Topic: The Level 3 Thread

[royhendo]

interesting situation this.  its been reported that he will get between £2-4m for half a seasons work with no room to move in the transfer market (window is shut) and the potential to be viewed as a lame duck by the squad (he's only there as a caretaker so who is arsed what he thinks?).

i know this is another team but after the comments on mourinho hangover its perhaps interesting to view this in a context where - heaven forbid - rafa gets pushed out by the septics.  surely any new manager coming in would find most of the hard work done or at least all the key structures in place?

with chelsea they have spent BIG but where are the foundations?  their youth teams have failed to perform and only de santo looks like coming through their youth ranks and that's despite all the millions spent stealing the ineffectual arnesen from tottenham.

It really is interesting in the context of the thread Hass, eh? It's like a case study!

For me, it's an acid test of his managerial ability and to be honest, I think he's a 'spicy' enough and flexible enough man to make this work. He's Abramovich's friend and Abramovich knows directly what he's capable of, so straight away that cuts out the 'go and talk to the players at Cobham behind Scolari's back' scenario out. He has authority and the players have no scope to 'clipe' as we say up north - they can't run and tell tales to the hierarchy behind Hiddink's back.

Then there's the fact that his players in former teams (most notably S.Korea) said he can ramp up the training intensity to a borderline ridiculous level, which is what they're mooted to have complained about first under Scolari - no Mourinho/Clark meant far less intensity, far less commitment, and far less sharpness as a result come matchdays. Again, this is something that's central to Rafa's approach.

Lastly, the squad's mooted complaint that when things weren't going in their favour, they would look to the bench and think 'you've got no plan B, have you?'. Well, that's not going to be as much of an issue under Hiddink. Granted Spain found him out to an extent in the Summer, but he's definitely capable of creative problem solving. He's earned his stripes on that front.

The more structural issues are chronic though Hass, aren't they? The rhetoric of Arnesen's recruitment and the development of their youth programme has been a strange one - they looked for instant results but it's something that, even throwing multimillions at it, you need to wait a full development cycle to really gain the benefits of, no? Get them working to a proper integrated syllabus from a young age and cream off the top contenders through the age groups...

Then they realise they're not breaking even and throw that particular baby out with the bathwater.

The thing was, Mourinho's initial battles had been with Arnesen and Grant, hadn't they? It was 100% analogous to the stuff between Rafa and Parry/the board. Maybe that calls the assertion that Mourinho only had short-term plans for Chelsea into question eh?

Anyway, it's going to be an interesting few months watching them - I completely agree.

[the_prodigal_s0n]

It will be interesting to see how Hiddink does in the context of this thread, but I think it'd be a little unfair to judge him too harshly if it doesn't work out. There's no doubt that Chelsea have the basis of an excellent squad, but it does have its weaknesses. They don't have enough decent wide players. I do like Kalou, but he isn't a proper wide player, Malouda hasn't settled, and Cole is out for the rest of the season (as far as I can recall). Added to that, they have too many players who seemingly can't play together to the optimum of their abilities: Anelka-Drogba and Lampard-Ballack being the standout ones. On top of that their morale seems incredibly low and so many of their players seem incredibly disinterested.

Added to that, it does take time to implement a level three type team, and the vast majority of Hiddink's success has been when he's had a fair amount of time to work with the squad that he's inherited. If he is successful then he will have done an excellent job, but if he fails he shouldn't be held accountable. Nonetheless, as has been said it certainly will be an interesting few months.

[royhendo]

I don't think he has anything to prove anyway t_p_s - he's been there and done it, hasn't he? I reckon he'll do a good job though. They couldn't have found anyone better right now anyway. Rijkaard for example is the last manager they need.

[the_prodigal_s0n]

Oh no, of course everyone knows he has nothing to prove. He is arguably the best manager in the world currently. The amount of success he's had in so many different jobs is unreal. I'd say he'll do a good job, but obviously the league title is pretty much finished for them now. It'll be interesting to see how quickly he has an effect on the squad and how they fare in europe.

However, as I said, should he fail, it wouldn't change anything in my eyes. I doubt there's a single manager in the world who could revolutionise this Chelsea squad into something credible in such a short space of time. If he were to do it, it would be nothing short of miraculous. I guess in that sense it certainly is a real test to just how amazing a manager he really is.

