CNL Play-In for Copa America: Canada vs Trinidad & Tobago - Saturday, March 23, 2024 - Frisco (greater Dallas), Texas

[Alex]

24 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

I'm challenging this whole change narrative. Where is the change really? We brought in some domestic guys because it's a 1 off game in America. We'll have a new starting goalie and 1 new starting CB. Both guys are late 30s. I'm not trying to kill the good time change vibes but I don't see it.

When we watch the game in the 90 minutes there really won't be much change at all

Because we aren’t changing our top 7-8 guys. 

[DeRo_Is_King]

38 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

I'm challenging this whole change narrative. Where is the change really? We brought in some domestic guys because it's a 1 off game in America. We'll have a new starting goalie and 1 new starting CB. Both guys are late 30s. I'm not trying to kill the good time change vibes but I don't see it.

When we watch the game in the 90 minutes there really won't be much change at all

There are definitely a lot of changes, but I think you bring up a good point. Piette, Osorio, Larin -- these are all well-known faces who, beyond 2026, may not be around.

It's not like there are a whole bunch of players we haven't capped. The starting 11 will be pretty straightforward imo apart from CB and Crepeau coming in for Borjan.

And also, the only reason Laryea and Adekugbe weren't called was because of injury. 

[costarg]

2 hours ago, YorkRegionFan said:

With the selection of this younger squad, it is refreshing to see this bold roster selection by Biello. 

He must see this as a good opportunity to impress the new boss, to select him as the permanent manager. 

The thing is, it isn't even bold, the move to the younger bodies is just purely common sense and based on the players recent performances and levels.  It just took way to long to get here, so it seems shocking that he did for such an important match.  But make no mistake, there was no other option, it was time.

[DeRo_Is_King]

2 minutes ago, costarg said:

The thing is, it isn't even bold, the move to the younger bodies is just purely common sense and based on the players recent performances and levels.  It just took way to long to get here, so it seems shocking that he did for such an important match.  But make no mistake, there was no other option, it was time.

Largely agree, but it is bold to leave out Vitoria and Hoilett. These guys could still theoretically make the team on merit and Biello is sending a message to the younger players to step up. I personally think more changes could have been made, but that's a testament to just how good the young guys coming up are. 

[costarg]

6 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I don't accept your premise. Two of best players for years have been strikers, we now have 3 in great form and 5 called up. There is nothing natural about leaving so many of them out if we have to win a game.  We are unbalanced, of course, in talent levels at different postions, that is going to be true in any formation. 

A 451 only has two wingers as well.  We are not actually blessed with an abundance of fullbacks, as this roster shows with a couple of injuries. Three decent level ones, when healthy, if you want to push Davies up, I am assuming. Buchanan was brought to his club to play wingback not winger, so was Millar.

Not every player is going to get to play so you play the best ones and if they do a better job than the other options outside their "natural" position then you do that. 

My thinking is Millar and Laryea get benched in this formation in favor of Larin and an extra CB.  Millar vs a CB is a no brainer for me, Millar is better.  As we've seen the past 2 years, our weakness is D and the middle.  Having the extra body up top is not helping in any way.  It's not getting us more goals, yet we're definitely conceding more goals and possession.  4-5-1 gives more balance and support to our weaker lines. 

[costarg]

10 minutes ago, DeRo_Is_King said:

Largely agree, but it is bold to leave out Vitoria and Hoilett. These guys could still theoretically make the team on merit and Biello is sending a message to the younger players to step up. I personally think more changes could have been made, but that's a testament to just how good the young guys coming up are. 

I agree with most of the statement, but not Vitoria and Borjan.  Bringing them onboard is accepting mediocrity (Vitoria) and lack of focus (Borjan).  Biello had to make that statement and trust the new guys.

Vitoria has been pretty bad, bleeding goals, also seems like he might have lost his starting spot (not 100%, but it looks like it).  Two new CB's have joined Chaves recently.  Borjan has not stood out in a long time, Crepeau or Sirois are not a step back in any way.

[Shway]

1 hour ago, SpursFlu said:

I'm challenging this whole change narrative. Where is the change really? We brought in some domestic guys because it's a 1 off game in America. We'll have a new starting goalie and 1 new starting CB. Both guys are late 30s. I'm not trying to kill the good time change vibes but I don't see it.

And I'll challenge your thinking, because it's okay to be devils advocate to keep the conversation going.

