Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jahnny

Maailman parhaimmat managerit

Recommended Posts

Tällä kertaa ei ole FourFourTwon listauksessa perinteiseen tapaan pelaajia vaan managereita/valmentajia..

 

FourFourTwo's 50 Best Football Managers in the World 2015

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/fourfourtwos-50-best-football-managers-world-2015

 

Nyt vihdoin ovat saaneet ulos tuosta listasta viimeisetkin sijat. Aluksihan tuolla oli katsottavissa vain häntäpää.

 

Tässä koko lista, mutta suosittelen kyllä ihan lukemaankin tuosta linkistä kaikki läpi. Tai sitten katsokaa vain sijoitusten mukaan, sillä linkitin ne myös alapuolella oleviin kohtiin. Allekirjoitan itse kyseisen listan hyvin pitkälti.

 

Best Football Managers in the World 2015

 

50-4645-41

50. Florent Ibenge (DR Congo)

49. Juan Carlos Osorio (São Paulo)

48. Pavel Vrba (Czech Republic)

47. Hein Vanhaezebrouck (KAA Gent)

46. Bruce Arena (LA Galaxy)

45. Tony Popovic (WS Wanderers)

44. Gian Piero Gasperini (Genoa)

43. Slaven Bilic (West Ham)

42. Herve Renard (LOSC Lille)

41. Lars Lagerbäck (Iceland)

 

40-3635-31

40. Markus Weinzierl (FC Augsburg)

39. Ange Postecoglou (Australia)

38. Myron Markevych (FC Dnipro)

37. Frank de Boer (Ajax)

36. Rafael Benitez (Real Madrid)

35. Manuel Pellegrini (Manchester City)

34. Antonio Conte (Italy)

33. Sergei Rebrov (Dinamo Kiev)

32. Vicente del Bosque (Spain)

31. Marcelo Gallardo (River Plate)

 

30-2625-21

30. Jocelyn Gourvennec (EA Guingamp)

29. Giampiero Ventura (Torino)

28. Didier Deschamps (France)

27. Roger Schmidt (Bayer 04)

26. Jorge Sampaoli (Chile)

25. Dieter Hecking (VfL Wolfsburg)

24. Bob Bradley (Stabæk Fotball)

23. Mircea Lucescu (FC Shakhtar)

22. Edgardo Bauza (San Lorenzo)

21. José Pekerman (Colombia)

 

20-1615-11

20. Marcelino (Villarreal CF)

19. Oscar Tabarez (Uruguay)

18. Phillip Cocu (PSV)

17. Lucien Favre (Bor. M'gladbach)

16. Louis van Gaal (Manchester Utd)

15. Jorge Jesus (Sporting CP)

14. Rudi Garcia (Roma)

13. Ronald Koeman (Southampton)

12. Leonardo Jardim (AS Monaco)

11. Arsène Wenger (Arsenal)

 

10-1

10. Laurent Blanc (PSG)

9. Carlo Ancelotti (unattached)

8. Joachim Löw (Germany)

7. Unai Emery (Sevilla FC)

6. Jürgen Klopp (unattached)

5. Massimiliano Allegri (Juventus)

4. Diego Simeone (Atlético Madrid)

3. Luis Enrique (FC Barcelona)

2. Pep Guardiola (FC Bayern)

1. José Mourinho (Chelsea)

 

Kuka on tai ketkä ovat foorumistien mielestä maailman parhaimmat managerit juuri tällä hetkellä?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuosta listalta nyt puuttuu ainakin Christophe Galtier, Hubert Fournier, Willy Sagnol ja Philippe Montanier. Galtier on tehnyt mahtavaa työtä ASSEn kanssa hyvin rajallisilla resursseilla ja viime kaudella olivat jo lähellä UCL paikkaa. Fournier nosti Reimsin liigaan ja viime kausi oli Fournierin masterpiece kun haastoi PSG:n nuorisojoukkueellaan. Sagnolin puuttumisen ymmärtää siten, että on vasta uransa alussa, mutta Ranskan junnuissa loistavaa työtä ja viime kaudella Bordeaux'n peräsimessä surkealla joukkueella hyvä sijoitus ja palkintona UEL paikka. Montanier taas nosti keskinkertaisen Sociedadin sieniliigaan ja nyt on Rennesissä, jossa toki viime kausi oli aika heikko, mutta kova koutsi kuitenkin. 

 

Listalla nostaisin Contea huomattavasti ylöspäin ja vastaavasti Allegria hieman alaspäin, Allegri saa tässä vähän Conten kunniaa. Myös Guardiolaa laskisin alaspäin ja varmaan tuonne kympin tienoolle. Mies kuitenkin sai Bayernissa sillä hetkellä selvästi maailman parhaan joukkueen ja onnistui kusemaan sen. Toki on voittanut Bundesligan, mutta siellä ei ole hirveästi kilpailua jättiläiselle. Myös Barcelonassa sai aika valmiin paketin ja haluaisin nähdä miehen jossain vähän heikommassa joukkueessa ja katsoa miten se homma sitten toimii. 

 

Tällä hetkellä rankkaisin varmaan Simeonen ykköseksi, nostanut Atleticon huipulle ja materiaali ja resurssit muutenkin selvästi muita aivan kärkijoukkueita heikompia. Klopp varmaan siinä heti peesissä, vaikka viime kausi pannukakku olikin. Mourinho sitten kolmantena. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onkin pitänyt vastata ketjuun jo jonkin aikaa, mutta aina unohtuu. Nyt on tartuttava kuitenkin tuumasta toimeen ja annettava oma painava sana maailman parhaiden managerien suhteen. FourFourTwon otsikoiti on "Vuoden 2015 parhaat managerit", mutta itse keskityn lähinnä tämän päivän parhaisiin managereihin, mutta tietysti viime vuosia painottaen. Ymmärrän, että FFT ei oikeasti rankkaa managereita tuohon järjestykseen muuta kuin viime kauden perusteella, mutta keskityn arvostelemaan "viime vuosien parhaita managereita."  Aletaan puimaan tuota listaa läpi epäkohtien avulla. 