[royhendo]

[royhendo]

The ex-stand up comedian on GU weighs in on the subject...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/feb/10/guus-hiddink-chelsea-barry-glendenning

Those who can, do. Those who can't, manage at Chelsea

The Blues might fancy Guus Hiddink, but it might as well be any one of us


If the rewards for failure or underachievement in the workplace were as consistently high for mugs like us as they are for football managers, nothing would ever get done. You wouldn't be sitting in your office with one eye on the clock and one eye on this inconsequential blather, which is just as well because I almost certainly wouldn't have written it.

Instead, we'd both have accepted our myriad shortcomings when they were pointed out to us years ago and taken the ensuing multimillion-pound pay-off, with financial security assured for life. Then maybe we'd even have become friends after meeting on the sun-kissed sands and struck up a conversation on the subject of our amusingly similar taste in diamond-studded platinum flip-flops and ermine Speedos, before discussing whether to travel the short distance to the island's Sports Illustrated swimwear issue model rental agency in your Maserati Quattroporte with the purring V8 engine or my gold-plated palanquin with the purring Pussycat Doll one.

At the time of writing, the yellow breaking news ticker on Sky Sports News says Guus Hiddink is in talks with Chelsea about becoming manager at Stamford Bridge until the end of season, which means it must be true. One imagines these talks are largely wordless and involve the Chelsea suits Peter Kenyon and Bruce Buck writing increasingly big numbers on a sheet of paper and sliding it across the boardroom table, where the Dutchman and his agent glance at it, glance at each other, glance at Kenyon and Buck, decline with barely perceptible shakes of their heads and slide it back.

The dance continues until at some point every available zero in the SW6 area is pressed into service and a ridiculously large number is agreed upon, at which point John Terry approves the appointment and Hiddink becomes the latest top-flight manager to guarantee himself millions of pounds for pulling off a feat any man jack of us could achieve without even trying: being worse at managing a Premier League football team than Mr. Ferguson.

It's good work if you can get it, but even better when you can't do it.

But more crucially, another article hints at why Hiddink will be hailed as a 'genius'...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/11/michael-essien-chelsea-training-injury

[royhendo]

And then this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/feb/11/guus-hiddink-chelsea-david-hytner

Hiddink's knack of inspiring underdogs will suit Chelsea role

Taking on a Stamford Bridge side at a low ebb will suit the much-travelled Dutchman
 
Guus Hiddink's globe-trotting career has taken in six club jobs in three countries and four national teams on three continents.



It was the episode that defined Guus ­Hiddink as a "super coach" in the eyes of his fellow Dutchmen. The 1998 World Cup was looming and Hiddink knew that his Holland team needed an aggressive ­midfield dynamo to hunt down possession and opponents.

There was an obvious candidate yet there was an equally obvious barrier. ­Hiddink had sent home Edgar Davids from his squad at the 1996 European Championship after "The Pitbull" had suggested the coach should "get his head out of players' arses so he can see better".

That represented the nadir of a rift between the squad's black and white players, which undermined their efforts at the tournament. When they were knocked out by France on ­penalties in the quarter-finals, the defender Arthur Numan said he was happy because "the atmosphere within the camp was so terrible".

Which modern coach, then, would have swallowed his pride and any sense of resentment to visit the player and try to woo him back? Hiddink has long been a unique man-manager. Davids was cajoled into a return, he played brilliantly in a unified team in 1998 and Holland were undone only by Brazil in the semi-finals.

Hiddink had won the European Cup in his first season as a coach, in 1988 with PSV Eindhoven – they beat Benfica after a dramatic penalty shoot-out – but he has never bought into his own legend and considered himself the finished article. Instead he has stayed open and taken on lessons and knowledge at every stage of his globe-trotting coaching career that, so far, has taken in six club jobs in three countries and four national team roles on three continents.

There has long been the sense that ­Hiddink relishes the challenge of building up unfancied clubs and countries, of giving the underdog its glorious day. When he returned to PSV, he very nearly topped the achievement of his first spell when he took a team without star names to the 2005 Champions League semi-finals where they fell to Milan only on away goals.

Then there have been his exploits with South Korea, Australia and, more recently, Russia. South Korea had been to five World Cups and failed to win a single game, Australia had not qualified for a finals in 32 years and Russia had failed to make it beyond the first round of a major tournament since the disbanding of the Soviet Union in 1991. All that, of course, was pre-Guus.

Hiddink took South Korea on an astonishing run to the semi-finals of the 2002 World Cup – he subsequently had a stadium named after him and was given a private villa and free flights for life – and guided Australia to the second round of the 2006 World Cup, the first time they had reached the knockout stage of the competition. He then helped Russia to the semi-finals of Euro 2008.

