Re: Serie A Thread - 2010/11 Season
abou said:
Why the dislike for van Gaal?
i just don't like the man. there are 2 kinds of arrogants in this world imo. some people are arrogant in a childish and kinda charming way (say, mancini and mourinho)... some other people instead are properly "arrogant" (obtuse, not open to any sort of dialogue, hieratics)... lippi and van gaal belong to this second category of arrogant people.
both arrogant-types are very confrontational, but i tend to tolerate the mourinhos and the mancinis much more than the lippis and the van gaals. but like i said, that just concern the person, not the professional\coaching aspect.
dominic said:
hey ben, you are in amsterdam this month, right?
u got a pm, buddy.
gerd said:
I've read a book about Johan Cruijf were the writer (Hollands Gianni Brera) claims that the tactical genius of Ajax was not Michels but Cruijf.
yeah i read that story many times too gerd..... and i'll never buy it.
first of, michels developed his football even before crujff made his debut into the first squad. officially crujff joined the first squad 1 year before rinus arrival, but he was a 17 years old youngster, hardly the most influential player in that dressing room.
michels worked first with the "senators" of that team the "mature" starters..... then, when he realised that those players were too "mature" to follow and apply his "crazy" ideas, he realised it would have been easier to work on the new generation, the kids of that team (crujff, haan, resenbrink, krol, neeskens, surbier etc...).
young minds are more easily "adaptable", are easier to "mold" and will follow u with more enthusiasm and partecipation...... enthusiasm and partecipation were key factors in michels football.
crujff had an outstanding "football brain", and he certainly had a major role in the application of michels' football....... but the development of that team, the authorship of total football must be entirely credited to michels.... certainly not to a 17 years old kid who was making his first steps in professional football.
and there's another very valid argument to confutate that theory (crujff being the real father of total football). when crujff became a coach he proved he was a very poor tactician. sure he won a lot, with both ajax and barca......but that doesn't imply he was a good tactician. mourinho too has won a lot, yet he's very poor speaking of tactics.
actually mourinho and crujff were very similar as coaches. both have a great ability in team-building. both have a very personal and peculiar style... a style wich is not tied to a specific system or formation.... but to an idea. both applied that idea wherever they coached.... and succeded.
but both of them have a very poor
match-reading ability (match-reading is the essence of being a good tactician).
so there's just no way crujff was the real mastermind behind total football.
the thing is football media are and will always be attracted by huge characters. so whenever a not very charismatic coach comes up with something revolutionary, media will always try to give somene else the authorship of those visionary ideas..... that happened to boskov aswell.... jornalist just couldn't believe boskov was the mind behind that amazing sampdoria... so they tried to give mancini credit for that team. they said about mancini exactly what they said about crujff... and they overlooked boskov exactly as they overlooked michels. that's just a wrong critical approach imo... and it's also very unfair.
the difference is, being mancini a much classier man than crujff, he always denied he was the real mastermind behind boskov's sampdoria (while crujff let people believe he was the real "inventor" of total football).
gerd said:
I totally agree that Trappatoni and (maybe) Mourinho should not be in that list.
that's not what i meant mate. trapattoni would probably be in my personal "greatest coaches ever" list (not mourinho though).
what i meant to say is.... before saying who were the greatests, the author of that (very interesting) research u posted should have established a parametric standard, a criterium...... the best coaches.... ok,
but in what sense???? from which perspective???
because there are many different criteria u can assume on this matter.
do u mean the most influential coaches for the history of the game? well in that sense coaches like michels, sacchi, chapman, lobanovsky, liedholm they would certainly deserve to be mentioned in that list..... while other great coaches like capello, lippi, kovacs, van gaal, trapattoni shouldn't be in that list.
but u can also use others criteria.... as "the most succesful coaches".... in that case, michels and sacchi shouldn't be mentioned, while coaches like trapattoni or capello and kovacs himself should.
so, in the end, it's all about wich criterium, wich parameter u wanna use. and that's what i don't like in that list. it randomly mixes up great coaches..... u might say "maybe he wanted to consider the greatest all around coaches".... but in that case it would be just wrong to mention bianchi and forget capello kovacs and lippi.
i had a very long conversation about sacchi with rfu a few months ago.... at the end i eventually told him i wouldn't consider sacchi as one of the greatest coaches ever.
because even though sacchi completely revolutionized the game.... even though the football that we play all over the world today is, by all means, "sacchi's football".... even though sacchi, along with michels and chapman developed and almost "created" the game of football...... even if that's undeyable..... coaching isn't about developing the game or having great visionary ideas..... coaching is about winning games. eventually it all comes down to this.
a club doesn't hire u to "change the game".... a club hires u to win, to deliver. so the greatest coach isn't the one with the most brilliant ideas, but the one who is able to "deliver" in the most different environments and conditions.
i told rfu i consider capello a greater coach than sacchi himself..... capello didn't bring anything new to the game, he didn't invent anything, he has pretty much no place in the "history of the game" (while sacchi is along with michels and chapman, one of the fathers of the game)..... but he is without a doubt the most sucessful coach in the history of the game. he's the most adaptable, the most versatile. he has coached (and succeded) everywhere. he succeded with great teams and underdogs, he displayed every possible tactical variant:a 3 men defensive line and a 4 men defensive setup, man marking and zone coverage.... he succeded with very creative midfields (with a regista) but also with muscular midfield... he played an highly offensive football and a very conservative football..... he has tried and displayed every kind of football known to men.... and he always delivered.
there's only one trait d'union in capello's teams, one fil rouge: balance. he has an unmatched ability in finding the right balance....he's not a football teacher (like wenger, zeman or van gaal), he doesn't improve the individual quality of the players..... but afterall that's not a coach's main duty. what he does is having the players (no matter how good they are) playing the best football they can (as a team). and that's the most important duty for a coach. he could take a bunch of amateurs who never played football together and have them playing "professional level" football in less than 3 months. and he reads the game like a master.
so, in my personal greatest coaches list, people like capello kovacs and trap would come even before Gods like sacchi or michels.
they were not genius like sacchi or michels.... but they were much more versatile and succesful than them.
but like i said, it all comes down to the criteria u decide to pick. infact, if u would ask me who were (not the greatest coaches but)
the most important coaches in history, then i would certainly pick sacchi, michels and chapman and drop capello or trap.
.
