Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mack_king

  1. On 17/04/2017 at 11:19 AM, Ansem said:

    I'd resume why were bad in this list:

    •Complacency: We were actually an average to ok team up until 1986. We were about equal to the US while having the better record when playing them. The CSA just figured out "don't fix what's not broken". But everyone else got better while we stall.

    •Indifference: Canadians like Americans were indifferent to the domestic game. Americans has NFL, MLB and NBA while we only cared about hockey and CFL. So whatever the CSA was doing, no one cared so they resumed their incompetent management. The 1994 WC changed the US but it didn't trickled down on us.

    •2000: Best team we ever had. We won the World Cup by beating Mexico and Columbia. Most of the players were playing in Europe which explained this era which I will admit was a bit of an anomaly.

    Finished 3rd in 2002. We lost to the USA

    lost to the US again in 2007 but Julian De Guzman was MVP of the tournament.

    Then it went downhill...we became bad then worst.

    •2008- Major League Soccer: MLS was granted permission to operate in Canada by the CSA. It was believed that the NHL model would be replicated for soccer. In hockey, Americans and Canadians are equals in the top league giving opportunities to both sides. Each countries are responsible for the development at lower tier, USA with the NCAA and Canada with the CHL. 

    However, after expending to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (top Canadian markets) MLS deemed the Canadian expansion over and severely restricted Canadian players to access the league via their domestic rules not counting Canadians as domestic. This meant very little minutes were played by our players and less than 5% of the league were from here. So we stagnated, unable to improve.

    •2012 Brazil qualifiers: We had a good team and it was believed to be able.to go to Brazil, then the epic collapse happened in San Pedro Sulas in Honduras where we got crushed and eliminated. While the older generation didn't care about soccer, mine did and denounced the CSA incompetency. Everyone got fired and decided to start from scratch.

    •2014 Victor Montagliani: He took over and started the ground work for a division 1 Canadian league and blocked new teams from joining the US system. He started the Canadian bid for 2026 and became CONCACAF president. The grassroots level got a massive overhaul and the English style was deemed obsolete.

    We think we can qualify for Qatar. The new manager wants into have the South American approach to soccer from the bottom up with an emphasis on offensive rather than defense + counter attack. The Canadian Premier League will help deepen our bench while our elites will be the core of the team and better supported.

    This was our 1st game under new management against Scotland and tied. We didn't have our best players so if we can play like that without Larin, Davies, and Tabla, the future looks promising.

    If we can get all our dual citizens playing in Europe to commit to Canada like the Americans did, we'll have increased our chances to make 2022.

    Very entertaining post. The 2000 team was talented. Lack of depth on the bench will sink you everytime. 

    Sorry for stealing Tomori although he could still change his mind and play for Canada 

  2. 19 hours ago, Ansem said:

    I decided to post this video of Pulisic, by far the best American playing the game today. He's playing at Borussia Dortmund in Bundesliga, Germany 1st division.

    They are playing Monaco from League 1 (France) tomorrow in the semi-finals of the UEFA Champions League.

    Monaco lead the serie 3-2 On aggregate.

    Not sure that many Americans knows who is and how important he is for the future of your national program. So there it is.


    Superstar is a bit of a stretch. He's talented but no superstar. He's on the bench as we speak against Monaco.

    1 player is not enough to get you to the promise land 

  3. On 17/04/2017 at 0:44 PM, Nacre said:

    While I agree that the Premier League is awful at developing English players, the second division of English football is stronger than leagues like Eredivisie. Surely teams like Watford and Fulham can be relied upon to take the academy graduates of Liverpool and Chelsea on loan.

    Yes but as you must have seen already, Netherlands are having troubles of their own in the qualifying stage. 

    Sure our 2nd division is strong but it's not strong enough to provide quality players capable to rival against France, Italy or Spain.

    The fact that we're giving Jermaine Defoe a chance says a lot about our team...

  4. 2 hours ago, Nacre said:

    Unfortunately I think it is even worse in Canada due to the frigid winter weather. (Except for coastal British Columbia.)

    Weather has nothing to do with it. Actually more Canadian kids are playing football than hockey.

    They're problem is that their players see little minutes at top level, hence their FA launching a top league.

    Also...their FA neglected the game for decades And tried to copy England in many regards but I think the worse is behind them now.

    They will improve faster than people realize and it already started.

