It's just time consuming and kinda pointless.  It's ok if we don't agree, I still respect you and your opinion.  Nothing I write on this site is personal, sometimes a little emotional, but never mean or judgemental.  
I can elaborate....
 
 
1.Our best striker plays better with a second striker.  

- Perhaps he's not an out and out Drobga type striker, but he still does more than well enough as a loan striker for his club.  Also it's not like we need all the goals to come from him when we have wingers like Tajon and Davies who are also more than capable to contribute to scoring.

2. It gets all of our top 5 league players on.

- Who do you feel are our top 5 league players?  I feel a 4-5-1 gets all of our heavyweights on except for Larin.  And that's ok since only a rare few teams can afford to play with 2 strikers.

3. It maximizes our only truly world class player.

- If we're being honest, 4-5-1 probably suits Davies more than a 3-5-2 for CANMNT.

4. It provides an extra defender to cover our clearest weakness. 

- Adding an able body at CB does not make a D stronger.  Miller/Vitoria/Johnston has holes and weaknesses that are obvious and easy to beat.  A defensive Adekugbe/Macraw/Vitoria/Johnston is a stronger backline.  More cover up high and quick legs from the flanks. MacGraw/Vitoria is obviously just an example.  We can also throw in Kennedy, Bombito for quicker CB'S.  Ideally we would have seen this at the GC, which like you say was supposed to be a development exercise, but we didn't really develop anything.  Which is kinda my point that Herdman has no answers to the questions being asked.  We know the weaknesses, but he isn't trying anything to fix them.
 
5. We still get a midfield trio, even with our abundance of attackers on the field.

- 4-5-1 also has a midfield trio and stronger defensively, without wasting bodies up top who will never get the ball against better competition.
 
6. Statistically speaking our switch to a back 3 made huge improvements.

- This is purely hypothetical.  Early in the WCQ phase Herdman was reverting to 4-4-2 during games quite successfully.  We became predictable and weaker when we started only playing the 3-5-2 later in WCQ.
 
7. Most concacaf fields suck so playing through the middle is tough. Wing play with numbers in the box is an effective counter to this.  

- That's cheap, you're pulling a Trump and doing exactly what you're accusing me of.  We're not talking about playing Haiti - from my first message I was specifically talking about WC and beating the better teams, not the minnows.  Bundling CONCACAF games with playing Croatia is what you don't seem to understand.  It's not the same, what worked for CONCACAF will not work vs better teams.  That's where Herdman reached his obvious limit.
 
"Conversely, teams will throw on extra strikers at the end of a game for a goal."

- Throwing on an extra striker with 15 minutes remaining is not the same as giving up possession and build up play for 90 full minutes.  It's a gamble coaches take when they're already behind.  Last ditch attempt with nothing to lose.  If you don't understand that, I'm really wasting my time here.  That's 101.

1. So you agree a 2 striker formation suits david best. You just disregard that as important? I agree we dont need it to be rigid but we both agree that a 2 striker formation is a positive for David. 

2. Its not who I feel. Its who plays in top 5. David, Larin, Davies. We can also expand this and say our top performers in europe. staq, kone, buchanan. Again, you agree with my point that it gets our top players on the field.  I never said other formations couldnt though and I feel like you are implying that....

3. Extremely debatable. Davies at LB has way more responsibility than at LWB. Davies at LW plays too much hero ball. I would say that the majority of this board likes davies at LWB best. 

4. Ive already explained this one. Mcgraw and vitoria would get burned for speed and one solution thats worked decently is a back 3. Kennedy and bombito wouldnt have the same calming solidity that we need and they are low on the depth charts. Of course theres other solutions but you cannot deny that the 3-5-2 provides coverage for vitoria to stay central and not run channels.

5.  theres many possible solutions. My point of having 3 CM's and many attackers is still true. 

6. Not hypothetical. The stats of XP goals for and against were exceeded during WCQ. The majority of the games had 3 atb. Again, many possible solutions and I loved the 4-4-2 against the USA. That doesnt mean that the 3-5-2 is bad though. Point still stands.

7. Thats not cheap. Out of all the concacaf away games, how many have fields we can play properly on. Mexico and USA? Its not the minnows I am talking about. Its literally every single away game except 2. With that sort of quantity of games, surely its at least a little valuable to consider the best way to win games with a poor surface. 

As for "101", I literally said its not a comprehensive solution to throw a striker on but it is still a real and valuable tactic in some situations. Stop putting words in my mouth. 

To summarize your post, you have yet to actually talk tactics again. You just try and tear down my points by putting words in my mouth.  Its so much easier to try and tear down someone elses opinion than to state your own. I'd love to hear how you htink we can maximize David in a 1 striker formation ( It obv can be done), or how to solve the lack of speed at CB (and height) espcially with how high our fullbacks love to play (davies in particular). Or I would love to hear literally any organic tactical thought you have that isnt just criticism (give a solution), has depth to the analysis and isnt just talking about player selection. You say 4-5-1 suits davies better, why? give some depth to your analysis. 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

6 hours ago, costarg said:

1.Our best striker plays better with a second striker.  

