Asunto: U18 Canada National Team

typo perhaps? aha

"The U18 is a national team in itself, I would much prefer it be ran as such and that the players selected be the best available for this team. This way the best prospects get selected anyway because they are the best prospects and the rest of the team is built with the best available for this team which would include some players that would fit in the category mentioned above and players with no hope of making the senior team due to their longevity but with the ability to be strong assets to the U18.

I see no reason why we should use the U18 as a farm team when in reality only a portion of the players selected will move on to the senior team."
you

"My thoughts exactly. If U-18 and U-20 are to be farm teams, then count me out."
thegreaterikku

"If the very top prospects can't crack the lineup by the time they reach 17, then they really aren't the very top prospects.

In my opinion the starting lineup should consist mainly of 17 and 18 year olds with perhaps some phenomenal 16 year olds should they exist."
you

" It shuold be obvious who the top 3-5 prospects are, and then the rest of the team would be the best overall players left. A player that is 6/6 and 15th on the overall list at 30 should not make the team over a 5/6 or even a 4/6 player who is in the top 10 overall becasue that 6/6 player will never be good enough to crack the senior team."
jbrady83

"1. Top prospects. The ones almost guaranteed to make the senior team.

2. Short term prospects. Players with moderate to no hope of reaching the senior squad but with the ability of playing an important role for the U18 and perhaps U20 squads.

3. Best of the rest. The best players available left to complete the roster. "
you

"i really like your logic. i'm voting for you if you're running" me to you.. and that's why i voted for you O:

even .3 x 50 = 15 players seem too much for me. senior team is from age 21 on. u18 team is age 18, 17, 16, and 15. i'm going to bet my money that most of the players will be either 18 or 17, so that's roughly 7 players (minimum, it can be 10 players if he goes with 40%) per age. even 4/7 of those players making the senior team would be a great success. what i'm suggesting is keeping the "future potential" players head count down to say, 10? at most. also, projecting a player's career is extremely difficult as even a player with strong cl start can drop quite rapidly (and end up with cl lower than it was projected to be).. i'm sure most of you have experienced this

at the same time, i'm not the manager, but that is my vision had i ran for the election. i'm just throwing out my opinion, and i really hope i didn't offend anyone

now, the players i have to offer:
rd: Cristian Bell
g: Andres McLeven
g: Théodore Moss
rd: Akeem Farrow

lastly, congratz on winning the election! and i wish you luck

oops, forgot to reply to you specifically. check the post 2 above

What does it matter, the longevity of a player? The best player is the best player. Period. If someone ends up being better than the worst at the position on the national team at any level, then he is replaced.. I've never heard of any national team in any sport not wanting the best of the best NOW.

I just want to make sure that everyone is aware of a couple of things that are unique to National Teams.

1) Training bonus: Only the players that are on the weekly roster receive it. The maximum number of players that can get a training bonus on any given week is 28. The players that make up the lineup plus scratches is maxed out at 28. The scratched players must be slotted in as substitutes in order for them to get the bonus. The other 22 players on the 50 man roster won't get the bonus for that game day.
2) NT Chemistry: Only the players that play in the game get NT Chemistry. It works out to about +5 for 25% of game action. Players that don't play loose 1 NT Chemistry every week.

As this is the first season for junior players, all will start with zero NT Chemistry. It is up to Fronga and skipman6 to identify what players will be playing for Canada in the Championships and concentrate the ice time in the friendlies to these players. In idenifying these players it is important to select the players that will be Canada's best when the WC start as oposed to the best right now. This is where things like career length, training facilities and experience might come into play. These are the players that need the NT Chemistry. Realisticly, players in the 35-50 slots on the depth chart should not see very much game action in this first season.

As for the super prospects, there is a place for them on the team. A player like Leon Cyr , could be used a substitute in the weekly lineup. He would get the benefit of the training bonus, making him a slightly better player when he eventually does play for Canada. I have done this with players like Taylor Godley , Steve Cochran , and Dalton Perrault on the Senior Team.

And if a 17 year is close to an 18 year old in terms of skill, play the 17 year old. This will give us a head start on chemistry building the following season. An ideal situation might have 3 lines of experienced, max age players coupled with 2 lines of underage players.

I do agree with saltyanchovy , we should build these teams to win right now. We just need to do so with an eye on the future.

I made a nice long reply and then accidentally hit cancel instead of reply. Here's the short version.