Where is the change?

It starts with a new GK, whether it's Crepeau, or St. Clair we've shaved off 10 years of our GK. Then we go to our central CB in Vitoria who is 37yo, and is essentially replaced with Bombito who is 23 yo. Followed by Junior who is 34 this year (damn I'm getting old) and Cavallini who has been looking past it at 31. Those guys have been replaced with Bair who's on fire, likewise with Ugbo. Hoilett has been replaced with Shaffelburg who I think is a better super sub than Hoilett today.

So the change I see is that one the squad has got extremely younger, and call ups are being given based on form/performance and less about what some guys did in 2017.

1 hour ago, SpursFlu said:

When we watch the game in the 90 minutes there really won't be much change at all

"Much" change is fine. No one was asking for drastic changes that aren't feasible or realistic.  No change expecting drastic results is insanity. 

The positive vibes is that we are getting younger, and after 90 minutes the change we'll see is likely that minutes are going to younger/our future-now players vs 30+yo who won't be at the World Cup in 26'.

[DeRo_Is_King]

Just now, costarg said:

I agree with most of the statement, but not Vitoria and Borjan.  Bringing them onboard is accepting mediocrity (Vitoria) and lack of focus (Borjan).  Biello had to make that statement and trust the new guys.

Vitoria has been pretty bad, bleeding goals, also seems like he might have lost his starting spot (not 100%, but it looks like it).  Two new CB's have joined Chaves recently.  Borjan has not stood out in a long time, Crepeau or Sirois are not a step back in any way.

I agree about Borjan, but our backline is just so thin that I think Vitoria still has a case to be in the squad. That would be a one-off call, though, and I would absolutely experiment in the upcoming friendlies. 

[costarg]

2 hours ago, Kadenge said:

We are giving up a lot of height without Borjan & Vitoria, so it will be interesting to see how we defend set pieces and crosses into the box.

Absolutely - very valid point.  The pro list is still longer than the cons overall. 

[gkhs]

This feels like an untenably small number of reliable centre-backs; I would have liked to see McGraw and/or McNaughton. I have high hopes for Miller and McGraw building real continuity.

I’m also old school enough to believe that you never play two left footed centre backs; a bias that I felt was borne out the last time we tried it (in November, when we got into this mess).

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Arguably the real old school approach was that anyone playing down the spine of the team should be reasonably proficient with both feet so you could have a stopper and a sweeper in a back four and not worry about the left and right footed angle. Still can't get over CF Montreal's Coccaro spurning an open goal against Miami on the weekend with what should have been an easy finish for any pro level  striker so he could pull the ball back onto his right foot. Guess kids who want to be pro level players don't spend hours on end doing things like kicking a ball against a wall with their weaker foot to the extent that they used to.

Edited March 13 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[CanadaFan123]

7 hours ago, gkhs said:

This feels like an untenably small number of reliable centre-backs; I would have liked to see McGraw and/or McNaughton. I have high hopes for Miller and McGraw building real continuity.

I’m also old school enough to believe that you never play two left footed centre backs; a bias that I felt was borne out the last time we tried it (in November, when we got into this mess).

I believe this squad is set up for a back 3. We have called 6 defenders capable of playing in that formation: Miller, Cornelius, Bombito, Waterman, AJ, LDF. 
 

Of those 3 I see Miller, Cornelius and Johnston starting with their backups being Bombito, Waterman and LDF, respectively.

[RJB]

Are any of those missing three (Vitoria, Hoillet, Borjan) injured?

[RJB]

Wondering too who the next captain will be with Borjan out.

[narduch]

14 minutes ago, RJB said:

Are any of those missing three (Vitoria, Hoillet, Borjan) injured?

I don't think so.

Hoilett and Borjan both played on the weekend.

Vitoria was an unused sub

[costarg]

4 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Still can't get over CF Montreal's Coccaro spurning an open goal against Miami on the weekend with what should have been an easy finish for any pro level  striker so he could pull the ball back onto his right foot. 

Totally agree about one foot players.  I don't understand how guys that spend so much time training don't put in the effort.  It was so important and forced when I was younger.

About Coccaro, I thought it was more cause the ball was bouncing and a tricky angle, but I could be wrong.

[Bigandy]

The more I think about it, the more I think we should play 3-4-2-1. 