  5. 2 hours ago, Nacre said:

    English football also tends to be very physical and far fewer fouls are called than on the continent, which is probably why the English national team has historically underachieved.

    Where to begin here... unlike Bundesliga, the Premier League doesn't do that great of a job to develop homegrown elite talents....not nearly enough of them.

    The style of play needs to change... (can't stand the long ball play)

    Overhaul of the youth academies is needed

    Stability in management.

    We're a mess and we need to do what the German did to win a major tournament but our FA suits thinks they know better unfortunately 

    Here's a example of what to do 


  6. 21 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    2 years earlier, they weren't even in the Premier League.  And the year before their championship, as I understand it they spent most of the season in position to get relegated.  That's how unlikely that all was, and it's amazing that this year they're in the middle of the table again.  We see that happen here a lot in the United States, and I certainly don't know much about English football, but it seems hard to fathom a team going from 14th to 1st to 12th (or wherever they wind up finishing).

    And with respect to the United States (I'll direct this at you since unlike another poster, your analysis is NOT based on having a very obvious inferiority complex), how about the 2009 Confederations Cup?  They could play Spain 50 more times and lose every single one of them.  But they won that one, and that was with Spain in between championships at Euro 2008 and the 2010 World Cup.  Not to mention the US had a 2-0 lead over Brazil in the final.

    I don't know what kind of odds the US will have at winning the 2026 World Cup, but I'm betting they'll be better than 5000-1.  And unlike Leicester City's run, where they needed to be good over a stretch of 38 games, a World Cup is only 7 games.  Maybe the USMNT will flame out in a home soil World Cup and that's far more likely than winning the whole thing.  Not the most impossible outcome though.

    But the United States football is very different than the rest of the world, that's why no one believes it possible for the US to win it. 

    You got to start from scratch and build the program from the ground up, from kids starting to kick the ball around all the way to Major League Soccer. By doing that, you instaure an identity and overall style of play. That's how Germany was able to completely rebuild their program. 

    Injecting more money in MLS and attracting stars in the twilight of their career doesn't bring the US any closer to a World Cup. As a matter of fact, most of the US recent success is due to Klinsmann coming to the exact same conclusion.

    The talent in the United States isn't good or deep enough. So Klinsmann traveled the world and found as many footballers  playing in top leagues that were eligible to a US passport or dual citizens as he could and signed them up. US born players performing in European league provided a solid base to support them. That's how the US we're able to ascend to the level they are now.

    Don't get me wrong, the USA is a good team but not an elite team. Pulisic is a jewel for the the US team and undeniably their best prospect for the near future, However, if Messi or Ronaldo, even Neymar can't win a World Cup for their country, it proves the importance of the whole team needing to be elite players. USA has an elite player in Pulisic and perhaps Bradley but not at the other positions.

    I have no doubt that the US can one day be a contender but it won't be in 9 years. If you saw the last world cup, Germany and Argentina were by far the better teams and I assure you they have elite superstars at every positions. For the United States to build such a team takes time and a great program, believe me, its still a work in progress in England.

    We have the superior league compared to France and Italy, but they've been consistently better in international tournaments than us. It's a source of frustration to us since tradition seems to overrides reasons in the minds of those running the English program.

    In regards to the Confederation cup, best not to take it that seriously. Countries don't always send their best players to that tournament, hence FIFA wanting to replace it with a 32 team Club World Cup.

    As for Leicester City, I apologize but we can't compare club level and national team. They function too differently. 


  7. A good article regarding Paris

    Paris says ready to host 2024 summer Olympics months before IOC decision



    With around 95 percent of the venues already in place within 10 kilometers of Paris, the city is ready to host the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, said the bid’s integration head.

    Lambis Konstantinidis, the head of the Sports and Paralympic Integration of the Paris 2024 candidature bid, told journalists that Paris, also known as the “city of lights,” was almost already ready to be the host city of the international summer games in 2024.  

    The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is set to decide on which of the two candidate cities – Paris or Los Angeles – gets to host the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, on Sept. 13, in Peru, Lima.

    Stating that around 95 percent of the venues to be used during the 33 different sports games are readily constructed and being used, Konstantinidis said the only venue the city missed was an aquatic center, which would be left to Parisians to use after the games.

