Herdman new head coach

[MrR]

On 8/15/2023 at 2:45 PM, toontownman said:

Where for art thou Robert??

It's time.

Johannes Nicolaas van 't Schip is finally coming home.

 

 

Dutch John knows a lot of people and has the necessary connections to arrange meaningful international friendlies for Canada with European countries, as well as Australia and Mexico. Also, if he were to ever coach the CMNT, there'd be no doubt as to whose taking the penalties for Canada.

Edited August 17, 2023 by MrR

[toontownman]

Unless it's a solid experienced resume replacement for Herdman the players and program could sink morale wise quickly. I think it would be incredibly hard for whomever comes in after JH, more so if they are inexperienced or not better on paper. 

Seems very unlikely we have the money to get someone thats experienced and will command the respect of the players who Herdman has built up to empower. 

There are certainly people that would be happy with Herdman leaving but I think its better the devil you know at this point in time. 

I hope TFC go for Bobby Smyrniotis, he deserves it and would be a great builder. The elephant would still remain in the Canadian Mens National Team dressing room though. Herdman clearly has itchy feet. Its probably only a matter of time. 

[maplebanana]

On 8/16/2023 at 10:33 AM, MrR said:

1) John van 'Schip

2) Dwight Lodeweges

Both are available. Both have experience. Both were born in Canada,

and .... there it is.

I can't believe I thought MrR was not Robert. This mf is the robertiest robert that ever roberted. 

[BearcatSA]

27 minutes ago, toontownman said:

The elephant would still remain in the Canadian Mens National Team dressing room though. Herdman clearly has itchy feet. Its probably only a matter of time. 

The England FA wanted him to replace Neville, right, and he used that to leverage into the CMNT job

Now, he's watching Sarina Wiegman take that team to Euros champion and very possibly to WWC champs in the span of 24 months.  He did a terrific achievement of getting the Canadian men to the World Cup, and I thank him for it, but at the end of the day it's about the next challenge, and with both men's and women's programs in a flat line at the moment, at best, in part due to considerable off field drama, he probably has itchy feet for a high profile challenge.

I just don't think it's going to be in the men's game.  There is, however, a high profile job opening in that field as of today...

[toontownman]

13 minutes ago, BearcatSA said:

There is, however, a high profile job opening in that field as of today...

Could you imagine! That would be the greatest heel turn since....

 

I wouldn't even be mad!

[jonovision]

Why would anyone be mad if Herdman left for another opportunity at this point? He and Canada Soccer have benefited mutually from the relationship for a decade. TFC would be a strange one, and I think not a very good fit, but I don't really care about that. 

[BearcatSA]

14 minutes ago, toontownman said:

Could you imagine! That would be the greatest heel turn since....

 

I wouldn't even be mad!

It's not outside the realm of possibility.

[BearcatSA]

23 minutes ago, jonovision said:

Why would anyone be mad if Herdman left for another opportunity at this point? He and Canada Soccer have benefited mutually from the relationship for a decade. TFC would be a strange one, and I think not a very good fit, but I don't really care about that. 

Yeah, I think I am feeling more of a Klinsmann coaching at Bayern vibe here.

[narduch]

5 hours ago, jonovision said:

Why would anyone be mad if Herdman left for another opportunity at this point? He and Canada Soccer have benefited mutually from the relationship for a decade. TFC would be a strange one, and I think not a very good fit, but I don't really care about that. 

TFC is also a manager graveyards.

You could be out of a job in a year.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

3 hours ago, narduch said:

TFC is also a manager graveyards.

You could be out of a job in a year.

Seems, unsurprisingly, that men's club ball is where he wants to be in the end.  I don't think that doing even amazing at our national level would guarantee him an England club.  Maybe this is slightly a more conventional pathway.

Concerns about how this goes down with the players (not that they aren't worried about other things, really) but I think the overall best thing for the program ( due to lack of other options) is for him to stay with us.