Rafael Benitez 36. 

Napolissa ei mennyt kauhean vahvasti kun kahden kauden liigasijoitukset olivat kolmas ja viides. UCL:lässäkään ei mennyt näillä kahdella kaudella kovin kummoisesti, mutta Benitezin pokaalikaappi on kuitenkin kohtuu vakuuttavaa katsottavaa. Eurokenttien erikoismies, jonka kuuluisi olla listalla selkeästi ylempänä, sillä maailmassa ei oikeasti ole 35 parempaa manageria. Itse sijoittiasin Benitezin vähintään 10 sijaa ylemmäs ja mikäli Realissa tulee liiga tai UCL niin Benitez kuuluu johonkin sijojen 15-20 tienoille.

Antonio Conte 34. 
 

Italian saldo 5-4-1 Conten alaisuudessa ei ole mikään maaginen, mutta Conte on manageri, joka loi pohjan Juventuksen tämän päivän menestykselle. Kolme perättäistä Scudettoa kertoo paljon ja Italia ei tunnetusti ole vahvimmillaan noissa karsinta- ja harjoituspeleissä vaan maa tekee pikemminkin vain sen tarvittavan. Itse sijoittaisin Conten sijan 15 tietämille.

Oscar Tabarez 19. 

Jamppa on tehnyt Uruguayn peräsimessä hienoa työtä, mutta yksikään maailman joukkue ei ole yhtä riippuvainen yhdestä pelaajasta kuin Uruguay. Cristiano Ronaldo ja Portugali ovat toki hyvä haastaja, mutta kun Uruguaylta ottaa pois Suarezin niin joukkuesta ei ole juuri mihinkään. Uruguayn vire on muutenkin ollut laskeva. Tabarez kuuluu listalle, mutta sijojen 35-40 tuntumaan.

Leonardo Jardim 12. 

Monacossa meni UCL:lässä hyvin, Ligue Ykkösessä kolmonen ja kaudella 2012-13 Sporting CP:ssä Portugalin liigassa sija 7. Millä helvetin meriiteillä Jardim on listan sijalla 12 kysyn vaan? Siellä on kuitenkin managereita, jotka ovat oikeasti voittaneet jotain ja Jardimin palkintokaapissa ovat vain Olympiacosin väreissä napatut Kreikan mestaruus ja Kreikan Cup, jotka eivät Olympiacosin jengillä ole niitä maailman vaikeiten voitettavia asioita. Siinä ja siinä, että heittäisinkö Jardimin kokonaan ulos listalta, mutta sijoille 45-50.

Joachim Löw 8. 

Sija kahdeksan on silkkaa hassuttelua kun edellä on mm. Unai Emery, Massimilliano Allegri ja Luis "vitun" Enrique. Jos Löw ilmoittaisi ensi kauden päätteeksi lopettavansa Saksan peräsimessä niin maailman kymmenestä kovimmasta seurajoukkueesta varmaan yhdeksän tarjoaisivat miehelle pestiä. Maailmanmestari ja yksi tyylikkäimmistä managereista mitä maa päällään kantaa. Top 5 kamaa ja heittämällä.

Luis Enrique 3

Tekee pahaa nähdä Enriquen nimi sijalla kolme. Teidän, että tuskin edes FFT pitää miestä maailman kolmanneksi parhaana managerina, mutta ei hän ole edes viime kauden tol kolmosessa. Jos käytössä on kolme maailman viidestä kovimmista hyökkäyspäänpelaajasta ja muukin joukkue on pyörinyt UEFA:n Team of The Yearissa kausi toisensa perään niin manageria on kohtuu vaikea arvostaa jos tuleekin menestystä. AS Romassa meni heikosti, Celtan luotsasi keskikastiin jolla ei meikäläiseltä paljon fuppeja heru ja Barcelonasta olikin jo puhetta. Jos voittaa 4 seuraavan kauden sisään 3 liigapyttyä ja pari UCL:lää niin mietitään uudestaa, mutta tällä hetkellä Luis Enrique ei ole maailman 20 parhaan managerin joukossa.

Jose Mourinho 1. 

Oli maailman paras vielä pari vuotta aikaa, mutta Josella on todistettavaa. Ottelun sisäinen reagointi ei enää pelaa entiseen maalliin mistä osoituksena mm. miesylivoimasta huolimatta pupeltaminen materiaaliltaan heikompaa PSG:tä vastaan UCL:län pudotuspeleistä. Voitti Chelseassa liigan tavalla, jonka ei pitänyt olla mahdollista tämän päivän Valioliigassa. Päivästä 1 lähtien oli selvää, että Chelsea vie pytyn eikä kukaan onnistunut antamaan muutakuin näennäistä painetta. Mourinho ei enää ole paras, mutta ehdottomasti top kolmosessa.
 

Diego Simeone 4. 
 