    Giving examples on why only around 5 percent of the venues would be constructed, he said the two large gardens on each side of the iconic Eiffel Tower would be turned into beach volleyball and triathlon pitches. While the marathon swimming would take place on the Seine River flowing through Paris, fencing would take place at the Grand Palais.

    “All sports branches will be held in Paris,” Konstantinidis told a group of 168 journalists from 28 countries attending the yearly event of the Ski Club of International Journalists (SCIJ) in France’s picturesque Val Cenis mountain resort last week.  

    “Except for equestrian, which will be held in Versailles; rowing and canoeing, which will be held to the east near Disneyland; and sailing that will be held in Marseilles,” he said, adding that the vast majority of the sports in Paris will be within the 10 kilometer-radius of the city.

    While the final football game will be held in Paris, the matches leading to the final will be held in different stadiums across the country.

    Placing great importance for the Paralympic games, the Paris bid candidature’s integration head said the total budget of the whole organization was $6.2 billion. While $3.2 billion of this money was allocated for the budget of the organization of the games, the rest, $3 billion, was public and private investments that would be used for the Olympic, Paralympic and Media villages.

    Touching upon the strong infrastructure of Paris and especially the vast means of transportation inside and around the city, Konstantinidis said from an “image and infrastructure point of view,” the city of lights was “by far the best option,” for the bid.


  8. 14 hours ago, FYI said:

    Obviously you do care, though. Otherwise, you wouldn't have reared your ugly nose in it to begin with. But nice try in deflecting. Heed your own "advice", & next time try to be more civil when responding to other people's post.


    moving on...

    Predictions on who gets the opening game?

  9. 22 minutes ago, FYI said:

    Do you know how many times Assinine (aka Ansem) "hijacked" the L.A. 2024 thread with FIFA 2026 crapola? Plenty!

    In case you haven't noticed, since you're NEW here & all, but topics often times drift around here cuz that's the nature of this website. So you better get use to that if you're gonna be sticking around (but considering your argumentative first impression, I hope that you don't).

    And "belittling"?! If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black! 

    Fine, according to you, I needed more "context" (since both you & Assinine are new here & didn't understand my point without having to write an essay on European hiatory & all). But you didn't need to intitally be a "belittling", condescending pr!ck about it, either.

    I don't care about your little feud. Be a big boy and stop this already 

    • Like 2
  10. 4 minutes ago, Ansem said:

    I'll stay on topic

    Seriously, UK should bid for 2030. What's your take on the 2026 World Cup format?

    I actually read most of the entire thread. I was convince the USA would win it, there was no doubt in my mind. I saw your case for Canada and despite making very good arguments, the US were still the clear favorites to get the tournament as soon as it got expanded. You made the case that Canada was capable of hosting a regular World Cup, but not the expanded version of the tournament, which is why I believe Canada took the 10 games. The next time should be Canada's turn as I doubt either Mexico and America will win a third World Cup.

    Mexicans should just be grateful to get 10 games to begin with. They were delusional to ever think they would get to host for a third time, and eventually, they came to their senses and took the 10 games.

    The logistics explains why America gets all the games past the round of 16. You can't expect a team winning a semi-final to be forced to fly 4+ hours to make it to the finals.

    If the opening ceremony is in the United States, then it should be a US World Cup and not a CONCACAF World Cup. Opening and closing Ceremonies should be split in my opinion.

    Should have been a US-Canada bid only as their cities are near the border. I don't get Mexico being part of it.

    I think 48 teams is a stupid idea, let alone 16 groups of 3 teams. It should have stayed at the current format.

    Yes we should bid for 2030 only if FIFA doesn't make a big deal about the Centennial, it's too soon to say

  11. 2 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    You and Ansem both decided to make a big deal out of FYI referring to Barcelona as an industrial backwater.  He's not wrong, IMO.  If you need more context to his posts, then ask for it rather than to call him out for making such a statement.

    What is it with you two?

    First of all, you two are clearly off topic and hijacking this thread to belittle another person regarding another topic from another thread. Why not messaging that person to join you on the other thread instead of having petty exchanges here in a thread that has nothing to do with the World Cup?

    Second, FYI made a very incomplete statement which is still wrong due to lack of context. Did Barcelona had to go through rougher parts of their history? Of course but which city didn't? Even London did. Was Barcelona always a touristic destination? No it wasn't. Did the Olympic changed Barcelona forever? Absolutely. This is what I mean by context which opens the door to people challenges if there are none. If Barcelona wasn't on the map then no one knew Atlanta before the Olympics out side of America. Barcelona might not have been on the map for Americans, but it was for Europe.