[Floortom]

Makes a lot of sense for Herdman to leave now. CSA is a dumpster fire (moreso than usual right now) and Herdman still has an elevated profile that can be leveraged. I don’t think TFC is the best place to move for stability and I assume he could get a better job elsewhere - but TFC does pay and maybe that’s enough.

[reggietfc]

He should take the job.where else could he coach for 1 season and get paid for 4. #manningout

[costarg]

18 hours ago, Bigandy said:

I would argue that JH has some tactical proficiencys that get overlooked.  

All throughout qualifying, we defied stats like xP goals for and against. Is it luck that we were consistently outperforming the expected stats, or is it more likely that we created our own luck by maximizing our strengths and minimizing our weaknesses. Look at how our terrible lack of quality defenders was actually a strength during qualifying.  

Everyone always says JH is clueless because he didnt go with 3 cm vs croatia. It implies we lost due to his formation. Thats such a false narrative. We lost because they were so much better. You can also say that his choice to not go with 3 cm was injury/fitness dependent. Its not JH fault he had no CM to choose from. So besides not picking 3 cm for croatia, I dont see an example of a weak tactical performance. I do see a few examples of good tactical performances such as away vs mexico and usa. 

Ok here we go again.  Those Mexico and USA games were a long time ago, and he was still showing flexibility then.  Since then he's been playing too many people out of position, it's like watching Floro again.  He's too rigid with his favoured formation and does not adapt.  The changes are pre-planned and predictable.

1- He had midfielders available.  Stop saying there were no other options, it's false.  He was playing that same formation in the warm up games.  That was his plan all along.  We were all saying it was suicide, even before the tournament started. 

2- Playing David and Larin vs better teams is just silly, arrogant and foolish.  They did not touch the ball.

3- Playing with a back 3 means we're fielding one more weaker player instead of playing to our strength which is on the flanks.  A strong tactician plays to his rosters strengths, only a bad coach sticks to a system and formation regardless of the players they have available.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by costarg

[Cadeau]

I don't blame him for wanting out. And I totally agree with him when he said why bother hosting the 2026 World Cup? Its typical Canada -one step forward, two steps back. You cant tell me no one can can bring all parties in a room and work it out. No one is taking charge of anything it seems.

 

[Ruffian]

I think Herdman would be taking a risk staying with Canada. Unless Canada has a huge 2026 World Cup run he will be let go after that tournament. He won't have made any significant progress between World Cup's and a change will be expected. He will have much less leverage to get a head coach position at any men's club team at that time.

Toronto FC could be a dead end but if he does good there he can progress further in his career. He will get paid which he likely is getting underpaid now. He would be joining a club who are willing to spend more than most of the league with more spending opportunities opening up in the next years. that is actually a great opportunity to show what he can do. Even if they become a .500 team I think fans will see that as progress.

[Bigandy]

37 minutes ago, costarg said:

Ok here we go again.  Those Mexico and USA games were a long time ago, and he was still showing flexibility then.  Since then he's been playing too many people out of position, it's like watching Floro again.  He's too rigid with his favoured formation and does not adapt.  The changes are pre-planned and predictable.

1- He had midfielders available.  Stop saying there were no other options, it's false.  He was playing that same formation in the warm up games.  That was his plan all along.  We were all saying it was suicide, even before the tournament started. 

2- Playing David and Larin vs better teams is just silly, arrogant and foolish.  They did not touch the ball.

3- Playing with a back 3 means we're fielding one more weaker player instead of playing to our strength which is on the flanks.  A strong tactician plays to his rosters strengths, only a bad coach sticks to a system and formation regardless of the players they have available.

 

So pre world cup he was good. WC is the debate. Post WC he changed to a midfield 3 (as everyone wanted at the WC) his subs at the GC were arguably preplanned but I am not sure how that means hes tactically naive. He was using a developmental tournament in a developmental way. Tough to judge him on that. 