- Perhaps he's not an out and out Drobga type striker, but he still does more than well enough as a loan striker for his club.  Also it's not like we need all the goals to come from him when we have wingers like Tajon and Davies who are also more than capable to contribute to scoring.

2. It gets all of our top 5 league players on.

- Who do you feel are our top 5 league players?  I feel a 4-5-1 gets all of our heavyweights on except for Larin.  And that's ok since only a rare few teams can afford to play with 2 strikers.

3. It maximizes our only truly world class player.

- If we're being honest, 4-5-1 probably suits Davies more than a 3-5-2 for CANMNT.

I feel like we have gone round and round on some of the other bits but let me address these together. 

Davies and Buchanan have not scored a lot of goals for us, even against all the poor opposition we face. Buchanan has scored 4, Davies is 14 in 43. 

Davies has not shown he is a world-class winger/wide forward...yet. Think of Salah's - actually, maybe formerly, world class - numbers (against much better opposition.) Davies is a world class fullback/wingback.  Against good teams that's where you play him because you use his super human recover speed and honestly you limit his ability to go off book.  He is not overly creative yet. His assists come generally from beating people with strength and pace and cutting back to the bunch of players that Bayern have in the box.  We need people  in the box to do the same, we don't have a Mueller or Musiala, but we do have a David, alongside a 9 type striker.  We need to play 2 of our best players. There are good teams play with 2 strikers even against better oppositon.  Look at Inter Milan's Champions League run, they beat a few teams I would judge as better than them.  Played 3 at the back as well. 

We need all the advantage we can get so we don't want players doing well enough, we want to play our best players playing their best positions.  That's Larin upfront, David with another striker, maybe just behind and Davies as a less sexy wingback.  Lots of good, good teams play a traditional fullback in a back three, and Johnston does just as good a job there.  Buchanan is equally good as a winger and wingback.  Eustaquio is Eustaquio.  Those are the locks for me.  

You can't keep putting Vitoria in a forward-looking 3 at the back ie. you can't keep using our past back 3 if your back 2 includes different players. At least use McGraw, who has a little more pace that this point.  Maybe Bombito, if he develops. But he hardly starts from what I can see.  I think Cornelius can be a better LCB than Miller, having watched him play wide for his club.  But not a huge sample size for his country.   So compare apples to apples as it were, judge Cornelius (maybe Kennedy) McGraw and Johnston, if your two is going to include any of those.  

Edited August 21, 2023 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[BearcatSA]

1 hour ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I feel like we have gone round and round on some of the other bits...

Sorta like this?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by BearcatSA

[narduch]

 

 

[Atlantic]

If we don’t replace Herdman with someone already on the staff I’d be shocked. This CSA is a jokeeeeeee (and broke)

[narduch]

9 minutes ago, Atlantic said:

If we don’t replace Herdman with someone already on the staff I’d be shocked. This CSA is a jokeeeeeee (and broke)

Neville lol

[Colonel Green]

10 minutes ago, Atlantic said:

If we don’t replace Herdman with someone already on the staff I’d be shocked. This CSA is a jokeeeeeee (and broke)

The people fantasizing that Ancelotti actually wants to coach this team will be in for a rude awakening.

[dyslexic nam]

I am really not stressing about this one. I like Herdman. He had done well.  But he has done it with generational talents that no other modern Canadian manager has had access to.  He did really well during WCQ but he has also stumbled on more than one occasion.  He has had some really bright moments and some that seem to be easily identified as mistakes.  I think he is an excellent motivator but a mediocre tactician.  

Can we do better than him with a small salary package?  Odds aren’t great that we get the next Ancelotti (or the old one for that matter).  But could we find someone who can match Herdman’s tactical acumen?  Or maybe even be a bit more shrewd when it comes to our approach to games (and in-game substitutions)?  I don’t think that is outside the realm of possibility.   I have always maintained that a reasonable tactician, with the talent we now have at our disposal, may have been able to mirror the accomplishment of making the WC.   

Again, not wishing him out.  He managed to get us to the big show and that deserves credit.  And I am happy to keep on trucking with him if his heart is still in it.  But I am not going to clutch my pearls and tremble at the thought of him leaving.  There is a very real chance that someone else could be better at certain (important) elements of that role.  

Herdman stays?   Cool.  Let’s keep on truckin.  

Herdman decides to drink from the poisoned chalice that is TFC?  Ok - good luck to you.  You may need it.  

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by dyslexic nam

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

Best for him to stay, in my humble opinion, give the lack of a real successor.  (I would rather hope that's not was Neville has been brought in to be.) 

But unfortunately there are bigger issues than losing him.