Argentiinalainen ei ainoastaan tehnyt "surkeasta" joukkueesta mestareita vaan korjasi joukkueen lisäksi vuosia sekasorrossa olleen organisaation. Yhdelläkään managerilla ei ole niin suurta vaikutusta joukkueeseensa kuin Simeonella on Atleticoon. Mies jonka pallit ovat terästä ja karisma riittäisi pyörittämään mafiaa. Paras kunnes toisin todistetaan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diego Simeone 

 

Argentiinalainen ei ainoastaan tehnyt "surkeasta" joukkueesta mestareita vaan korjasi joukkueen lisäksi vuosia sekasorrossa olleen organisaation. Yhdelläkään managerilla ei ole niin suurta vaikutusta joukkueeseensa kuin Simeonella on Atleticoon. Mies jonka pallit ovat terästä ja karisma riittäisi pyörittämään mafiaa. Paras kunnes toisin todistetaan.

 

 

Eikä ole vielä toisin todistettu. Diego Simeone on edelleen maailman paras työssään, mistä nähtiin loistava osoitus taas eilen. Yksikään valmentaja tai manageri ei osaa lietsoa joukkoihinsa yhtä kovaa taisteluasennetta kuin Diego Simeone Atletico Madridiin. Ei voida missään nimessä sanoa, että Atletico olisi mitenkään pieni joukkue ja he ovat kuitenkin selkeä suosikki suurimmissa osissa otteluistaan, mutta kauden tärkeimmissä otteluissa he ovat ainakin paperilla altavastaajia. Atleticon olisi pitänyt pudota UCL:lässä Barcelonalle ja Bayernille, eikä sen pitäisi olla liigassa tasapistein Barcelonan kanssa pisteen edellä huomattavasti suuremmilla resursseilla operoivaa naapuriaan Real Madridia, mutta niin vaan Simeonen poppoo "yllätää" kerta toisensa jälkeen. Laitoin lainausmerkit, koska Atleticon ja Simeonen pärjääminen ei yllätä itseäni lainkaan.

 

Jos mietitään esimerkiksi Simeonen pois pudottamia Luis Enriqueta ja Pep Guardiolaa niin kyllähän varsinkin Luis Enrique on täysi lapanen El Choloon verrattuna. Enrique on oikeastaan mitä parhain osoitus siitä, että huonokin manageri voi saavuttaa pokaaleita kun vaan annetaan käyttöön tarpeeksi kova joukkue. Eikä Pep Guardiola lopulta mikään maaginen ole hänkään. Barcelonassa mies voitti paljolti huippukuntoisten Iniestan, Xavin ja Messin ansiosta ja jos rehellisiä ollaan niin silloisella Barcelonalla oli aika mahdotonta hävitä kenelle hyvänsä. Mutta sitä se on kun on valmentanut urallaan 0 kertaa jengiä, joka on altavastaaja, tai ylipäätään pelaa yksittäisessä ottelussa altavastaajana. Guardiolallakin on kokemusta tasan kahdesta jengistä eli Barcelonasta ja Bayern Münchenistä, jotka ovat tämän ajan paras ja toiseksi paras seurajoukkue. Joo Guardiola voitti liigan useampaan otteeseen kummassakin jengissä ja Barcelonan tähtisikermällä myös UCL:län pari kertaa, mutta onko se Guardiolan ansiota vai olisivatko kyseiset asiat tapahtuneet myös ilman Guardiolan panosta. Bayern putsaa jokaisen kauden päätteeksi kilpailijoilta parhaat pelaajat pois ja operoi muutenkin liigassa ylivoimaisella budjetilla. Tottakai yläasteella oleva poika pieksee päiväkotilaisen taaperon, mutta kuka sellaisen katsomisesta nauttii?

 

Nautinto ja oikea ammattitaito tulee esiin siinä kohtaa kun tehdään asioita kertoimia vastaan altavastaajana. Maailma olisi aivan liian tylsä paikka jos kaikki todennäköinen tapahtuisi eikä yllätyksille jäisi koskaan sijaa, jos kupla-wolkkari ei koskaan voittaisi Ferraria kilpa-ajossa. Diego Simeone on kuitenkin mies, joka virnistää ivallisesti kertoimille ja todennäköisyyksille. Diego Simeonea ei kiinnosta mikä on todennäköistä ja mikä ei, Diego Simeone pelaa voittaakseen ja sen hän toden totta tekee. Osaa voi häiritä miehen olemus, mutta Simeone elää tunteella, mikä vain nostaa allekirjoittaneen arvostusta miestä kohtaan. Okei välillä läikkyy yli, mutta entä sitten? Kun koko aika eläytyy ja elää täysillä niin rapatessa roiskuu. Jos ei ole valmis tehdäkseen kaikkea voiton eteen niin minkä takia tätä hommaa sitten tehdään?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tunteella ;)

 

Vertaa Simeonen menoa johonkin Lehkosuohon? Kyllä toi Lehkosuo näyttää täysin lapaselta, vailla sitä sojottavaa, peukkua.. Eilisen pelin olin katsomassa (HJK - Ilves...5-1). Eka puoliaika oli ihan hirveetä kuraa Klubilta. Täysin valmentajansa näköistä huttua.. Lehkosuo seisoi kädet taskussa kentän reunalla tai nojaili vaihtopenkin selkämykseen. Eleetön ja ilmeetön, "tunteella". Eleetön ja ilmeetön voi olla, mutta sitäkin voi tehdä tunteella. Vai voiko? Ehkei silloin olisi täysin eleetön tai ilmeetön :)

Kyl mä sanon et Klubin "peukku" kasvais, jos siellä olis joku isompi "peukkuinen" valmentaja.. En tarkoita mitään öykkäräivää spedeä, vaan oikeesti vähän ryhdikkäämpää herraa. Sprigi ei vielä tee ryhdikästä.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ehdottomasti lukemisen arvoinen pätkä:
 
MANAGER MOTIVATIONS
How 4 Personality Types Define Them All
 
Na_ytto_kuva_2016_09_02_kello_14_55_26.p
 
Pep Guardiola, Arsène Wenger, José Mourinho and Carlo Ancelotti are four of the game's most successful managers. They are fiercely motivated men, but their motivations could not be more different.
 