    So we established that FYI was right within the appropriate context and not in general. Is that good? Can we stop now and go back on topic?

    Thank you

    • Like 1
  12. 10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Not hundreds of years.. how about 4 decades during the Franco regime.  I doubt FYI is ignoring the history from before then, but by the 1980's, that's how Barcelona was perceived.  The combination of emerging out of that era and the transformation to the city that occurred as a result of the Olympics turned Barcelona into 1 of the better tourist destinations in Europe.  That likely doesn't happen without the Olympics, let alone showing the city off to the world.  So yes, at the time Barcelona was bidding for the Olympics, the term "industrial backwater" is exactly what it was.

    And yes, I have been to Barcelona.  Instantly became 1 of my favorite cities in the world.  Very unlikely that happens if they didn't get the `92 Olympics and all that brought the city.

    see post above

    Can we go back to the World Cup and football?

  13. 11 minutes ago, FYI said:

    Pfft, who the hell are you, Read the post above, one of the links there is even from the IOC website itself, where even Barcelona's mayor himself contributes Barcelona's modern day success to the 1992 Olympics. So perhaps you want to redirect your hostility about "reducing hundreds of years of Barcelona's history" to their mayor instead. The only "pointless" thing here is your pointless, snarky post. :rolleyes:


    You're links came after you made your statement. Best to give more context to what you're trying to say in the future, it leaves a lot to interpretation when you don't. Just an advice

  14. 4 minutes ago, FYI said:

    It's the general consesus that the Olympics is what brought Barcelona to the world stage. It was an industrial backwater before 1986 (when they won the 1992 bid). Now Barcelona has even overtaken Madrid, as far as attracting more tourists.

    I encourage you to read and educate yourself more on Europe before making uneducated assumptions just to try to win a pointless argument. Have you even been to Spain? Let alone read anything about it's history? Reducing hundreds of years of Barcelona's history into "an industrial backwater" is sheer ignorance and vexing.

  15. 2 hours ago, Ansem said:

    The CSA gave MLS its sanctioning to operate out of Toronto and later Montreal & Vancouver with the understanding that it would be mutual beneficial. 8 years later, less than 5% of the league are Canadians and they aren't considered "domestic players" in MLS but counts as International players. MLS would allow Canadians to be considered as domestic in Canadian clubs but Americans had to count as domestic as well in Canada. The CSA wanted both Canadians and Americans to be considered as domestics but MLS refuses citing American labor laws. NASL (their 2nd division) made Canadians domestic across the board which demolished MLS excuse.

    Also, the last Canadian coach expressed his frustration at MLS teams often refusing to release players for call ups from Canada to hold practices and sometime participating in major tournaments, which weakens the team.

    The Canadian program took a huge step back since the MLS partnership which produced so little talent. Our best players are Hutchinson (Besiktas), Arfield (Burnley), Larin (Orlando) and Hoillett (Cardiff City). So the CSA under Montagliani are cutting off the USSF from Canada, level by level starting with D3 and now D1. They suspended the sanctioning of USSF bids to expand in Canada

    Brutal! Even England would have failed in a system like that. Arfield has been great for Burnley and Hoilett used to play for Queen's Park Rangers. All great talents and off course Hutchinson in the champions league. What's your take on Tomori? Will he sign up with Canada?

    2 hours ago, Ansem said:

    We'll know more next month. The CSA will sanction the CPL "Canadian Premier League" next month. It should start in 2018 in a shorten season right after Russia 2018 with the "original 6" teams. 2019 will be the first full length season expected to have 8-10 teams. The goal is 16 teams by 2028.

    It will be most likely a single-entity league with no pro/Rel at first but the door is open down the road.

    Level of play at first is expected to be the 4th best in CONCACAF at kick off surpassing NASL. The goal is to surpass Costa Rica and meet MLS and Ascenso MX at number 2. When the 3 MLS Canadian clubs join CPL, there`s no doubt that we`ll meet that goal.

