Canada-Mexico Denied Players?

to say that it was a US Conspiracy is such crap....the us requested aly and cat from two universities who are in the top ranks. santa clara and UNC are able to give those two players up because their rosters are alot deeper then other colleges...unlike other colleges that some of the canadians and mexicans go to who cant afford to give up their best players..

 

FWIW...Wagner played in Portland on 11/3 and Reddick to the redeye to Tallahassee to play for the Heels on 11/10...

-------------------------------
Discussion about Canada being shorthanded begins on this page (look for Fudd's post)...

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=1934&perpage=15&pagenumber=12

 

He didn't say there was a conspiracy. He simply pointed out that (or asked whether, to be precise) those coaches would have been more responsive if it was their own country's coach that was asking for the players.

The reporter's reference to club-country conflicts was entirely apt, and I would expect the coaches who got screwed to complain and publicly encourage those players to transfer, just as US Soccer officials do with our male players in Europe.

 

we're developing their players already...what else do they want???

 

That is truly some shady crap that I would expect. Just another example of the pig-headed dumb@$$es that run the college programs in this country. My girlfriend plays soccer for a school here in Fort Worth and the same stubborness these coaches showed shows up in her program. I'm so glad now that the top men's talent is starting to skip the college ranks as t is a waste of time for those who want reach their true potential as a professional. I can't wait until the women start to follow suit.

 

Re: Re: Canada-Mexico Denied Players?

haha ya, skip college and go straight to the wusa, great idea

 

To deny a player a national cap is totally wrong and unsporting. Mexico and Canada were playing for a World Cup slot after all, not some friendly. Clive Charles at the U of Portland released Christine Sinclair, a player vital to his program. Why couldn't the other American coaches do likewise?

 

You can't really believe Women's soccer would be where it is now without college soccer. Is there even one player in the US ranks that didn't benefit from college soccer?

I think the coaches should have released those players. However, I also understand why they wouldn't give them a whole, say, 2 weeks of leave. That's a quarter of the regular season.

Also, it really isn't the coaches say. If those players really wanted to go, they could have. Yes, I know they might be kissing a free ride in college goodbye. But, we all have difficult decisions we have to make. These players, I think rightfully, decided a college education is more important.

Perhaps, CONCACAF needs to look at scheduling this for different times in the future.

 

This last time this tournament was held (it may also have been the 1st, and it didn't include WC qualifying). It was held in high summer (partly in Foxboro).

Anybody know anything about why the change?

 

Re: Re: Re: Canada-Mexico Denied Players?

If you want to be a professional soccer player and are among the lucky few who are absolutely certain to have the talent to do so, it is a good idea. College soccer for women has worked as a development tool in the past because there was no alternative. Training and playing with pros will develop a player much faster than college ball will.

Unfortunately, women aren't going to typically get 6-figure bonuses to fall back on should a pro-career not work out for some reason, so this route would only be for the can't-miss types. WUSA should consider a program similar to Project-40 that MLS has.

The Canadians and Mexicans in question aren't the "Can't miss" types though, so college probably is their best option. Thank god the men's senior and U-23/Olympic teams doesn't have to deal with colleges about this stuff since they only use pros (save for Clive Charles taking his pet Connor Casey to Australia).

It will be interesting to see what happens if FIFA gets involved in these complaints (and I've wondered when it would happen) - Will we get to a point when national FAs start a Project-40 so players can attend college but not be tied to a school soccer schedule? Will colleges have to comply or become an outlaw entity? Will it stay as is?

 

WUSA. No WUSA playing in the summer of 2000.

 

These college coaches' jobs are on the line, except for Clive Charles'. You can't say they don't need those players as much as the Canadian or Mexican national teams need those players. If it were an Eddie Lewis-type case that happened pre-World Cup with Fulham and the USMNT it would be another story--Eddie was not vital to Fulham's team, whereas these collegiate players ARE vital to their college programs.

 

http://www.canoe.ca/Slam021112/soc_coa-cp.html

For a slant on the controversy (Canada/SMU).