In this piece, acclaimed author and former professional cricketer Ed Smith contrasts what drives these four men and concludes they make for identifiable personality types by which other managers can be classified.

 

Na_ytto_kuva_2016_09_02_kello_14_57_10.p

 

The reputation of ideology has not enjoyed a happy spell. As a concept, ideology has not recovered from the 20th century's disastrous political experiments. Today, if a plan or policy is described as being motivated purely by ideology, the implication is that the decision followed from blind faith, regardless of rationality.
 
The idea that an ideology can be evidence-based—let alone correct and progressive—is on the wrong side of history. The ideologue, as the servant of a discredited conceptual framework, has suffered an even worse reputational fate. We are all pragmatists now, in theory if not in practice.
 
Not Pep Guardiola. He is the unblinking servant of an idea: winning matches through relentless possession of the football. Possession is the ambition, passing the principle, technique the foundation, collective movement the prerequisite. You must have the ball, keep the ball, move the ball, all the time: that is the only way to play.
 
Guardiola is inclined to say that the idea originally belonged to someone else. It was Johan Cruyff who "built the cathedral," Guardiola said of the Barcelona fast-passing tradition that made his reputation. Later coaches only had to restore and enhance it. The metaphor, though elegant and modest, doesn't capture how far Guardiola has taken the ideology. Yes, the movement had its earlier prophets; but his pursuit of ideological purity has been the most zealous.
 
GUARDIOLA IS THE UNBLINKING SERVANT OF AN IDEA: WINNING MATCHES THROUGH RELENTLESS POSSESSION OF THE FOOTBALL.
 
Guardiola's coaching trajectory was remarkable: a solitary year as coach of Barcelona B, then the top job. Guardiola's coaching apprenticeship was famously brief because he didn't really need one—his philosophy was already formed. Every player, including the goalkeeper, must pass the ball: He craves 11 "footballers," with no room for mere athletes or tacklers.
 
"If he could play with 11 midfielders he would," said Xavi, Guardiola's midfield linchpin at Barcelona when the pair won two Champions Leagues and three La Liga titles.
 
The testimony of Xavi could not be clearer. When Guardiola took over at Manchester City this season, Xavi contributed an article for the Guardian. How would Guardiola approach a new footballing culture? Would he compromise his ideology to accommodate the challenges of the English Premier League?

 

There might be "shifts within the ideal," Xavi wrote, but "not a new philosophy." That was inconceivable. If anything, Xavi predicts Guardiola will seek yet further purity: "He might change...he might become even more radical." After all, for Guardiola, "it's like a religion."

 

Na_ytto_kuva_2016_09_02_kello_15_01_02.p

 

There are several layers of irony here. The rivalry between Guardiola and José Mourinho, newly resumed in the Premier League this season, has usually proved a straightforward choice for sport's moralists. The contrast writes itself all too easily: The believer against the cynic, optimism set against a controlling manipulator, lofty ideals in conflict with street smarts.
 
Bleacher Report's Jonathan Wilson, the superb analyst of football tactics, has interpreted Mourinho's entire career as a riposte to Guardiola's, suggesting that he vowed "like Milton's Satan...'To wage by force of guile eternal war, irreconcilable to our grand Foe.'" The assumption is that Guardiola brings light, Mourinho darkness.
 
Naturally approving of Guardiola's ends—attractive and creative football—we tend to gloss over his means. He is utterly ruthless, a ruthlessness determined by whether a player adheres to his ideology. Zlatan Ibrahimovic is arguably the winningest (to borrow a phrase from American sports) footballer currently playing the game. Guardiola had no difficulty in axing him from Barcelona. Ibrahimovic has said, "on the pitch I want to be as free as a bird." Guardiola's pure ideology does not make provision for wildness.
 
Guardiola's fervour is fanatical. In August I interviewed Eddie Jones. The Australian-born coach of the England rugby team had popped in to watch England play Pakistan in the fourth cricket Test match at the Oval. Jones is known for being brutally tough on his players during practice, singling out individuals for sustained criticism. The training-ground scene at Guardiola's Bayern Munich, however, left even Jones startled.
 
"They were playing seven vs. seven. Pep was out there, among some of the best players in the world, in amongst it, driving those players, telling them what they weren't doing, speaking in six or seven languages."
 
It left Jones feeling "almost embarrassed" about his own coaching, the things he'd stopped doing. "Pep reminded me of things I used to be good at, being tough on players." Jones left Munich determined to be even harsher on players at practice.
 
GUARDIOLA IS UTTERLY RUTHLESS, A RUTHLESSNESS DETERMINED BY WHETHER A PLAYER ADHERES TO HIS IDEOLOGY.
 
When Cesc Fàbregas joined Guardiola at Barcelona in 2011, even this former Barca academician was taken aback by the intensity of practice. Losing the ball was treated like a cardinal sin because, according to Guardiola's religion, it is exactly that.
 
Peel away the good vs. evil narrative, and the specialness of Guardiola takes on a different light. (And I write this as a huge admirer of his.) In most spheres, pragmatism reigns. We celebrate muddling through, an idea borrowed, another tweaked, a compromise reached: Ours is the generation of muddling through.
 
Sport remains a case apart, a rare corner of human endeavour where true ideologues can still seek and find legitimization. I remember having a conversation about Guardiola with the editor of a leading political magazine. "It must be a very fulfilling life," he reflected, with a hint of regret. It would be un-modern for any magazine, after all, to have such a Manichean worldview.

