Davide Xausa still injured?

[marcl_19]

I know he was injured for some time this year, but with what? and will he be back for the gold cup? He's got a great shot form what i understand and he could use his expearience (32 caps). He is also versatile, can be used as forward or in the midfeild. what are your guys' poinions on him?

[Mouse]

Not sure about the injury, I heard he got into an argument with Holger after he was subbed in Libiya, so I guesswe won't be seeing him anytime soon.

England

[Ed]

Do we add him to the list then?

Parker
Bircham
Aguiar
Watson
Twamley
Xausa
Menezes

That would leave three more for a nice even 10.

[Reza]

Not sure about Menezes, unless you know something about him. I think the main reason is that he has lost his form. It's hard to not play for so long and still play competitve soccer. and when he was playing, he was in 2nd division Chinese league!!!

Reza

[Gian-Luca]

No truth to the Xausa rumours at all (I have no idea about the Menezes rumours though). He did not get into a heated debate with Holger after being subbed out of the Libya match, because he wasn't even called for the Libya match.

The last match Xausa has played for Canada was against the US in January. I was there & saw no fighting at all between Xausa & Holger when Xausa was subbed out. Quite the opposite.

Holger wanted to call him for the Germany match, but apparently an injury made him unavailable.



Well a lot of things can happen, when you're walking down the street, and it never fails to amaze me, the people that I meet. They all say "See you later" and I just answer "How? How will you see me later, when you can't see me now?" - Kevin Ayers, The Confessions of Dr. Dream & Other Stories (1974)

[marcl_19]

thanks for all the info guys

[Mouse]

Appologies, the said argument was after the US game apparently in the locker room after the game. So it wouldn't have been seen from the stands.

England

[Mimglow]

And your source?

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Mimglow]

And your source?

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Mouse]

someone who was there .

England

[mattbin]

Uhm, sorry to bust in like this, but Twamley? Are we talking about the same Twamley here, or what?

I wanted to mock the Parker angle, to be honest, but adding Twamley to the list was just too good.

Anyhow, I'm anxiously awaiting the locker room source myself.


Allez les Rouges,
M@

[Gian-Luca]

Well a locker room argument would make more sense. Mind you he also got into an argument with Holger after the US game in 2002 at the Gold Cup (not to mention the sulk off the field against Mexico in 2000) & still came back. We may not want to read too much into an argument. If something is announced that would be helpful, but its not an announcement I would like to hear (same with Menezes).

I know that Holger was looking to call him for the Germany match, it didn't sound like he was aware of any international retirement on Xausa's part (if he was aware of one I don't think he would have volunteered Xausa's name). Plus I was speaking to a buddy of Xausa's today after today's A-league match, nothing was mentioned there either on that front.

Well a lot of things can happen, when you're walking down the street, and it never fails to amaze me, the people that I meet. They all say "See you later" and I just answer "How? How will you see me later, when you can't see me now?" - Kevin Ayers, The Confessions of Dr. Dream & Other Stories (1974)

[Jeffery S.]

You want sources?

I like this thread, someone who has information about an incident with a national team player and Holger cites someone who was there and obviously cannot say who. I don't say I believe it, nor that it has to be that important, but since I have also spoken to people "who were there" at different moments of the national program clearly I have to be discreet about citing them directly. Sure they give their own versions of things. But what do folks think, things are a) nicer and sweeter than what we see b)a lot dirtier and sour than what we see.

But tell me just why there are so many on this board who want to preserve Holger's sainthood at all costs, preserving their naivety at the same time, at the cost of the national program?

Since after all, if Holger get's his only big result when he just came on board, what is the appropriate conclusion? That he inherited other's work and when that faded and his came to the fore our results failed as well? Or that he performed a miracle at the start when he didn't have a clear idea about where he was nor who the players were, but now he really knows what is going on his results are even worse?

