CONCACAF Nations League Finals 2023 - General Thread - June 15th & 18th

[jhoops__]

This media has been harsh narrative is bonkers…

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

1 hour ago, jhoops__ said:

This media has been harsh narrative is bonkers…

You’d think as an Englishman, he would realise this. Makes me wonder what are his actual motives in pushing this narrative.  

[Unnamed Trialist]

We have the softest press in Concacaf of any of the top 12-15 teams, and at the World Cup, only countries whose press is controlled by a dictatorial regime was softer. 

That statement, which sounds like he's making excuses alongside putting pressure on the team to win a trophy, suggests he is wholly unprepared to coach a club team. I wonder what Neville thinks of all that.

If he wants he can always go coach in North Korea to reduce the pressure of the press, I'm sure they'd love to have a look at his resume.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Unnamed Trialist

[jhoops__]

This guy would have a tough time coaching league one side, Bolton…

[costarg]

33 minutes ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

You’d think as an Englishman, he would realise this. Makes me wonder what are his actual motives in pushing this narrative.  

My gut tells me he actually means the fans are being hard on him for the terrible strategic moves at the WC.  Just easier to say media.

[kingvikingstad]

I wonder if this isn't another motivational tactic to create a new 'us against the world (including Canada)' feeling amongst the players.

In saying that, it certainly does feel more like he's angling to win a trophy now, then leaving for a new challenge. Since the World Cup it just feels off, and hollow. And that's not his fault either, maybe this is where a new voice is required.

Now, if only we had the money to pay a competent replacement I wouldn't be so worried.

[Kent]

I really can't make any sense of it. It could be that he is taking a page out of Roberto Mancini's book (I think it was him) when he was with Man City, when he kept saying baffling things seemingly to take the heat himself and have his players not talked about in the press. But I kinda doubt that's what's going on here. Lately Herdman really seems to think he is the victim, of something, I don't know what though.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Kent

[canadasoccer20]

1 hour ago, jhoops__ said:

This media has been harsh narrative is bonkers…

I think part of his quote of the media being harsh is slightly out of context. I think he was trying to say that the rest of the world was not expecting much out of Canada based on the group they were in and was pleasantly surprised when they were able to outplay Belgium and compete at times with the other two teams. Canadian media and probably most of us in this forum believed they would atleast get a result and had higher expectations and when we didn't media critcized his decisions as Canadian media had higher expectations. I don't have a problem with his quote at all tbh. Doesn't make me feel like this makes him want to stay or leave at all. 

[El Hombre]

49 minutes ago, canadasoccer20 said:

I think part of his quote of the media being harsh is slightly out of context. I think he was trying to say that the rest of the world was not expecting much out of Canada based on the group they were in and was pleasantly surprised when they were able to outplay Belgium and compete at times with the other two teams. Canadian media and probably most of us in this forum believed they would atleast get a result and had higher expectations and when we didn't media critcized his decisions as Canadian media had higher expectations. I don't have a problem with his quote at all tbh. Doesn't make me feel like this makes him want to stay or leave at all. 

This is it exactly.  He's not saying that the Canadian media is hard per se, but more that, when talking about the CanMNT specifically, the Canadian media is harder on them than any other media around the world.  Everyone in the Canadian media points to the world cup as a failure rather than appreciating what the team showed on the pitch and how tough the group was.  Media around the world viewed Canada (when they actually talked about them) as getting expected results but a pleasant surprise on the pitch.

Or at least that's what I think he was saying.

[Bigandy]

Just now, El Hombre said:

This is it exactly.  He's not saying that the Canadian media is hard per se, but more that, when talking about the CanMNT specifically, the Canadian media is harder on them than any other media around the world.  Everyone in the Canadian media points to the world cup as a failure rather than appreciating what the team showed on the pitch and how tough the group was.  Media around the world viewed Canada (when they actually talked about them) as getting expected results but a pleasant surprise on the pitch.

Or at least that's what I think he was saying.

Great explanation! 

Lets be real. Even on this board we are insanely critical of Herdman. 