 

Where else but in sport would the concept of a "fanatic" searching for religious "purity" be taken as a compliment? But only, of course, if the religion in question is the approved religion, and with Guardiola—unless you're speaking to Mourinho—that remains very much the case.

 

Na_ytto_kuva_2016_09_02_kello_15_06_02.p

 

For someone who is said to fear death acutely, Arsène Wenger is a very patient man. In a philosophical interview with L'Equipe in 2015, Wenger asked the interviewer to imagine he had 24 hours to live. "Will you imagine the blade that will slit your throat—during all of your remaining 24 hours—or will you try to live them to the fullest? It’s the question of the ending of life really," he said.
 
To understand Wenger's long-range priorities, go back to February 19, 2014. It was the first leg of Arsenal's Champions League tie against Bayern Munich (coached by Guardiola at the time, as it happens) at the Emirates Stadium. For the first 10 minutes or so, Arsenal were sublime. Guardiola reflected after the match that those 10 minutes constituted the only sustained period of play in the whole season when his team had been thoroughly dominated.
 
Near the end of that period of supremacy, with the score 0-0 but Arsenal on the brink, the home side were awarded a penalty. Mesut Özil, recently signed by Wenger for £42.5 million, lamely spurned the opportunity. The match turned, and so did Özil's performance. Ten minutes later, he was still shaking his head, a slump from which he never emerged for the rest of the match.
 
After 39 minutes, with Özil still languishing in disappointment, Arsenal suffered a red card. But it was Santi Cazorla, not Özil, who Wenger sacrificed to allow on the replacement keeper.
 
By the end of the match, the tactical pattern had become painful to watch: Wave after wave of Bayern Munich attacks down Arsenal's left flank, a defensive weakness that yielded both Munich's goals. It was here that Özil seemed unable—or unwilling—to provide effective defensive support in a 10-man effort.

 

When Wenger made his final substitution after 74 minutes, Özil was spared again, with Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain making way. The German playmaker finished the match as a forlorn figure, and yet secure in the knowledge that he had been thoroughly backed by his manager.
 
At the time, as an Arsenal fan, I was furious. If I could see a problem with Özil — me, a mere ex-cricketer — surely Wenger could see it?
 
The episode reveals how Wenger watches the game, the prism through which he sees events. He is a teacher first, a manager second, a tactician third. Having brought the brilliant but vulnerable young footballer to London, he felt an almost parental sense of responsibility about Özil. He blanched at the prospect of inflicting a double blow on the German—not only a missed penalty, but also early substitution.
 
Na_ytto_kuva_2016_09_02_kello_15_05_23.p
 
Could it really be better to back Ozil, even if it meant increasing the chances of losing? It depends how much time you have, I suppose. Over the long term, who knows? By 2015, Wenger purred that Özil was now "completely committed." What about before? Not fully committed? Another year on, Wenger felt even more vindicated, with Özil at his exquisite best.
 
It has become a truism to say that Wenger is a "developmental manager." Özil's non-substitution, however, revealed the downside of Wenger's default character. Improving players seems to excite him more than the tactical challenge of the match itself. He is primarily an educator; strategy comes a distant second.
 
A conjecture follows about the vulnerabilities that seem to run through all Wenger's teams these days. When the squad is out of sight of victory—and becoming champions is safely impossible—then the team's energy and focus naturally settles on the medium term. This player's progress, that one's potential, another's versatility: It is in this realm where Wenger is happiest.
 
You begin to wonder if Arsenal would be more likely to win the title if they were told it was impossible. Instead, in the real world of leagues and knock-out trophies, whenever Arsenal look ahead and see the empty expanses of being the clear favourite, they capitulate like the racehorse Devon Loch. That this flaw keeps recurring, even though the players keep changing, makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that Wenger's character is the shaping influence.
 
WENGER IS A TEACHER FIRST, A MANAGER SECOND, A TACTICIAN THIRD.
 
There is a view that Wenger has been the victim of imitation. The new ideas he brought to English football—improved diet and lifestyle, a network of scouts capable of buying players all around the world and his experience of football's globalised tactical conversation—have become the norm. Perhaps it is impossible to reinvent yourself after 20 years in the same job. The example of Sir Alex Ferguson is surely misleading: He is football's unicorn, the one manger who escaped a cycle of declining influence.
 
How hard it is, in the autumn of his career, to reach a settled position on the whole body of Wenger's work. On one side, there is his longevity, the unbroken streak of Champions League qualification, his dignity, the seriousness and engagement, the certainty that he's not a crook and, above all, the rich entertainment—the justified hope among fans, even though it has increasingly ended in disappointment. As the son of two teachers, I have even come to find consolations in Wenger the Educator, now that Wenger the Winner has gone missing.

 

Yet an uncomfortable feeling inside me hardens: I used to want Wenger to have one last chance, to end this on his own terms. Now I fear that the same sentiment will sully rather than serve his reputation. Wenger deserves to be treated with more ruthlessness than he has shown others. An aging boxer can be thankful to suffer a swift knockout blow rather than soak up 12 more rounds of gratuitous punishment.

 

Na_ytto_kuva_2016_09_02_kello_15_11_45.p

 

A historian friend told me recently that people who describe José Mourinho as Machiavellian should read more (Niccolo) Machiavelli to learn how they're wrong. Having used the cliche myself about the supernaturally confident "Special One" now installed as manager of Manchester United, I've now taken my friend's advice.
 
A real Machiavel adapts his personality to suit the nature of the place and the times. As the historian Quentin Skinner explores in his short book on the Florentine diplomat, a truly Machiavellian personality is hard to caricature because it is always in flux, depending on the circumstances.
 