 

So, only one player of the two played in a game during the tournament and they wanted to stay for that was basically a meaningless game since qualifying was assured for both teams. If I were the Canadian coach I would back in college so that could get some playing time.

The best quote in the article," Leaving meant Andrews and McLeod missed the Gold Cup final, against the U.S. -- a game that carried bragging rights, and a $2,000 bonus per Canadian player as a win." I guess they would longer to be eligible to play anyhow after they pocketed the money.

 

Two quick points about the article. Both players played inthe Haiti game, McLeod started in goal and Andrews subbed on.

Also the team each recieved $7500, I think, for qualifying for the World Cup. I am not sure what, if anything has been worked out with the NCAA i.e. holding in trust etc. or not.

Generally, I think that much is being made of little. But I note for example that after rushing McLeod and Andrews back before the GC final, McLeod did not even make the sub bench for SMU (she is normally the started and, I believe, a Conference All star). Really, SMU is only hurting itself in the quest for international quality players by these sorts of acts. If you want to attract and keep players of this caliber, the call ups and international commitments that come along are a factor. And the program benefits as much as the players by the association. But C'est la vie.

 

Re: Re: Canada-Mexico Denied Players?

actually, andrews started the haiti game and played the full game.

for more from both sides...check out this article: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam021112/soc_coa-cp.html

elaine

 

Once again, the Gold Cup is a CONTINENTAL CHAMPIONSHIP. The US-Canada match was the most meaningful of the tournament in this regard. People have completely missed this because CONCACAF decided to let it serve as World Cup Qualifying as well - not the other way around.

 

I was very aware of that. But, when you get down past the main objective, qualifying, and you have 2 players that have played very sparingly, I think it is good to release them so they can help their team win a title the college team that they committed themselves to to gain a scholarship. The Canadian coach should thank the college coach for "allowing" them to be used when he needed them and return the favor by letting them go back to where they are more needed by the college coach.

 

As regards the money issue; the college players get expenses only. There is no trust set up for them that they can later take advantage of. It also is a great benefit to a college to have national caliber players attend their schools. It is used as a recruiting tool all the time. I believe that a national team call-up should always have priority but should be worked out with the college coach before anything is decided. Neither Mexico nor Canada should have been surprised when the college players left.

 

Conceding for the moment that winning the Gold Cup was a secondary objective for Canada, it was nevertheless an important enough objective that it ought to have priority.

For the Canadian team, this was not just a case of letting a couple of players go to play somewhere else. They could not be replaced on the roster. Canada was put into the ridiculous position of having no backup goalkeeper for the Gold Cup game! How can anyone say the players were "more needed" by their college or their national team?

Scholarships are not employment contracts, and students are not employees. If a soccer scholarship were nothing more than payment for playing on a team, the players would in effect be professional soccer players, which they are not. In my view, colleges have a much weaker case for blocking players from playing for their national teams than do professional soccer clubs.

Moreover, the interests of the player ought to be paramount, not those of the college. If it's in the player's best interest to play - nay, even to have a chance to play - in a confederation championship final for their country, the school should not stand in their way.

 

Too bad about the players not playing for Canada. There is a bias here no doubt. I mean the top European leagues take a weekend off to play important international matches. I am interesting to hear that the Mexican coach was upset about his player not coming. By the way, who is USD? Remember that the Mexican team is not exactly treated well by the Mexican FA. Remember the league that was set up by them? They needed all of their players. I still think that if this was the U.S. team they would have done without the players for the whole tournament. Clive Charles is a special example because he knows the view from being a National team coach. But still Canada has 3 fine goalkeepers in Wright, Macleod and LeBlanc. I don't think they would have done any better with Macleod in this tournament. But I did detect a lot of letting the younger players play more for Canada in this tournament. Still Mexico could have used another player. This argument has no end.

 

I'm going to let this go and just say that I disagree with the notion that the national team has supreme importance over the college position.

However, when I say the college more needed the players I meant that to mean that the players were more valuable to the college than they were valuable to the national team. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't don't see anything wrong with that statement.