[Gian-Luca]

Again, I don't know if I'm included in the pool of people Jeffrey is talking about or not, in this instance I am simply interested in making sure people are fully informed about the situation & preventing mis-information from spreading, rather than being interested in preseriving Holger's "sainthood" - which I don't think is possible, even if one should be interested in preserving such a thing. There was obviously a factual error with the original post by Mouse & so I pointed it out, as well as some of the reasons why I do not believe that the "worst" has happened in this case (especially since the incident took place 6 months ago, I think if a retirement had taken place we would have heard about it officially by now - and Holger wouldn't have been considering Xausa for selection against Germany).

I also don't blame people for asking for the general source of the information. Even if no specific names are mentioned its nice to get an idea of where the info is coming from. I think we'd be naive simply to take everything that gets said here at face value if we have no idea who the poster is or where they are getting their info from. Otherwise you get "Belotte on trial with the Lynx" situations, rumous that spread like wildfire around various internet sites.

Well a lot of things can happen, when you're walking down the street, and it never fails to amaze me, the people that I meet. They all say "See you later" and I just answer "How? How will you see me later, when you can't see me now?" - Kevin Ayers, The Confessions of Dr. Dream & Other Stories (1974)

[Andrew W]

Alright then, who is Xausa's buddy you talked too?

[MikeD]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

I have to agree with that last little paragraph by Jeffrey. It seems to me that Holger is living off the 2000 Gold Cup performance. We haven't really done anything spectacular since then. We were outclassed in the 2001 Confederation Cup. We were pathetic in World Cup qualifying. We fluked our way to the 2002 Gold Cup semis and in our recent friendlies against teams that are half decent, we haven't been able to keep up. Playing 1 good half against Germany hardly seems like any consolation. The funny thing is, after the 2000 Gold Cup win, there was this sort of romantic sense of hope for the Men's team. It seemed like Canada was ready to step into the top 3 in Concacaf (and Qualify for the WC). Three years latter, that hope has faded (for me at least).

"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
Emiliano Zapata


I don't agree with the way you've dismissed all of the national team's achievements since the 2000 Gold Cup.

We certainly "fluke" our way into the 2002 Gold Cup semis - we rightfully deserved first place in our group because of Xausa's legitimate goal against Haiti that was called back (which would have given us first place in our group on goal differential.) Getting first place in the draw was lucky, but it was also deserved and made up for the horrible offside call. Finishing first in our group gave us a soft quarterfinal opponent in Martinique (who had already upset T&T to get that far), then we took the Yanks to penalties in the semi-final before capping off the tournament with a ripping win over South Korea in the third match. All in all, it was a good tournament that solidified our place as a legitimate contender in CONCACAF.

As for our friendlies since then - sure we've had some poor results but, again, saying that we haven't been able to keep up with teams that are half decent is a stretch. The only friendly in which we've had anything close to our first choice lineup in the last two years was against Switzerland in Switzerland and we thrashed them. We've struggled whenever Jason DeVos has been absent, which makes depth in defence my major long-term concern at the moment, but when we've had DeVos in the lineup we've been fine.

I'm not trying to preserve Holger's sainthood either, but I do think that both the defenders and the detractors of Holger have been unbalanced in their criticisms - he's not a genius but he's not an idiot either.

Mike D

[Mimglow]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

You want sources?


Without offence to anyone who posts information they've come across, I like to have some idea where the information comes from.

In this day and age, when media tells us what they want us to believe, you can't expect me to just take things at face value. Again, without offence to anyone here.

If I come across any priviliged info, I'll be the first to tell you where it comes from. There are ways to do this without necessarily revealing names, as Gian-Luca pointed out.

We need to be vigilant with one another is this little community, to make sure what we post is valid, and not hear-say.

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Ed]

Anonymity is required when a player or someone close to a player posts information only a player could have knowledge of. Sometimes you have to read between the (by)lines.

[Ryan Keay]

Yup, I agree. Some anonymity is definitely required in this sort of situation. I also feel (closer to know, actually) that the source posting this is VERY reliable and I believe every word.

"Half of what I say is bull****, the other half are the most important things you will ever hear." Nicky Wire

[Marc]

quote:Originally posted by Mimglow
We need to be vigilant with one another is this little community, to make sure what we post is valid, and not hear-say.