I don't agree that we should purposely make the U18 a weaker team so we can boost some prospects. I don't agree that top prospect development should be the only priority, nor an important focus. Why? because by focusing on making this team the best it can be, top prospect development is going to happen as a side effect anyway. Focusing on player development is an objective that can't be failed unless only 18 year old players are selected. This is called setting the bar very low, if this is what Canada wants then I respect that decision.

The U18 is a vehicle that provides an experience and training boost to certain players, when I was reading the candidates presentations all I saw were people with the objective of providing an experience and training boost to our best prospects. It's a circular argument and it lacks the ambition of a real objective, which is why I put my candidacy forward with the objective of building a competitive team for this season and the following. If all the arguing we've doing in this thread gets us closer to building a competitive team that keeps it's eye towards it's own continued success, than I'll be very happy. That's all I really want.

I am disappointed Canada is satisfied with such an easy "objective" but I have no doubt Fronga is a very good manager who will exceed his own goals and find a way to reach his only objective without sacrificing too much performance.

Well I guess that wasn't a short version after all.

"because by focusing on making this team the best it can be, top prospect development is going to happen as a side effect anyway." Exactly my thought. Focus on winning so that when new players join they don't think it's a European game and stick around. Develop managers to train players in the proper way and the rest will take care of itself. Go Canada!!

Hey,

Thanks for the comment.

You want to build a strong team as soon as possible. I want to build a team good in the future. I'm sorry but I don't think it's an "easy objective". There are many variable and more risk to be taken.

Some people see only the end of their nose. I like to think bigger and to build for the next years. In my life and in the game.

I have an other vision of this team. You have good arguments. I believe I have some too but think of that:

We want a very strong U18 team for season 1. What does it mean ? Well it means I will select mainly 18 years old players (75%) and then 17 years old players (20%) with few amazing 16 or 15 years old (5%). We will spend a full season to build lines, chemistry. We will have a middle range team ready for the WC. We will have good or bad results.
Season 2. 75 % of the players left. Well it sucks. It means we start with only 30% of the players with chemistry. According to you we will have to select the best 18 years old (some already in the time + others). then 17 ... So every season you will build chemistry for nothing ?
I think it's stupid and I don't like it.

By using younger player we will build a stronger team. I believe so. I may be wrong, I may be right but I prefer trying my ideas.

Anyway.
I will try my best and follow our "easy" objective.

We will communicate soon. We still need to chat with Scott.
I'm waiting for an answer about the player uploader.

PS: please give me a change before criticize my work. I'm manager since 20 hours. All I did is selected 2 players so far ... It will be appreciate. Thanks

All the next post from us will be translate in French now

Well Fronga, we voted for you, so it's up to you, obviously I just like to win. I'm a newb in div III anyways... I can't help much until I have developed for a few seasons anyways lol

Having as only objective the development of players means winning isn't an objective, you are not obligated to win a single game. Canada elected you with the understanding that the team is not obligated to win a single game. If anyone complains about poor team performances, I will be first in line to defend your work. You don't need to win, all you have to do is pick the best prospects from a relatively small pool of players and play them. That is an almost impossible to fail objective, this is what makes it an easy objective.

If you choose to also make the team somewhat competitive, that is an additional objective, a more difficult objective and a worthy goal. I absolutely agree we can't have a roster comprised mostly of 18 year old players, that doesn't allow for a continued success. Key players must be identified years in advance and a balance must be kept so to avoid having too many players from any one age group. That is a more difficult objective, one you will have no choice to face simply because the pool of players to choose from isn't of sufficient size to focus only on the top prospects. Despite the fact I believe you would do a good job at tackling that objective, you did not bound yourself to it. Even if you fail at this, which I don't think you will, it wouldn't matter because it isn't your objective. You will not be judged negatively for failing to accomplish this.

Developing the best prospects is the most basic function the U18 is for, I have no doubt you will succeed admirably at it and accomplish further objectives you are not obligated to tackle. I have no doubt you will meet and exceed your goals.

I am disappointed that Canada's objective is one which we cannot fail. I would have preferred we set our standards higher, but that is not the decision Canada made. I may not like the decision but I will not spend the season complaining about it and I will respect the decision Canada made.

Thanks.
Who said we can't win games with our strategy ?
I believe we can find a mix that can assure to be competitive.

I mix some of my 16-18 years old players with my old dudes. They do fine.

We just need to find a way to make them feel well so they can do well

WIN WIN WIN

I can definitely develop and win at the same time

Exactly. That what I said. I don't see why some people think we will loose all the games

You forgot to add: "and implement world peace."