Miller Cornelius bombito - Pace and height
Davies kone staq Johnston - proper wing backs. a bit more speed from davies to cover miller. Bombito has the pace for johnston
Buchanan David - Gives us solidity in midfield while also giving buchanan less defensive responsibility. 
Larin - self explanatory

The main argument is how do david and buchanan play as false 9ish guys. Will they occupy the same space? Does buchanan drift into a winger too much? 

If we need a goal, buchanan moves to rwb and millar comes on in his spot. 

This formation theoretically covers counter attacks and set pieces. Its gives our attacking players lots of license to focus on attacking. It also gives us both buchanan and david to cover gaps in the midfield so defensively we shouldnt be outplayed in the middle. Theoretically.... 

[CanadaFan123]

42 minutes ago, costarg said:

Totally agree about one foot players.  I don't understand how guys that spend so much time training don't put in the effort.  It was so important and forced when I was younger.

About Coccaro, I thought it was more cause the ball was bouncing and a tricky angle, but I could be wrong.

I thought that too but then I just re-watched it and he 100% could have just finished it with his left when it went over the keeper. Ozzie is right for once. 

[Wasp]

19 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Respectfully, if anything, to me,  the roster says the oppostion.  There are 2 (if we include Davies who never really plays there for Canada) fullbacks, you don't go into a game with no backups for two positions. 

Buchanan is currently being drilled in one of the best and most consistent 352 formations in the world, we know Davies offers more than how Tuchel uses him. 

442 gets destroyed by good teams pretty regularly. We can't be training in it, in my opinion, again.

The 352 has not worked well for us ever since WCQ in my opinion, mostly because our CB's are not good enough to play 3 at the back. We also end up miscasting Johnston as an RCB rather than as FB, which is what he plays at Celtic. While I agree that most top modern teams no longer play 442, I still think it's the best formation for us at the moment given where our best players play (Striker, Midfield, Fullback) and where we're the weakest (Centreback).

Finally, I'm of the opinion that we should play Davies at his natural position even if he's technically our best player. If we were back in the dark days of struggling to put together any kind of offense I could see the argument for pushing him higher, but we have plenty of solid attacking options going forward nowadays, ESPECIALLY on the left with Millar and Shaff's emergence. Hell, we even have Nelson who is a quality young player that can't make the squad as a LM/LW. One of the things in the late Herdman era that made zero sense to me was the insistence that we let Davies run wild and have nearly zero defensive responsibilities while we constantly left the weakest part of our team - our CB's - to get exposed and hung out to try by themselves. That's why I hope we move to a 4 in the back with Davies and Johnston as starting FB's to minimize the number of CB's we have to play, and to provide a bit more defensive cover while still being able to come forward when it makes sense.

Edited March 13 by Wasp

[Bigandy]

6 minutes ago, Wasp said:

The 352 has not worked well for us ever since WCQ in my opinion, mostly because our CB's are not good enough to play 3 at the back. We also end up miscasting Johnston as an RCB rather than as FB, which is what he plays at Celtic. While I agree that most top modern teams no longer play 442, I still think it's the best formation for us at the moment given where our best players play (Striker, Midfield, Fullback) and where we're the weakest (Centreback).

Finally, I'm of the opinion that we should play Davies at his natural position even if he's technically our best player. If we were back in the dark days of struggling to put together any kind of offense I could see the argument for pushing him higher, but we have plenty of solid attacking options going forward nowadays, ESPECIALLY on the left with Millar and Shaff's emergence. Hell, we even have Nelson who is a quality young player that can't make the squad as a LM/LW. One of the things in the late Herdman era that made zero sense to me was the insistence that we let Davies run wild and have nearly zero defensive responsibilities while we constantly left the weakest part of our team - our CB's - to get exposed and hung out to try by themselves. That's why I hope we move to a 4 in the back with Davies and Johnston as starting FB's to minimize the number of CB's we have to play, and to provide a bit more defensive cover while still being able to come forward when it makes sense.

The issue with a 4-4-2 and davies at lb is that we need davies as an aggressivley offensive fullback. That means we need a DM to cover our fullbacks attacking, which we dont have. Then steph is forced to stay back more and we lose his influence or we risk getting countered. Sure we could tell AJ to stay home more but thats not balanced and doesnt address the counters that start in the middle of the field. 

Our best players all suit a 3-5-2. 