1. Oso, hutch, staq, spoony were all coming back from injury and we saw what happened. Kone was extremely green at that point. If we started MAK, piette or fraser everyone would have roasted him even worse. Of course it was his plan all along because during the warm up games he knew that his midfielders were not good options.

2 and 3. You are upset that he plays a back 3 because you want the best players on the field but your simultaneously saying its arrogant to put larin and david on the field but you also want us to drop a top striker for MAK? 

I am not saying hes a mastermind tactician but the arguments against him are not really sound. 

1. The gold cup is a developmental tournament so its extremely tough to judge him based on this. 
2. I would argue we tactically beat belguim but their quality shone through. I would say we performed decent against morroco tactically. So its literally the croatia game. Look at how the usa dismantled our 3 man midfield in the nations league final. Surely a weaker 3 man midfield combo vs croatia would not have fared any better.  When youre david and youre fighting goliath, its not a bad strategy to come out swinging rather than cowering in the corner and wait for him to beat you up.  
I think we both agree that with a 3 man midfield we lose to croatia. So what exactly could herdman have done that would have you saying that his tactical plan vs croatia was sound? Sometimes its not tactics, its that the other team is much much better. 

3. 3 atb literally transformed our terrible individual defenders into a strength of our national team and maximizes our best players. I think its incredibly naive to say that 3 atb is not playing to the teams strength given the outcomes it resulted in. If 3 atb is so bad, why were we outperforming our expected goals for and against. Lets say we went to a back 4, what different results and expected goals f+a  are you hoping for? 

 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

1 hour ago, costarg said:

3- Playing with a back 3 means we're fielding one more weaker player instead of playing to our strength which is on the flanks.  A strong tactician plays to his rosters strengths, only a bad coach sticks to a system and formation regardless of the players they have available.

That's not exactly true though.  When fit the third centre back is/was Johnston, one of our best players.  

Another couple of our best players are playing as wide defenders for their clubs.  The players actually playing as wingers are hopefully improving but are not our best right now.

[costarg]

1 hour ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

That's not exactly true though.  When fit the third centre back is/was Johnston, one of our best players.  

Another couple of our best players are playing as wide defenders for their clubs.  The players actually playing as wingers are hopefully improving but are not our best right now.

Just because Johnston can play RCB, doesn't mean he should.  It's not his ideal position and he doesn't have the ideal physical traits for it.  CANMNT is stronger with him at RB than CB.

Playing 3 at the back also means we need to bench Laryea and Adekugbe.  It doesn't make us stronger.  It's just adapting players to fit a system.

[costarg]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

So pre world cup he was good. WC is the debate. Post WC he changed to a midfield 3 (as everyone wanted at the WC) his subs at the GC were arguably preplanned but I am not sure how that means hes tactically naive. He was using a developmental tournament in a developmental way. Tough to judge him on that. 

1. Oso, hutch, staq, spoony were all coming back from injury and we saw what happened. Kone was extremely green at that point. If we started MAK, piette or fraser everyone would have roasted him even worse. Of course it was his plan all along because during the warm up games he knew that his midfielders were not good options.

2 and 3. You are upset that he plays a back 3 because you want the best players on the field but your simultaneously saying its arrogant to put larin and david on the field but you also want us to drop a top striker for MAK? 

I am not saying hes a mastermind tactician but the arguments against him are not really sound. 

1. The gold cup is a developmental tournament so its extremely tough to judge him based on this. 
2. I would argue we tactically beat belguim but their quality shone through. I would say we performed decent against morroco tactically. So its literally the croatia game. Look at how the usa dismantled our 3 man midfield in the nations league final. Surely a weaker 3 man midfield combo vs croatia would not have fared any better.  When youre david and youre fighting goliath, its not a bad strategy to come out swinging rather than cowering in the corner and wait for him to beat you up.  
I think we both agree that with a 3 man midfield we lose to croatia. So what exactly could herdman have done that would have you saying that his tactical plan vs croatia was sound? Sometimes its not tactics, its that the other team is much much better. 