    Today CONCACAF top leagues


    1-Liga MX, Mexico

    T2-Ascenso MX, Mexico

    T2-MLS, United States

    4-Primera Division, Costa Rica

    5-North American Soccer League, United States


    1-Liga MX, Mexico

    T2-Ascenso MX, Mexico

    T2-MLS, United States

    4-Primera Division, Costa Rica

    5-Canadian Premier League, Canada

    I think only the Mexican League could keep up with Europe top leagues. All other North American leagues are usually weaker than 2nd Division leagues in Europe. A realistic goal would be to aim for English Championship level, our 2nd division. EPL is out of reach

  16. 18 hours ago, Ansem said:

    It's extreme but we have no choice. The CSA & USSF association has been a failure of epic proportion for Canada.

    This bad? Why is that?

    18 hours ago, Ansem said:

    Right now, MLS is a huge obstacle to CPL reaching its potential as they are initially competing against MLS in the 3 biggest markets. However, Victor Montagliani already threatened MLS last year to strip them of the CSA sanction which would ban the league from Canada.

    When's the league starting? Will it be like MLS or like Europe? Pro/Rel? Level of play?


    48 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Wow, 4 whole years.  Between a confederation that represents a grand total of 10 members and has 2 or maybe 3 viable hosts, versus a confederation that represents 55 members.  And you don't think anyone will challenge?  I'm obviously not in a position to speak expertly about England, but you think they'll pass on 2030?  Tell me, does this all mean nothing?..

    Bid for 2030 World Cup, England are told

    England's hopes of hosting 2030 World Cup given boost

    Woulda.. Coulda.. Shoulda..  England was not eligible to bid unless there were no other viable bids to consider.  End of story.  Again though, and feel free to correct me here, but if England was interested in a 2026 World Cup they weren't allowed to bid for, what's stopping them from bidding for 2030?

    That's easy... officials.

    Lionel Messi shockingly suspended four games by FIFA for rant against referee

    If it's China versus England, I could see them picking China because of the size and potential of that market.  But Argentina versus England?  Call me naive if you want, but that one goes to England.  You really think that FIFA would go a whole 20 years without a World Cup in Europe?

    We're easily the favorite against Argentina-Uruguay but I'm being cautions on the fact that we don't know FIFA's intentions regarding the celebrations of the Centinnial

  18. 1 minute ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    Well, if Scotland goes its own way, then the England bid could indeed become a 4-nation bid.  And yeah, China for 2034 would break the series of multi-nation bids.  Then back to same old, same old for 2038.  Would the 5 Scandianvian nations present a bid?  The Iberian bloc is also chomping at the bit; as are BeNeLux (altho that would be the most hard-pressed).

    I must say that North American solidarity is admirable. There's no way we would share with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales lol! As for Scandinavia, an England bid would scare them with all the stadiums we already possess

  19. 36 minutes ago, Ansem said:

    The league is set to start right after Russia 2018 in a shorter season. The first full season will be 2019. They want 16 teams within 10 years across

    It's about time. Not having your own league is what mainly hurt Canada all these years. If you model your league on what Sweden and Denmark are doing, you will be successful.

    40 minutes ago, Ansem said:

    the ultimate goal of getting back the 3 Canadian MLS clubs (Montreal Impact, Toronto FC and Vancouver Whitecaps) and their markets by having the CSA de-sanctioning MLS from Canada.

    De-sanctioning is a bit extreme and it won't be cheap to compensate those clubs and MLS, but those 3 clubs would make a Canadian League a regional player, there's no doubt about it. Canada and Mexico takes the champions League very seriously. Should be interesting.

  20. 7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Explain to me why it's logical that 2030 goes to Uruguay/Argentina (interesting that you led with Uruguay on that one, likely indicating this is about the centennial) 

    The Centennial for sure and I'd be surprised if they were challenged

    7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    You don't think England will go after the 2030 tournament?

    It would have been longer for CONMEBOL (Brazil 2014) than UEFA (Russia 2018)

    7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    There were rumblings they were looking into 2026, although that's certainly out the window now with this 3 nation bid.

    Europe and Asia was ruled out, otherwise, we would have won...even against the USA. We can host on our own and England being much smaller makes logistics much easier.

    7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

     And it's not like Argentina (who clearly needs to be the leader on the bid) can claim to have gone longer without hosting the WC in a competition with England.

    Who says no to Messi? :D

    7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    put it in 1 of the biggest football hotbeds on the planet in England.

    FIFA takes us for granted. I wouldn't be surprised they give it to China in 2034 before thinking about England...2038?

  • Create New...