Vigilant? Why? This is a messageboard, whether it's hearsay or truth it can and should be discussed. To dismiss amongst ourselvessomething because we can't guarantee its accuracy is something for the CBC, not the Vees' Board. A news page is a source for 100% accurate information. A messageboard is for accurate info as well, but also for the conjecture, rumour, and discussion that doens't fit anywhere else, and that as fans we all crave.

The last thing we would want to do is be 'vigilant' in that sense, and scare off the inside information, sometimes accurate, sometimes not, that makes the Vees' boards one step ahead of the others.

Oh, and Ryan is right. For sure.

(Not trying to rag on you, but being vigilant about what is posted is just silly for a messageboard, in my opinion. One of my many many peeves I guess. Yes, I'm bitter. :) )

Monday mornings 7 - 9: Wake up to African music on CFMU 93.3 Hamilton or cfmu.mcmaster.ca

[Mimglow]

All good points Marc...

Accountability is important to me, and I will always question validity. It'll make for interesting discussion, that's for sure... ;)

Anonymity breeds dishonesty and hidden agendas.

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Marc]

OK, cool, if you meant it in the personal sense and not a board-wide vigilance then I apologize for dumping on you. :)

Monday mornings 7 - 9: Wake up to African music on CFMU 93.3 Hamilton or cfmu.mcmaster.ca

[Mimglow]

No apology needed, Marc...we're all on the same side :)



Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Marc]

Awhhh, come here and give me a hug! ;)

Monday mornings 7 - 9: Wake up to African music on CFMU 93.3 Hamilton or cfmu.mcmaster.ca

[Mimglow]

Mommy? Hahahahahha

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Jeffery S.]

Re sources

There are things I know about the national team program past and future that I have directly from some players who were or are there. I think most on the boards can guess who I am in contact with. If I cite them directly it would be problematic for them, and I could indeed risk the degree of trust I have gained over time in our conversations. We are not really friends, just acquaintances. So I usually mix what I am told with my own opinion and speculation, and even am ready to criticize some of their positions, as I do not want to become a spokesperson for them, their puppet so to speak on this board.

I take what they say with a grain of salt, as I do with what my best friends say as well.

Let me say though that it was one still active former (and hopefully future) national team player who got in touch with me thankful for the disinterested support I had been giving him on the Voyageur board. Upon occasion I have sent the info I have learnt personally to some of the people here I mail to privately, as it was too juicy to post but too juicy not to tell someone.

[Canuck Oranje]

I have no interest in preserving Holger's sainthood nor am I about to call for his head. Personal preference has been a key selection criteria for coaches for years in Canada and elsewhere. I don't think we can underestimate the importance of personal relationships when it comes to Canada getting friendlies against Germany and Scotland.

At the same time, Canadian soccer may have improved from its past. As a teenager, I once attended a summer development camp where the head soccer instructor was an individual who later became Canada's head coach (not naming names). The only thing that I remember from that camp was being criticized in front of the whole group of campers about unshaven facial hair. Being of Dutch extraction, I wondered whether players like Gullit and Davids (if Canadian) would have ever even received an invitation (the hair not racial)to the national team later when this individual became Canada's head coach.

If you read the history of Hiddink in Korea, you also see that he had to break down the traditional preference structure before he could be successful there.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

Sorry, I hate to drag this on, but, I personally don't believe Canada's Men's National Team has accomplished anything (of importance) since the 2000 Gold Cup win.