3. 3 atb literally transformed our terrible individual defenders into a strength of our national team and maximizes our best players. I think its incredibly naive to say that 3 atb is not playing to the teams strength given the outcomes it resulted in. If 3 atb is so bad, why were we outperforming our expected goals for and against. Lets say we went to a back 4, what different results and expected goals f+a  are you hoping for? 

 

We've had this conversation.  There are other options to MAK and you know it.

Gold Cup is only a developmental tournament if you make it one.  We obviously chose to make it one, so why are Borjan, Vitoria, Osorio playing soo many minutes?  Why is Loturi flying all that to ride the bench?  What are we developing here?  Why not try McGraw and Bombito at the back together?  That's what everyone wanted to see and what we needed to see.  We know our back 3 cannot compete vs the best.  Why not try a different formation?  Why is the answer to every situation Brym at 60'?  

I can go on.....

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

13 minutes ago, costarg said:

Just because Johnston can play RCB, doesn't mean he should.  It's not his ideal position and he doesn't have the ideal physical traits for it.  CANMNT is stronger with him at RB than CB.

Playing 3 at the back also means we need to bench Laryea and Adekugbe.  It doesn't make us stronger.  It's just adapting players to fit a system.

Your point was getting the best players on the pitch. Larin and Davies in their actual positions are better than Adekugbe or Laryea.  

The national team is not stronger if you are left with two suspect centre backs trying do it themselves . Yes we need more aerial presence in there. But that would be case in a two and playing a three well covers other weaknesses.

We know Johnston can still use his best traits in a back three. We have seen it.

Edited August 17, 2023 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[hodgkiss]

If Herdman does leave, do we think we will find a better replacement? The CSA are broke and although the team might attract some good suitors, they won't be able to pay them. So we will end up with someone that's less qualified and not nearly as good. The CSA needs an overhaul before we take the next step.

[Bigandy]

44 minutes ago, costarg said:

We've had this conversation.  There are other options to MAK and you know it.

Gold Cup is only a developmental tournament if you make it one.  We obviously chose to make it one, so why are Borjan, Vitoria, Osorio playing soo many minutes?  Why is Loturi flying all that to ride the bench?  What are we developing here?  Why not try McGraw and Bombito at the back together?  That's what everyone wanted to see and what we needed to see.  We know our back 3 cannot compete vs the best.  Why not try a different formation?  Why is the answer to every situation Brym at 60'?  

I can go on.....

I think you missed what I said. I literally listed every single CM in my first point. Drop MAK and include piette or fraser.

Youre moving the goal post now.  There can be questions asked about how herdman approached the developmental gold cup squad. However, even if he chose to play only 12 year olds and 50 year olds, this wouldnt really impact his ability as a tactician. 

Theres questions and answers to everything your saying. You may not like the answers but preplanning brym as a sub (also look at the USA game to disprove this point) has nothing to do with tactical acumen. 

It doesnt seem like youre trying to talk about herdmans tactical acumen anymore. It feels like you want to turn this into a herdman sucks conversation. I am more than open to the idea that herdman has many flaws, but the only tactical complaint ive heard is a back 3 (which has evidence to support why thats actually a positive tactical change from herdman), and not starting a trio vs croatia ( which i am still wondering what you would expect would happen if we started with piette or fraser in there..... what are your expecatations of canada vs croatia anyways?)

[costarg]

7 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Your point was getting the best players on the pitch. Larin and Davies in their actual positions are better than Adekugbe or Laryea.  

The national team is not stronger if you are left with two suspect centre backs trying do it themselves . Yes we need more aerial presence in there. But that would be case in a two and playing a three well covers other weaknesses.

We know Johnston can still use his best traits in a back three. We have seen it.