In 2018, if we listed criteria of what would be a succesful coach last cycle we would list.
1. Recruit some duals
2. Qualify for the octo - maybe even qualify for the WC 

Herdman has surpassed our expectations by far. 
His biggest criticisms are:
1. The PK for Belguim - Lets be real. Many top teams allow their best player to take PK's/ whoever is feeling it. This is such a weird criticism. Herdmans not a good or terrible coach because one player has one kick thats good or bad. If davies scores then no one blames herdman. Is 4 years of work all undone because he trusted his players for a pk? 
2. Playing hutch too many minutes. Can you blame him for giving a legend the experience hes earned. Its not like hes benching modric for hutch. The other CM's were hardly fit. Imagine the outrage if he started MAK in the first game. Lets also be honest. It almost worked vs belguim and was working vs croatia until staq got hurt. Hutch also almost got us points vs morocco. 
3. Lack of 3 cm vs croatia. Who do we play  as the 3rd? Oso, staq, spoony, hutch are all coming off injuries and kone was so young. Can you blame herdman for trying to put his best players on the field instead of a midfield 3 with guys who are struggling for fitness? Its not like we had any hope of winning the midfield battle even if we played 5 cms. Why engage in a center mid battle you will 100% lose when you can try to win the wing battle and have a 1% chance of winning?

All 3 criticisms are easy to make in hindsight but no one has a better alternative. I can see why herdman is frustrated with the criticism he gets. Its not like he dropped staq for piette or david for brym.  You can clearly see his logic in all the criticisms and its unlikely that any other choice would have made much difference in the grand scheme of things.  

[Kent]

I think the word for the praise we got from foreign media is "patronizing". We lost all 3 games and only finished ahead of Qatar. That's probably where a lot of the foreign media expected us to be because they think we are garbage. But we didn't look too much like garbage while we got the results they were expecting, so they pat us on the head like a child.

Anyways, I've only watched some of the recent OneSoccer Today episode. They are getting me more nervous about Panama even though I never thought tonight's game was a gimme.

[PiedPilko]

24 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Great explanation! 

Lets be real. Even on this board we are insanely critical of Herdman. 

In 2018, if we listed criteria of what would be a succesful coach last cycle we would list.
1. Recruit some duals
2. Qualify for the octo - maybe even qualify for the WC 

Herdman has surpassed our expectations by far. 
His biggest criticisms are:
1. The PK for Belguim - Lets be real. Many top teams allow their best player to take PK's/ whoever is feeling it. This is such a weird criticism. Herdmans not a good or terrible coach because one player has one kick thats good or bad. If davies scores then no one blames herdman. Is 4 years of work all undone because he trusted his players for a pk? 
2. Playing hutch too many minutes. Can you blame him for giving a legend the experience hes earned. Its not like hes benching modric for hutch. The other CM's were hardly fit. Imagine the outrage if he started MAK in the first game. Lets also be honest. It almost worked vs belguim and was working vs croatia until staq got hurt. Hutch also almost got us points vs morocco. 
3. Lack of 3 cm vs croatia. Who do we play  as the 3rd? Oso, staq, spoony, hutch are all coming off injuries and kone was so young. Can you blame herdman for trying to put his best players on the field instead of a midfield 3 with guys who are struggling for fitness? Its not like we had any hope of winning the midfield battle even if we played 5 cms. Why engage in a center mid battle you will 100% lose when you can try to win the wing battle and have a 1% chance of winning?

All 3 criticisms are easy to make in hindsight but no one has a better alternative. I can see why herdman is frustrated with the criticism he gets. Its not like he dropped staq for piette or david for brym.  You can clearly see his logic in all the criticisms and its unlikely that any other choice would have made much difference in the grand scheme of things.  

Hard disagree on 3. I was shouting it before the match - are we really trying a double pivot here? Steph and Hutch were already starting, so that doesn't apply. Kone would've been fine. Even Piette would've been fine.

[Borjans Sweatpants]

Stupid question incoming: is there a significance to this game beyond the obvious chance at winning the trophy (by making the finals)?

I thought there was something to it but I think I’m mixing it up with next years Nations League semifinals being a qualifier for Copa America?

[Bigandy]

2 minutes ago, PiedPilko said:

Hard disagree on 3. I was shouting it before the match - are we really trying a double pivot here? Steph and Hutch were already starting, so that doesn't apply. Kone would've been fine. Even Piette would've been fine.

