Kaiser,
WOW. That was one hell of a post. Whether I agree or not doesnt matter because you stated your argument cleary in very critical stance backed up by valid examples. My only criticsm would be that the use of dichotomy (Players vs Managers) will always create controversy and other side of view.
. Let see my persectives on this issue.
Personally I dont think it is either players
or coach, but both (And I am sure Kaiser will agree to that and he was merely litterating which one he would should had that been his only option).
Firstly, we have to ask why there are managers. If there arent any use then surely Chairman will not hire them certainly not for millions they get. As far as I am concerned managers are there to do two things. Most important role they have to perform IMO is that they are there too choose players. You may argue choosing players arent that important but personally it is the most important job manager has to perform. The team without a manager will have a chaos in fielding a team because the interests of individual players may clash with the team. Every player will want to play, and the likely result will be conflict between them. Manager resolves this problem by having legitimacy, and authority to pick players that he feels will provide the best chance of winning, and the fact that his interest is only served by team performances reinforces his role as a team chooser. Second important function of management is taking the blame for losses and poor run of form. Managers are there too take the blame - it is unfair but that is what they are paid to do and money which most of us would not dream to earn in rest of our lives. Without a manager, individual players within the team has to take the blame, and due to the nature of soccer it isnt always clear who to blame. If the pass goes to right but the runner is moving to left, is the mistake of passer or failure to read the pass the major cause of missed pass? Players just cannot resolve this conflict peacefully themselves, and manager helpts the team to go around this serious potential team breaking problem.
The common them between this two major role is that the presence of manager helps the team to build teamwork and trust and allows players to concentrate on opposition by providing the medium through which possible conflict of interests can be solved in peaceful way. And after all, whenever the team is successful we often praise the manager for building teamwork into the squad, and having these qualities are seen as essential trait of good manager.
Kaiser is right in that it is players who contributes on the pitch and they win the game. However, the manager is also part of the success because he helps the team to perform on the pitch through his presence.
Inter for example always had great bunch of individual players but they almost suffered a humiliation of being relegated first time in their history. Having good players are necessary condition of a fine team, but having players that complement each other is just as essential element of a dynasty. Is it matter of co-incidence that Milan had rock solid defence based on fine understanding between their players. Ruud Gullit, and Van Basten had best understanding of each other. The wing play of Donadoni, and Eranio helped to stretch the defence and provided critical assits to the likes of Van Basten, Daniell Massaro, Marco Simoe, et al. The 1992 Milan is the finest club team ever assembled not just because they were so talented that Jean Pierre Pappin had to often spend a time on the stands
but Rossineri also had most balanced team at the time. And of course, Sacchi was instrumental in creating a balanced team because he was the one who had a vision, and asked Silvio to right a fat pay check for Van Bastens, Gullits, Rykaards, Desaillys, Donadonis, Savicevic, Boban, Pappin, Laudrup, et al. Claudio Ranieri with 150m Euros to spend couldnt win a single competition last year. Spending money is good, but not when you pay lavish sums to Joe Cole, Glen Johnson, Makelele et al. It is chairman who ultimately have a say in transfer decisions, but managers are often the ones who notices talents and asks for them via consulting with team scout and coaches. Trap despite all the talents he had on his disposal couldnt win a single match against quality opposition in the major championships (which Equador and Bulgaria isnt). The team was often in dispute with each other, coaches, and played a style which obviously didnt fit into their attributes. If the issue is whether coach should exert his style over available players attributes, then the answer is firmly no. A good manager is the obviously notices and recognizes the players strenght and weaknesses and try to harnish them. However, in the club management the coach has the weapon of buying and selling players so he is far more capable of exerting his vision into the team. In this sense, coaches who knows what he wants and who he wants can have great impact on the team a la Fabio Capello than ordinary ones.
In the end, no-management isnt a replacement for bad management. The issue is how to get it right and do better than others. As for choosing players or coaches, I would choose a coach who can win the trust of players. After all, that is part of the role manager has to perform.
Buy on AliExpress.com