[Obinna]

3 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I am really not stressing about this one. I like Herdman. He had done well.  But he has done it with generational talents that no other modern Canadian manager has had access to.  He did really well during WCQ but he has also stumbled on more than one occasion.  He has had some really bright moments and some that seem to be easily identified as mistakes.  I think he is an excellent motivator but a mediocre tactician.  

Cn we do better than him with a small salary package?  Odds aren’t great that we get the next Ancelotti (or the old one for that matter).  But could we find someone who can match Herdman’s tactical acumen?  Or maybe even be a bit more shrewd when it comes to our approach to games (and in-game substitutions)?  I don’t think that is outside the realm of possibility.   I have always maintained that a reasonable tactician, with the talent we now have at our disposal, may have been able to mirror the accomplishment of making the WC.   

Again, not wishing him out.  He managed to get us to the big show and that deserves credit.  And I may willing to let him keep on trucking with him if his heart is still in it.  But I am not going to clutch my pearls and tremble at the thought of him leaving.  There is a very real chance that someone else could be better at certain (important) elements of that role.  

Herdman stays?   Cool.  Let’s keep on truckin.  

Herdman decides to drink from the prisoner chalice that is TFC?  Ok - good luck to you.  You may need it.  

 

Wish I was a chill about the situation. 

I think we are in real trouble without Herdman. For all of the question marks about his tactics, he's done extremely well to create and grow a team culture and I fear that will go poof without him at the helm. 

Consider the shit storm in Canadian Soccer and now consider having someone other than John leading the way.... Things can and will unravel rapidly. 

I for one will take the tactical gambles in exchange for keeping the culture of this group intact. There is no guarantee Neville or anyone else can keep things moving along. I don't know Herdman personally, but I really believe he is one-of-a-kind with respect to fostering a team identity.

[dyslexic nam]

1 minute ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Best for him to stay, in my humble opinion, give the lack of a real successor.  (I would rather hope that's not was Neville has been brought in to be.) 

But unfortunately there are bigger issues than losing him.

Part of my thinking is that if we are going to have turnover prior to 2023 it is better that it happen sooner than later.    And if there are rumblings now (with both international NZ rumours and club rumours with TFC) that seems like a very real possibility.  

 

[dyslexic nam]

3 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Wish I was a chill about the situation. 

I think we are in real trouble without Herdman. For all of the question marks about his tactics, he's done extremely well to create and grow a team culture and I fear that will go poof without him at the helm. 

Consider the shit storm in Canadian Soccer and now consider having someone other than John leading the way.... Things can and will unravel rapidly. 

I for one will take the tactical gambles in exchange for keeping the culture of this group intact. There is no guarantee Neville or anyone else can keep things moving along. I don't know Herdman personally, but I really believe he is one-of-a-kind with respect to fostering a team identity.

I agree about the motivation and team ethos.  We haven’t had that in our program before and it has clearly helped.  But I do think the importance of it vs tactical acumen shifts over time as a group of players gets more established.  With the talent pool we have, I would argue that it may be less about getting them pumped up and trust-falling your way into a brotherhood, and more about scouting opponents that require excellent tactics and drilled discipline to break down and overcome.  

[jonovision]

5 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Wish I was a chill about the situation. 

I think we are in real trouble without Herdman. For all of the question marks about his tactics, he's done extremely well to create and grow a team culture and I fear that will go poof without him at the helm. 

Consider the shit storm in Canadian Soccer and now consider having someone other than John leading the way.... Things can and will unravel rapidly. 

I for one will take the tactical gambles in exchange for keeping the culture of this group intact. There is no guarantee Neville or anyone else can keep things moving along. I don't know Herdman personally, but I really believe he is one-of-a-kind with respect to fostering a team identity.

What is the "culture" of this group that we can't afford to lose. The "brotherhood" was fun and all, but started to show cracks as soon as we weren't winning every single game.

[kacbru]

4 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Part of my thinking is that if we are going to have turnover prior to 2023 it is better that it happen sooner than later.    And if there are rumblings now (with both international NZ rumours and club rumours with TFC) that seems like a very real possibility.  

 

Agreed - he could come out and say "I was approached, but my focus is on CMNT and prep for 2026."  The fact that he is not making a commitment, suggests that he is actively looking, assessing his options and seeking an opportunity to move on.  If that's the case, best if he moves quickly.

[dyslexic nam]

Just now, kacbru said:

Agreed - he could come out and say "I was approached, but my focus is on CMNT and prep for 2026."  The fact that he is not making a commitment, suggests that he is actively looking, assessing his options and seeking an opportunity to move on.  If that's the case, best if he moves quickly.

To be honest, that is the part that worries me more than anything.  If he is already exploring his options now, the odds that we have him in 3 years aren’t great IMO.  And if someone thinks it would be a big deal to lose him now, it would be far worse with just a short runway before 2026.  

[MtlMario]

As far as I am concerned the damage has already been done. Him saying he was staying till 26 world cup and now (and NZ) looking for another job isn't really a perfect brotherhood thing.