Did you watch piette vs uruguay in a meaningless friendly. He would not have been fine against croatia. Surely you dont think the reason we lost is because piette didnt play. We 100% would have still lost if piette played and we wouldve lost with our tail between our legs. 

Starting Kone would have been feeding a kid to wolves. He isnt ready to go up against croatias midfield today (although we would start him now), let alone at the WC. His confidence could have been shot. He may have had a bad showing and missed out on a euro transfer. Do you honestly believe Kone would have won us the game? 

If kone starts, then who comes in for hutch and staq?  Oso and piette? 

I 100% think a midfield 3 is vital for our team but given the circumstances of the WC, there was no chance a midfield 3 would have changed the result with the players fitness and quality available at the time. 

The question I see is "Is it better to play a midfield 3 with piette who would get absolutely destroyed and we basically play with 10.5 players" OR "do we play laryea and try to exploit croatias weakness on the wings." Both are likely to end up in losses but I understand the logic to pick your best players and try to exploit the others team weakness instead of picking worse players to try to match up to your opponents strengths.  

[costarg]

40 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Great explanation! 

Lets be real. Even on this board we are insanely critical of Herdman. 

In 2018, if we listed criteria of what would be a succesful coach last cycle we would list.
1. Recruit some duals
2. Qualify for the octo - maybe even qualify for the WC 

Herdman has surpassed our expectations by far. 
His biggest criticisms are:
1. The PK for Belguim - Lets be real. Many top teams allow their best player to take PK's/ whoever is feeling it. This is such a weird criticism. Herdmans not a good or terrible coach because one player has one kick thats good or bad. If davies scores then no one blames herdman. Is 4 years of work all undone because he trusted his players for a pk? 
2. Playing hutch too many minutes. Can you blame him for giving a legend the experience hes earned. Its not like hes benching modric for hutch. The other CM's were hardly fit. Imagine the outrage if he started MAK in the first game. Lets also be honest. It almost worked vs belguim and was working vs croatia until staq got hurt. Hutch also almost got us points vs morocco. 
3. Lack of 3 cm vs croatia. Who do we play  as the 3rd? Oso, staq, spoony, hutch are all coming off injuries and kone was so young. Can you blame herdman for trying to put his best players on the field instead of a midfield 3 with guys who are struggling for fitness? Its not like we had any hope of winning the midfield battle even if we played 5 cms. Why engage in a center mid battle you will 100% lose when you can try to win the wing battle and have a 1% chance of winning?

All 3 criticisms are easy to make in hindsight but no one has a better alternative. I can see why herdman is frustrated with the criticism he gets. Its not like he dropped staq for piette or david for brym.  You can clearly see his logic in all the criticisms and its unlikely that any other choice would have made much difference in the grand scheme of things.  

As a huge Herdman fan, who is ridiculously proud and happy about what he's accomplished, criticism started before the WC.  He was already showing his cards when he was playing the warm-up matches.  The 2-man midfield and 2 attacker formation was naive and arrogant, we were saying this in November.

1- yes, it happens and its still questionable.

2 & 3 - need to be merged.  It's not just that he played Hutch, it's that he played a guy with little mobility who barely played in 12 months in a 2-man midfield.  

Piette as a destroyer is exactly what was needed in the midfield.  We weren't gonna out-finesse any of the 3 teams.  Not playing him was as bad as any of the other mistakes. 

Herdman has achieved a lot, but his loyalty to a certain core and his doubt and lack of trust in other guys is an issue.  He is exactly the guy we needed to lead the team.  He's a strong motivator and man-manager, but he is not a strategic coach.

 

[costarg]

9 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Did you watch piette vs uruguay in a meaningless friendly. He would not have been fine against croatia. Surely you dont think the reason we lost is because piette didnt play. We 100% would have still lost if piette played and we wouldve lost with our tail between our legs. 

Starting Kone would have been feeding a kid to wolves. He isnt ready to go up against croatias midfield today (although we would start him now), let alone at the WC. His confidence could have been shot. He may have had a bad showing and missed out on a euro transfer. Do you honestly believe Kone would have won us the game? 