1. May 27, 2000 vs. T & T. We can only muster a 1-0 win at home to a T & T B-team
2. May 30, 2000 vs. Honduras. Okay a 2-1 win was pretty good.
3. June 4/11 2000. We beat Cuba 1-0 on aggregate in WC Qual. Not even scoring at home.
4.Jul 16 to Nov 15, 2000. Canada puts together a dreadful perfomance in the Group of 4 stage of WQ qual. I thought our downfall was not being able to beat Panama on the road and losing 2-0 to T & T at home, it was too late after that.
5.April 24,26, 2001. The LG Cup. We lost 3-0 to Egypt and beat Iran 1-0, Iran is a pretty good team at least.
6.May 31-June 4, Confed Cup. We lose 3-0 to Japan and 2-0 to Cameroon and tie Brazil 0-0. Nothing spectacular here, we had a pretty full team for this tournament as well.
7.Nov. 14, 2001, A 2-1 loss to Malta.
8.2002 Gold Cup. We defeated Haiti and Korea (okay, we looked pretty good in those games. We collapsed against Ecuador near the end of the game, causing the 3-way tie for first. We then could only beat Martinique on penalties (Martinique isn't even a FIFA nation) Sure, it was nice to finish 3rd in the tournament, but I don't think it was that significant.

I'm getting tired of typing now, but, following the last gold cup, we have a record of 2-4. That includes wins over Switzerland and Libya, and loses to Scotland, U.S.A, Estonia and Germany. Personally, (this is only my opinion), I still don't think we've really accomplished anything since the 2000 Gold Cup

"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
Emiliano Zapata


I agree with you partly in that the measurable results, particularly the failure to even get to the final 6 of World Cup Qualifying, are not there. Indeed, from my perspective, World Cup Qualifying is the only thing that really matters, particularly now that we have a GC under our belt. I think that once you become a threat at the hex, all other things tend to fall into place - more and better friendlies, results in regional tournaments etc.

To that end, however, I have to give Holger the benefit of the doubt - although these persistent rumours or player conflict concern me. Our team, simply, is better than it was 2 years ago. We have more depth...to the extent that guys like Rogers can't even get a game any more. We have a significant loss in goal, with the retirement of Forrest but that is probably the only position on the field where we are weaker than we were 2 years ago. How much of that should Holger get credit for? Well, definitely not all of it. Some of the guys have improved largely through their club play. But he has been giving guys like Nsaliwa, Hutchinson, and DeGuzman an opportunity to grow into the national team roles. He introduced the concept of McKenna as a Striker, something Hearts is now following, and say what you want about Kevin's technical skills - and these have improved considerably since January of last year - but he does score goals. And although it is still developing, I see Canada playing a better possession game than they did two years ago, and sticking with it even when getting beaten. This too is a positive development.

If we fail to qualify for at least the playoff spot in CONCACAF, then I am going to be calling for Holger's head, because I think we have the talent, and are developing the depth, to achieve this. I think, however, that over the past two years, Holger has been taking a reasonably intelligent approach to developing a team, and a style of play, that enhances our ability to qualify for Germany. I would like to see him reach out to Aguiar, and I would like to see some games in Canada. But overall, I am reasonably happy with the progress towards what I consider the prime objective - qualifying for the World Cup.

In a World full of caterpillars it takes balls to be a butterfly.

[Ed]

Beg to differ on a couple of points.

1. Holger did not come up with the idea of playing Kevin McKenna as a striker. He had some playing time with Hearts in that position prior to the Gold Cup in Feb 2002.
2. Do you really think we are stronger in the back line than we were 2 years ago?? Can't see it myself.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Ed

Beg to differ on a couple of points.

1. Holger did not come up with the idea of playing Kevin McKenna as a striker. He had some playing time with Hearts in that position prior to the Gold Cup in Feb 2002.
2. Do you really think we are stronger in the back line than we were 2 years ago?? Can't see it myself.


1. I'll defer to you on that. I thought it was the other way around but expect that I am wrong on this.

2. Yes, actually I do. Assuming either a 3-5-2 or a 4-4-2. Key to this, of course, is the notion that Menezes has not suffered a significant decline in "skills and physic" as a result of his stay in China. Two years ago we were using Watson, deVos, Menezes, Fletcher, Fenwick and Hastings as our top six. deVos is better now, as is Hastings. Menezes, I am assuming to have remained static. The remaining of the top 6 would include Nsaliwa, still growing as a player, but already better than Fenwick ever was, and probably able to make up in skills for the advantage Fletcher had in experience. Throw in Klukowski, Fletcher, Mckenna, Jazic and Bent and I would say we were better and deeper. The problem is that these guys seldom play together. So I will concede that there is some projection and conjecture in saying that we are better and deeper now.