Staq and kone need a 3rd cm so they can influence the game box to box.
Davies, buchanan (and millar) are wingbacks at an elite level. 
david is better in a 2 (although his game has evolved alot).
Waterman, bombito, cornelius, johnston all play 3 atb regularly at club
miller LDF and waterman are not great in the air so a back 3 with a taller cb helps quite a bit. 

Sure theres a case that AJ is better at FB than WB or RCB. Or that some of these guys play 4 atb for club and do fine. All true. Against elite opposition, our shape may be required to be whats structurally best at the expense of playing some players in there non favourite formation. I get that argument too. 

But on paper, our top guys suit a 3-5-2 more than any other formation. 
 

[dyslexic nam]

Does anyone play a 4-5-1 anymore (I am not a tactics geek)? 

4 at the back for defensive solidity (including Davies at LB).  A CDM who can support the defence when Davies goes marauding up the left and just generally to absolutely lock down the midfield.  Two legit wide men (prob Millar and Buchanan) to drive at the flanks - with Davies overlapping and hitting defences at full speed as he likes to do.  

I guess the real issue this creates if a the age old conundrum - optimizing formation or trying to get our best 11 individual players onto the field by shoe-horning them into a functional set up.  Because a 4-5-1 means that one of David or Larin doesn’t start, and that is something we tend to avoid if at all possible (and playing David at CAM would mean one of Staq or Kone sits if we play the aforementioned CDM.  

Gah 

 

 

[Kadenge]

It's time to use Staq as our #6. He can still be influential with his long range passing, ability on the ball to play through a press and be that quick outlet pass for the CBs, while protecting the 2/3 CBs defensively. Choiniere can slot in with Kone further forward. He injects more pace through the middle, can be used on free kicks and is effective on both sides of the ball. Problem solved.

[Bigandy]

15 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Does anyone play a 4-5-1 anymore (I am not a tactics geek)? 

4 at the back for defensive solidity (including Davies at LB).  A CDM who can support the defence when Davies goes marauding up the left and just generally to absolutely lock down the midfield.  Two legit wide men (prob Millar and Buchanan) to drive at the flanks - with Davies overlapping and hitting defences at full speed as he likes to do.  

I guess the real issue this creates if a the age old conundrum - optimizing formation or trying to get our best 11 individual players onto the field by shoe-horning them into a functional set up.  Because a 4-5-1 means that one of David or Larin doesn’t start, and that is something we tend to avoid if at all possible (and playing David at CAM would mean one of Staq or Kone sits if we play the aforementioned CDM.  

Gah 

 

 

4-5-1 can manifest in many ways . 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-1-4-1. 
4-5-1 is probably the laziest description of a formation because it lacks the nuance of how the midfield is structured and how the wingers play. Its very rare to see a "flat 5". typically there is either one advanced or one defensive midfielder. It is extremely common to defend in 2 blocks of 4 though. a 4-2-3-1 sees the wingers dropping into a 4-4-1-1. 

[Bigandy]

2 minutes ago, Kadenge said:

It's time to use Staq as our #6. He can still be influential with his long range passing, ability on the ball to play through a press and be that quick outlet pass for the CBs, while protecting the 2/3 CBs defensively. Choiniere can slot in with Kone further forward. He injects more pace through the middle, can be used on free kicks and is effective on both sides of the ball. Problem solved.

staq has pretty much always played a 6/8 hybrid for CMNT with more emphasis as the 6. The challenge is that staq doesnt have recovery pace. So when he dictates tempo from deep, he will receive the ball all over including closer to the wings and slightly higher up the pitch. In a 2 man midfield, kone can also be caught up field and we get countered if we lose possession. 

To ask staq to be a destroying 6 will really limit his ability to get on the ball and limit his engines effectiveness.  While also requiring him to deal with counter attacks which he is not very quick and effective at. 

[Kadenge]

4 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

staq has pretty much always played a 6/8 hybrid for CMNT with more emphasis as the 6. The challenge is that staq doesnt have recovery pace. So when he dictates tempo from deep, he will receive the ball all over including closer to the wings and slightly higher up the pitch. In a 2 man midfield, kone can also be caught up field and we get countered if we lose possession. 

To ask staq to be a destroying 6 will really limit his ability to get on the ball and limit his engines effectiveness.  While also requiring him to deal with counter attacks which he is not very quick and effective at. 

My comment was re using Staq as a #6 in a 3 man midfield