If kone starts, then who comes in for hutch and staq?  Oso and piette? 

I 100% think a midfield 3 is vital for our team but given the circumstances of the WC, there was no chance a midfield 3 would have changed the result with the players fitness and quality available at the time. 

The question I see is "Is it better to play a midfield 3 with piette who would get absolutely destroyed and we basically play with 10.5 players" OR "do we play laryea and try to exploit croatias weakness on the wings." Both are likely to end up in losses but I understand the logic to pick your best players and try to exploit the others team weakness instead of picking worse players to try to match up to your opponents strengths.  

You're judging a fish by it's ability to climb a tree.

[Ottawafan]

2 hours ago, costarg said:

My gut tells me he actually means the fans are being hard on him for the terrible strategic moves at the WC.  Just easier to say media.

Exactly. Which media?  There’s like 4 or 5 that cover the NT and they aren’t negative. Ever. 

[Bigandy]

3 minutes ago, costarg said:

As a huge Herdman fan, who is ridiculously proud and happy about what he's accomplished, criticism started before the WC.  He was already showing his cards when he was playing the warm-up matches.  The 2-man midfield and 2 attacker formation was naive and arrogant, we were saying this in November.

1- yes, it happens and its still questionable.

2 & 3 - need to be merged.  It's not just that he played Hutch, it's that he played a guy with little mobility who barely played in 12 months in a 2-man midfield.  

Piette as a destroyer is exactly what was needed in the midfield.  We weren't gonna out-finesse any of the 3 teams.  Not playing him was as bad as any of the other mistakes. 

Herdman has achieved a lot, but his loyalty to a certain core and his doubt and lack of trust in other guys is an issue.  He is exactly the guy we needed to lead the team.  He's a strong motivator and man-manager, but he is not a strategic coach.

 

1 - it may be questionable but is the reaction herdman is getting proportional to the questionable nature of who takes a PK. We often act like the PK was the difference between getting out of the group stage vs getting 0 points. 

I think 2-3 need to be seperated

2- Herdman probably played hutch for sentimental reasons PLUS his lack of other options. Is a non mobile hutch that much worse than MAK, maybe hes better? In either case, I dont think that giving a legend the WC as a reward makes you a good or bad tactical coach. We can argue theres no room for sentiment at a WC and we need a coach who doesnt have sentiment, but its a weak argument to say that a coach who chooses sentiment, does not have the ability/skills to be tactical. It is not one or the other. 

3-  I am not arguing that a good destroyer is what we needed. I would have loved a great 6 to play vs croatia. But just because piette is stylistically a destroyer, does not mean he has the quality to destroy vs croatia.
 

Look at De roon who is 3x the player piette is. De roon is a destroyer and got walked through against croatia yesterday. His midfield partners were Frenkie, koop, and wijnaldum. All three players who are significantly better than an injured staq, injured oso, inexperienced kone, MAK, Old hutch. If de roon cant destroy with much better support, how would piette have any chance at all? 

Piette was absolutely played off the park vs uruguay in a meaningless game. Why would he play better against a much much much better croatian Central midfield in a game where croatia is highly motivated?  I just dont understand how anyone can think that any of our midfield 3 combinations at the time could come anywhere near croatias midfield. Unless the argument is that maybe we could have lost 3-0 if we played a 3 man midfield. Maybe even 2-0.  

What would your expectations be for the final result if canada played kone, an injured staq and piette in the midfield vs croatia? 

[Bigandy]

18 minutes ago, costarg said:

You're judging a fish by it's ability to climb a tree.

Whos the fish and what is the "tree" and what would be the appropriate "ability to swim" that we should judge on?

Edited June 15, 2023 by Bigandy

[PiedPilko]

26 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Did you watch piette vs uruguay in a meaningless friendly. He would not have been fine against croatia. Surely you dont think the reason we lost is because piette didnt play. We 100% would have still lost if piette played and we wouldve lost with our tail between our legs. 

Starting Kone would have been feeding a kid to wolves. He isnt ready to go up against croatias midfield today (although we would start him now), let alone at the WC. His confidence could have been shot. He may have had a bad showing and missed out on a euro transfer. Do you honestly believe Kone would have won us the game? 