In Legations, Machiavelli criticises Cesare Borgia for "allowing himself to be carried away by his immense confidence." In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that Pope Julius II, though superficially successful, did not live long enough for his impetuosity to be exposed as a strategic weakness: "If times had come when he needed to proceed with caution, they would have brought about his downfall."
 
Machiavelli's message is that a leader should "command his nature": The power of self-control is the highest power of all. In that context, consider three examples of Mourinho behaving in a distinctly un-Machiavellian manner.
 
First, the Eva Carneiro controversy. On the opening day of last season's Premier League, Chelsea were reduced to nine men at a crucial moment when Dr. Carneiro ran on the field to treat Eden Hazard. She claimed that Mourinho shouted "filha da puta" ("daughter of a whore" in Portuguese) as she went on to the pitch. After the match, Mourinho criticised Carneiro for being "impulsive and naive."
 
Having been subsequently demoted as the team doctor, Carneiro argued that she had suffered constructive dismissal. Ten months later, the case was settled at a tribunal, with the financial payment to Carneiro remaining confidential. Ten months! What a distraction for a coach during one of the most turbulent spells of his volatile career.
 
Frustrated and angry, despite a relatively benign situation—Chelsea's season had not yet imploded—Mourinho bungled a moment that dogged him in the far more difficult months ahead. He created a debilitating sideshow that he never quite escaped as Chelsea's campaign collapsed.
 
Only a few months before that, in May 2015, there had been another warning sign that winning—apparently his raison d'etre—was far from Mourinho's only preoccupation. Chelsea had just won the Premier League. But Mourinho took the opportunity to launch a transparently personal attack on Guardiola (then coaching Bayern Munich, who routinely win the Bundesliga).

 

"Maybe in the future I have to be smarter and choose another club...where everybody is champion," Mourinho announced. "Maybe I will go to a country where a kitman can be coach and win the title." In arguing that Guardiola's German titles were meaningless, Mourinho implied that his own battles were more complex than those of a serial winner. Winning clearly wasn't the only thing; he also craved acceptance.

 

Na_ytto_kuva_2016_09_02_kello_15_14_49.p

 

Finally, there is the case study of Mourinho's infamous television interview, when Chelsea had been dismantled 3-1 by Liverpool on October 31, 2015. "I have nothing to say," Mourinho stated at the outset. Pressed to elaborate, he repeated the phrase over and over.
 
"Nothing to say," of course, said rather a lot. Too much. Far from containing the crisis, he inflamed it. Watching Mourinho's body language in that interview, it was clear that his reaction to disappointment was not strategic but emotional: He put himself at the heart of the story more than ever, as though more Mourinho is always the solution.
 
This time, of course, it wasn't. Chelsea, forced to choose between their players and their manager, opted to keep the players.
 
Just as Guardiola's sunny vision of the game blinds us to his ruthlessness, Mourinho's pragmatic and controlling footballing style misleads us into thinking his temperament perfectly reflects his tactical philosophy. It doesn't. Far from being governed by a cold and dispassionate temperament, Mourinho often behaves impulsively and against his rational self-interest. Yes, he is abundantly clever and, some people argue, capable of deviousness. But he is also psychologically needy, recklessly so, and at crucial moments.
 
Machiavelli would not approve.
 
There is a tension between Mourinho the Frontman and Mourinho the Strategist. Some coaches see themselves as mainly advising the team, with the players cast as the film's leading men. Another kind of coach perceives himself as the charismatic hero, the pivot around which the narrative develops.

 

MOURINHO'S PRAGMATIC AND CONTROLLING FOOTBALLING STYLE MISLEADS US INTO THINKING HIS TEMPERAMENT PERFECTLY REFLECTS HIS TACTICAL PHILOSOPHY.

 

No prizes for guessing Mourinho's instincts. Football's Narcissus is clever enough to have worked out a pragmatic style of play that suits many situations, but he does not have the psychological self-control to know when to remove himself from the narrative. He is controlling of others but loses self-control—a risky position.
 
I've heard football insiders argue that Mourinho's remarkable charisma, his physical brilliance, exerts an unusual hold on some players. They seek his affirmation and fear being shunned—not just professionally, but also emotionally. Mourinho rewards people by shining a light on them. Nothing could be less strategic than the innate capacity to attract and hold people's attention, to know that they seek your approval.
 
Aged 53, Mourinho may be sensing that the power of his radiance is beginning to fade. In other words, he will have to find new ways to influence people—more Machiavellian ones.
 
Na_ytto_kuva_2016_09_02_kello_15_16_56.p
 
If you think that the term "cosmopolitan" refers only to a pre-dinner cocktail (vodka, triple sec, cranberry juice and a squeeze of lime) or, alternatively, an elegantly dressed and multilingual sophisticate, think again. Cosmopolitanism is also a moral and intellectual framework. Cosmopolitanism provided the title and theme of a fine book published in 2006 by Kwame Anthony Appiah, a professor of philosophy at New York University. Appiah, as it happens, is giving this year's BBC Reith Lectures.
 
Carlo Ancelotti, Bayern Munich's new manager, is a cosmopolitan in several senses of the term. First, he fits with our casual definition of cosmopolitanism: Ancelotti is a cultivated and urbane man, at ease in many different social contexts.

 

When he begins a term as manager at a new club, one of Ancelotti's first acts is to install a serious espresso machine—none of this lazy automated nonsense for Carlo. As for the degrading possibility of instant coffee, it is hard to imagine the Italian even acknowledging the existence of these grubby coffee grounds, except perhaps as a threat: He might prescribe an underperforming player with two cups of the milky, sugary stuff as a final and brutal punishment before sticking the outgoing player on the transfer list.
 