In a World full of caterpillars it takes balls to be a butterfly.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Andrew W

Alright then, who is Xausa's buddy you talked too?


As I mentioned, I don't believe mentioning specific names, but providing a general idea of where I got the info from.

The "buddy" is a former teammate of Xausa's, if you want a further general indication of where my info came from (other than the stuff which I specifically mentioned came from Holger).

Well a lot of things can happen, when you're walking down the street, and it never fails to amaze me, the people that I meet. They all say "See you later" and I just answer "How? How will you see me later, when you can't see me now?" - Kevin Ayers, The Confessions of Dr. Dream & Other Stories (1974)

[Gian-Luca]

I agree with Gordon for the most part - while the "results" since the 2000 Gold Cup haven't always been there, I do feel the nation is progressing on the field. We may have won the 2000 Gold Cup, but we looked more like a team that can actually play soccer in the Confederations Cup (for me the turning point in how we looked on the field) despite not winning a game.

Holger himself says he's an ordinary coach, nothing special. He's probably right - we're better off with him than Lenarduzzi, but the fact that the CSA could afford to hire him suggests he is not considered the #1 coaching genius of our time. The bigger question for me is how he is performing in his other role in player development (though even that must be hampered by the lack of a truly fully-fledge pro league).

Lets be realistic, any coach will have a tough time in Canada. No league & no home games in the past 3 years. Name me another national team coach (or national team) that has to put up with never having home-field advantage.

Holger didn't quite introduce the idea of McKenna as a striker, but Hearts started playing him more in that position once they noted that Canada was using him there (according to an article I read somewhere). I do believe Holger introduced the concept of Stalteri as a midfielder though.

Re: our backline, I'm not sure if it has gotten worse over the past two years, or that our goaltending is not quite where it was - or, if in fact this is a function of Canada no longer playing 9-man bunker defense's in front our keepers. Tam at right back will be a significant improvement there, but our potential on the left side & in the middle remains untapped because we have yet to see Jazic, Klukowski or Reda in those positions (for a variety of reasons).



Well a lot of things can happen, when you're walking down the street, and it never fails to amaze me, the people that I meet. They all say "See you later" and I just answer "How? How will you see me later, when you can't see me now?" - Kevin Ayers, The Confessions of Dr. Dream & Other Stories (1974)

[matthew]

I agree with the idea of keeping sources confidential. It's tough enough to nurture a relationship where people tell you information they don't want shared. But then transimitting that info in a way that doesn't compromise your source, while still being informative is even harder.

I agree a little that we were a better team in 2000. But there's no reason the current group can't be a better team than that. We'll just have to see. I would take the Watson-Menezes-Devos back three over anything we've used in the last year. I think Holger has done many things right, but the lack of accountability for certain players, while other players could do nothing right to earn a selection his most maddening trait.

Results are good to look at, but you can't really overstate the importance of looking at the actual game. We played much better in the 2-0 loss at home to T&T in WCQ than we did in the 1-0 win in the GC semifinal. Craig Forrest, a bad refereeing decision and a T&T forward playing four Canadians onside was the difference between the results.

As bad as our results were in WCQ I thought we played better in a lot of those games than we have recently. I know decent play if you can't score is useless, but I worry about our relative lack of progress in the last two years. Hopefully the Gold Cup will be a big step forward.

cheers,
matthew


The secret of life is to find moments of levity and grace in what is, ultimately, a tragedy. Watching Canadian soccer is good practice for this.

[Jason]

Regarding keeping some sources anonymous, I think it is necessary. I've been told a few things that were "off the record" and if I would have mentioned them, not only would I have completely lost my contact, but I actually could have affected his position and caused a controversy. The info eventually gets out there, in some form or another. I think good journalists can present the info in such a way that it gets out there and still protects the source. For an amateur like myself, I try my best, but I'd personally err on the side of caution. I don't do this for a living, but what I write could affect some people's jobs.

Jason