If kone starts, then who comes in for hutch and staq?  Oso and piette? 

I 100% think a midfield 3 is vital for our team but given the circumstances of the WC, there was no chance a midfield 3 would have changed the result with the players fitness and quality available at the time. 

The question I see is "Is it better to play a midfield 3 with piette who would get absolutely destroyed and we basically play with 10.5 players" OR "do we play laryea and try to exploit croatias weakness on the wings." Both are likely to end up in losses but I understand the logic to pick your best players and try to exploit the others team weakness instead of picking worse players to try to match up to your opponents strengths.  

Piette in a mid 3 with a very specific role could've been a different story. I'm sorry to say it, but we lost control of that match when Croatia realized they could drop into mid-high pockets Atiba didn't have the legs to cover. It's not so much that Piette would've singlehandedly shifted the tides - it's that a third warm body in the right spot of the pitch wouldn't have let that happen.

I didn't actually have a huge problem with Atiba starting - he was getting some playing time immediately before the WC. He just shouldn't have been deployed the way he was. Boring, competent 6 Atiba woulda been fine.

[Lansdude]

Before the World Cup, a bunch of us were repeating that a two man midfield would get killed and that's what happened lol. It was blindingly obvious.

[gigi riva]

3 hours ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

You’d think as an Englishman, he would realise this. Makes me wonder what are his actual motives in pushing this narrative.  

Its called motivation guys 

[Bigandy]

1 hour ago, PiedPilko said:

Piette in a mid 3 with a very specific role could've been a different story. I'm sorry to say it, but we lost control of that match when Croatia realized they could drop into mid-high pockets Atiba didn't have the legs to cover. It's not so much that Piette would've singlehandedly shifted the tides - it's that a third warm body in the right spot of the pitch wouldn't have let that happen.

I didn't actually have a huge problem with Atiba starting - he was getting some playing time immediately before the WC. He just shouldn't have been deployed the way he was. Boring, competent 6 Atiba woulda been fine.

Without trying to be rude, dont you think its quite niave to think piette as a 3rd body would have stopped croatia? 
Look at holland vs croatia yesterday. Hollands 3 bodies got absolutely rinsed and they are waaaay better than any canadian midfielder. They even played Geertruida as a hybrid midfielder to make it 4 bodies. How can we honestly think that a canadian 3 midfield would perform better than a dutch 3+1 midfield? (koopmeiners who can be a savvy defensive midfielder was deployed as a 10-thats 3 midfielders who are very competent defensively) 

I think alot of people are arguing as if a 2 man midfield vs croatia would get destroyed in the middle. I agree that I thought it would and it did. But so would a 3 man or 4 man midfield. We were never ever ever going to compete in the middle of the park. To suggest any solution to croatias midfield 3 is just naïve on our lack of quality compared to theirs. Could a midfield 3 have helped with crisis control, probably. Would it have changed the outcome, absolutely not. If youre are going to lose the midfield battle no matter what you do, why wouldnt you go out swinging?

I am not saying that going out swinging is the better choice than crisis control, but surely using this strategy (given the context of our players, depth, injuries etc) is not enough evidence on its own to crucify herdman. People act like it was herdmans tactics that cost us the WC when in reality, the best coach in the world would probably not gotten canada out of the group stage. 

Hes done some great tactical work in concacaf. Hes taken a very average defence and improved them as a unit. We can effortlessly switch between several formations. Hes used high press and low blocks very effectively depending on our opponents.  Theres examples in concacaf of his tactics making a big difference but are there many examples within concacaf of him making big mistakes? 

Good point on atiba as a 6 though. 

[Bigandy]

1 hour ago, Lansdude said:

Before the World Cup, a bunch of us were repeating that a two man midfield would get killed and that's what happened lol. It was blindingly obvious.

100%. Alot of us probably also saw that a 3 man midfield would get killed as thats blindingly obvious too when you have modric vs kaye or de bruyne vs piette. 

The 3 man midfield would just be killed slightly less than a 2 man.... but still killed nonetheless

[trc2014]

Has anyone seen evidence of Neville being there?