In the summer of 2001, Ancelotti looked set to become coach of Parma. But at the 11th hour, Adriano Galliani, CEO of AC Milan, rushed to Ancelotti's house to try to persuade the former Milan player to change his mind and become Milan's manager instead. The two men drank fine wine and ate Italian delicacies. The deal was done. "At Ancelotti's home you always eat well," Galliani reflected.
 
The manager's faith in food goes far beyond the comparatively trivial matters of pleasure and taste. Eating well is a way to build team culture. At Milanello, AC Milan's training ground, players have their own restaurant—not just a buffet free-for-all, but the full culinary and social experience, with players offered table service by experienced waiters steeped in the club's history. (No wonder Paolo Maldini played for Milan into his 40s. With the prospect of linguine aragosta waiting each day after training, why would you stop?)
 
ANCELOTTI IS A CULTIVATED AND URBANE MAN, AT EASE IN MANY DIFFERENT SOCIAL CONTEXTS.
 
Ancelotti believes that eating together brings teams closer together: It is the shared table that creates a family environment. When Ancelotti joined Paris Saint-Germain, introducing a similar restaurant was "one of my first priorities," as he wrote in Quiet Leadership, his entertaining and revealing book.
 
But Ancelotti is also a cosmopolitan in the second, deeper sense of the term—the philosophical concept developed by Appiah. Ancelotti is cosmopolitan in his own arrangements with the world, and he takes a cosmopolitan view of the world's treatment of him. When Ancelotti manages teams in other countries, he takes the time to learn the language, rather than rely on interpreters. This is not just about effective communication, but also a symbol.
 
"I need to make the commitment to show I am serious about adapting and fitting in to a new way of life," Ancelotti writes. "Language as a way into the culture." Ancelott's distinct "Italianness" co-exists with influences from all the other football cultures he has experienced.
 
Na_ytto_kuva_2016_09_02_kello_15_20_07.p

 

Ancelotti's cosmopolitan charm is amplified because he did not have a privileged upbringing. Far from being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he was plonked almost immediately onto a milking stool: His father ran a tiny farm in rural Italy. Three generations lived in the same house, eking out a living from 10 cows.
 
The social mobility of Ancelotti's life seems to have reinforced his epicurean instincts: Life in professional football should be fun as well as demanding. Always being serious is as much a fault as never being serious.
 
In Quiet Leadership, Ancelotti recalls an incident when he was a young player himself, for Roma under the Swedish manager Nils Liedholm. One night, late into the evening, Ancelotti and two team-mates drove back to the team hotel with two girls in the backseat. Liedholm strode toward the car and Ancelotti prepared himself for a disciplinarian rant from the manager.
 
Liedholm peered inside the car window. "Is there any room for me?" the manager asked.
 
The power of wit and surprise stayed with Ancelotti. His tactical style follows the template of his worldview: sceptical, non-ideological and open-minded.
 
Instead of believing that football is a war of ideas, with only one correct answer, he sees many ways of approaching the problem. That flexibility has only increased with experience. As manager of Parma, Ancelotti turned down the chance to buy Roberto Baggio, because he favoured a 4-4-2 system and Baggio wanted to play behind the striker. His own decision, Ancelotti now believes, stemmed from a lack of confidence. He wishes he'd bought Baggio and forced himself to adapt.

 

At Juventus, a similar situation arose with Zinedine Zidane. This time, however, Ancelotti was ready to "change my idea of football to accommodate Zidane." Later, at Real Madrid, Ancelotti again changed his formation to get the best out of Cristiano Ronaldo. The players led the system, not vice versa.

 

ANCELOTTI'S TACTICAL STYLE FOLLOWS THE TEMPLATE OF HIS WORLDVIEW: SCEPTICAL, NON-IDEOLOGICAL AND OPEN-MINDED.

 

Ancelotti's reluctance to throw himself behind one theory is part of his liberal optimism: Given that ideas are always naturally advancing, why hitch yourself to one that might soon be out of date? Here cosmopolitanism overlaps with a connected concept—fallibilism. Appiah, advocate of cosmopolitanism, also has a definition for this: "Fallibilism is the idea that our knowledge is imperfect, provisional and subject to revision in the face of new evidence. Fallibilism says: Here's what I know...well enough to live by. But I could be wrong."

 

Where Guardiola perceives the game as a way of advancing and developing his own shaping vision, Ancelotti tries to juggle the competing claims of many good ideas on a case-by-case basis. Andrew Strauss, the former England captain and now director of cricket, has a similar kind of mind.
 
Do not, however, assume that fallibilists lack conviction about their plan at any given moment: Ancelotti is arguably Europe's most decorated manager. The players sense clarity; but that is thanks in part to Ancelotti's capacity to see the shades of gray.
 
____________________________________________________________
 
 
Let the Battle of Philosophies Wage On
 
There is a view that leadership in football is a convenient myth, a narrative to support newspaper sales and gossip columns. Managers don't win matches, the theory runs, players do—or, ultimately, having the money to buy the right players does.
 
Though the significant correlation between wage-spending and league position is irrefutable, I am not ready to accept that managers are merely totemic. Football, in fact, is the sport with the longest tradition of evolved managerial power.
 
The England cricket team, in contrast, didn't appoint a full-time manager until 1986. Even now, given the power of the cricket captain and the independent role of selectors, cricket coaches share power in a way that football managers—especially the four featured here—would never tolerate.

 

Besides, the football field, more than most arenas, is amenable to the designs of the coach as philosopher-king. Football is both fluid and malleable, whereas cricket and baseball are staccato and oddly impermeable.
 