My point was not just to get the best 11 on the pitch, it was play to our strengths and reduce the obvious weaknesses. 

Playing a 3-5-2 with 3 weaker CB'S without a dominant destroyer just above them  in the middle is just wrong.  The other aspect of 3-5-2 is you need a dominant midfield 3 to actually get your 2 strikers the ball.  We don't have that either. 

Nothing about our roster suggests a back 3 is a wise move.  If we only had 2 strong wingbacks and nothing else going for us, I could almost understand, but that is not the case. 

There are too many obvious weaknesses in a Miller/Vitoria/Johnston backline.  As much as I love Johnston, CB is not his forté, he's just a really smart and athletic footballer so he can pull it off.  Doesn't mean the weaknesses aren't there. 

Miller and Vitoria both don't have pace, Miller and Johnston both don't have the height.  The back 3 opens you up to wide attacks, add in the lack of aerial presence and the lack of pace and there are soo many ways to slice us open.

Adekugbe/Macgraw/Bombito/Johnston removes many of those weaknesses.  Of course the Macgraw/Bombito is hypothetical cause we haven't seen it, but on paper it's what I would like to see.  Two pillars in the middle, with two quick and crafty guys on each end that can bail them out defensively when needed.  

These are coaching and formation basics.  Start with "Inverting the Pyramid" great book, I'm not talking down to you, I really just can't recommend it enough.  There is a reason weaker teams don't play two strikers.

[costarg]

6 hours ago, Bigandy said:

I think you missed what I said. I literally listed every single CM in my first point. Drop MAK and include piette or fraser.

Youre moving the goal post now.  There can be questions asked about how herdman approached the developmental gold cup squad. However, even if he chose to play only 12 year olds and 50 year olds, this wouldnt really impact his ability as a tactician. 

Theres questions and answers to everything your saying. You may not like the answers but preplanning brym as a sub (also look at the USA game to disprove this point) has nothing to do with tactical acumen. 

It doesnt seem like youre trying to talk about herdmans tactical acumen anymore. It feels like you want to turn this into a herdman sucks conversation. I am more than open to the idea that herdman has many flaws, but the only tactical complaint ive heard is a back 3 (which has evidence to support why thats actually a positive tactical change from herdman), and not starting a trio vs croatia ( which i am still wondering what you would expect would happen if we started with piette or fraser in there..... what are your expecatations of canada vs croatia anyways?)

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.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

1 hour ago, costarg said:

My point was not just to get the best 11 on the pitch, it was play to our strengths and reduce the obvious weaknesses. 

Playing a 3-5-2 with 3 weaker CB'S without a dominant destroyer just above them  in the middle is just wrong.  The other aspect of 3-5-2 is you need a dominant midfield 3 to actually get your 2 strikers the ball.  We don't have that either. 

Nothing about our roster suggests a back 3 is a wise move.  If we only had 2 strong wingbacks and nothing else going for us, I could almost understand, but that is not the case. 

There are too many obvious weaknesses in a Miller/Vitoria/Johnston backline.  As much as I love Johnston, CB is not his forté, he's just a really smart and athletic footballer so he can pull it off.  Doesn't mean the weaknesses aren't there. 

Miller and Vitoria both don't have pace, Miller and Johnston both don't have the height.  The back 3 opens you up to wide attacks, add in the lack of aerial presence and the lack of pace and there are soo many ways to slice us open.

Adekugbe/Macgraw/Bombito/Johnston removes many of those weaknesses.  Of course the Macgraw/Bombito is hypothetical cause we haven't seen it, but on paper it's what I would like to see.  Two pillars in the middle, with two quick and crafty guys on each end that can bail them out defensively when needed.  

These are coaching and formation basics.  Start with "Inverting the Pyramid" great book, I'm not talking down to you, I really just can't recommend it enough. 

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.

Edited August 18, 2023 by WestHamCanadianinOxford