A cricket coach cannot get into the space where the real contest happens—when the ball is in flight toward the batsman. A Ryder Cup captain can choose the order in which his golfers play and try to whip up a sense of team spirit. But what else? But a football manager, by changing his formation, changes the entire pitch. A football coach, for all his frustrations, can shape the whole far more completely.
 
FOOTBALL, IN FACT, IS THE SPORT WITH THE LONGEST TRADITION OF EVOLVED MANAGERIAL POWER.
 
These reasons—historical power and tactical influence—are joined by a third in making leading football managers unusually interesting: market forces. The size of the football economy naturally attracts talent.
 
What is revealing, however, is that they stay in the game so long—Wenger is 66 and it will be no surprise if the other three follow his example—long after the point where money matters. No, it is the job, especially the sustaining pleasure and excitement of exploring ideas through the exercise of power: thinking and its application in one job.
 
Coming out of Lord's Cricket Ground one evening, I fell in step with Mike Brearley, the former philosophy professor and a revered tactical captain. We talked about Bayern Munich and Barcelona. "Don't you find watching the best football teams so fascinating?" he said, with a tone similar to that of the magazine editor when he spoke about Guardiola.

 

Brearley is right. Football, through its managers, is a battle of philosophies, ideas represented by distinct types of thinker—never more so than this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ehdottomasti lukemisen arvoinen pätkä:
 
MANAGER MOTIVATIONS
How 4 Personality Types Define Them All

 

Mahtavaa tekstiä! Varsinkin toi osuus Ancelottista oli hyvä. Joskus mietinkin, että mikä se Ancelottin juttu oikein on, kun mies menestyy paikassa kuin paikassa, mutta ei ole kuitenkaan sellainen yhteen vahvaan ideologiaan uskova manageri kuin vaikka Guardiola. Toisaalta tällainen erilaisiin tilanteisiin sopeutuminen ja kuitenkin pelin muokkaaminen oman näköiseksi voi olla paljon haastavampaa, kuin esimerkiksi Guardiolan mentaliteetti, jossa joko sopeudut systeemiin tai joudut korvatuksi. Ancelotti ei koskaan ole jättänyt savuavia raunioita taakseen ja mies on taatusti pidetty persoona piireissä. Pasi Rautiainen luonnehti joskus Carlo Ancelottia "sympaattiseksi nallekarhuksi" ja varmaan tässä on paljon perääkin, mutta samaan aikaan Ancelotti on varmastikin vaativa nero ja tuo tietynlainen sympaattisuus ja tilanteisiin mukautuminen on vain yksi osa hänen persoonaansa.

 

Myös Wengerin osuus oli mielenkiintoinen ja varmasti ihan paikkaansa pitävää asiaa. Vaikka Arsene Wenger saakin nuoremmalta sukupolvelta osakseen lähinnä nauruja ainaisista neljänsistä sijoista ja siirtomarkkinoilla pihtailemisesta, mutta Wenger on kuitenkin ihminen, jota on pakko arvostaa. Tuo teksti vain vahvisti kuvaani siitä, että Wenger on ennen kaikkea ihmisläheinen valmentaja. Wenger varmasti voisi kaupata jokaisen hiomattoman timantin tai palettiin sopimattoman palasen muualle Moutinhon tai Guardiolan tavoin, mutta Wenger välittää pelaajistaan ja pyrkii kehittämään heistä parempia. Ehkä tämä tosiaan tapahtuu joskus menestymisen kustannuksella ja vaikka moni kannattaja olisi valmis korvaamaan Wengerin niin tuskin yksikään Arsenalin nykyisistä pelaajista on sitä mieltä, että heidän olisi parempi olla toisen valmentajan kanssa.

 

En tiedä tietääkö moni, mutta itseä on jollain tapaa aina kiehtonut enemmän valmentajat ja managerit kuin itse pelaajat. Älysin kuitenkin aika varhaisessa vaiheessa, että vaikka pidinkin jalkapallon pelaamisesta niin ei siitä touhusta omalla kohdallani ikinä mitään tulisi, enkä oikeastaan pelannut joukkueessa kuin vasta 18-19 vuotiaana ja silloinkin vain muutaman kuukauden. Ei valmentaminen ja valmentajatkaan siksi kiinnosta, että haluaisin työskennellä jalkapallovalmentajana, mutta heidän ajatuksenjuoksuaan ja ideologioita on äärimmäisen mielenkiintoista seurata. Olen sen sijaan kiinnostunut ihan toisenlaisista johtamis- ja esimiestehtävistä, mutta mielestäni jalkapallomanagereilta pystyy ammentamaan paljon esim. yrityksen johtamiseen. Osa managereista uskoo vahvasti johonkin tiettyyn ideologiaan, joka heijastelee mukavasti heidän persoonaansakin. Esimerkiksi Diego Simeone on onnistunut tekemään Atletico Madridista täysin itseltään näyttävän joukkueen, joka vieläpä menestyy, mikä on suurin syy miksi nostan argentiinalaisen maailman parhaaksi manageriksi. Kunnioitan suuresti vahvaan ideologiaan uskovia managereita oli se ideologia sitten mikä hyvänsä. Pitkään Guardiola kuului omiin inhokkeihini, koska en voinut sietää miehen lyhytsyöttöpeliä ja tapaa karsia kaikki palapeliin sopimattomat palat pois, mutta jos laitetaan hetkeksi pelitavalliset asiat sivuun, niin periaatteessa on erittäin kunnioitettavaa, että Guardiola tekee kaiken menestyäkseen hänen omalla tavallaan ja on valmis laittamaan itsensä likoon mihin ikinä meneekin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×