Although he had a brief spell in charge at Real Madrid in 1998-99 – he was sacked shortly after making them world club champions – Hiddink has largely avoided the perceived glamour jobs. He turned down England in 2006, largely because of the Football Association's desire for him to audition at interview. "I told them that was an insult," said his agent, Cees van Nieuwenhuizen, but Hiddink was also concerned about the potential for intrusion into his private life. "That was a factor in my not going with England," he said at the time. "Your private life is always under scrutiny in England and although I have nothing to hide, it's not a pleasant thing to put up with."

Hiddink's speciality is breezing into jobs and effecting startlingly quick upturns in fortune from players often low on confidence. "He gave us the belief that we could beat anyone" said Lee Young-pyo, the South Korea defender while Roman Pavlyuchenko, the Russia striker, added that Hiddink "gives players confidence, which for a footballer is a very important thing".

Hiddink chooses his jobs wisely and he will have concluded that Chelsea, while hardly the timid underdog, are a club in underachieving mode and with players in urgent need of a lift. He appears in a win-win situation. There will be pressure on him to revive a challenge for the Premier League title and to beat Juventus in the Champions League last 16, en route to a serious tilt at the trophy, but Luiz Felipe Scolari left the club in such disarray that Hiddink will be hard pressed to make things worse. The players are likely to respond to the new broom and his fast, open style of football, underpinned by tactical boldness and flexibility, ought to generate positive momentum. His short-term contract will further focus his mind.

"England is a good country to work in," he once said. "When I go to a stadium in England and take the cab or tube, I get out one or two miles before the stadium and walk the rest because the atmosphere is terrific. We must not become football men somewhere on an ivory tower. We must feel what is going on in the street."

Hiddink's intuitive powers and open mind will be tested to the full at Stamford Bridge.

[manifest]

this thread is like christmas cake. so rich, and dense, I can only eat it a little at a time. it's too sexy for it's shirt.

between you and the guardian writers roy, you paint a wonderfully accurate picture of chelsea post mourinho. the guardian talks of love, the love that abrahmovitch wanted people to feel for the club.......but for me they have missed the point.

This whole story is about a relatively young man who was, what, 34?, like you roy, when he took over at chelsea. Sure he wanted to win, but mostly, he wanted to be loved.

So, imagine that you are 34, you've got wealth without limit, you buy chelsea, bring in this amazing coach who makes everyone believe, and wins and wins, ....only to find that all those chelsea "fans" love mourinho, ..... and not you. The shy little boy routine that abrahmovitch has going on, the same today as when he first arrived, has always felt to me that his very "reclusiveness" masks a need for the very opposite.....he wanted approval so bad he bought a football team, hoping to be the loved "hero". I cannot see little roman being a very popular child. For, wealthy though he is, he is trapped behind the wall of his own wealth in terms of what I guess is a deep longing to belong. ( the current newcastle owner has a similar dynamic going on I think ). Roman behaves like he wants NO attention, and this doesn't add up AT ALL....I believe he wants the exact opposite ..... it's like that piece of body language that we all do unconsciously when we have a new car that we are proud of.....we suddenly have our hands up around our face, sometimes almost covering our face, and on the outside it looks as though we are hiding, but what the hands are really doing is saying "hey, look at me" ( my face ).....drawing the eyes of watchers TO us, not away.

But owners of clubs are neither admired nor loved, though berlusconi and ACMilan , who I believe abrahmovitch quite deliberately took as his model for chelsea, gets somewhere close. But its still fear/admiration, not the hero worship that is reserved for players and in mourinho's case, sometimes managers. So, I think mourinho had to go because abrahmovitch was jealous of the love and admiration that the chelsea fans gave him, or more precisely, all the time jose was there, he stood permanently blocking everyone else's sun.

In his shoes, with his story, if I was was roman, I'd feel like "Fuck. I spent more money than God ( the one who reputedly lives in the sky, not the anfield one ) on a team of some of the best footballers on the planet, I kept my head down, got out of the way, ...but there is this black hole of a manager who sucks all energy and light towards him and after all of what 'I' did, he gets ALL the credit, ALL the attention.......and whilst he's here, that won't change. I seriously believe that had there been one crumb of intelligence in the chelsea crowd,  they would have figured out that one "Roman Abrahmovitch" chant, three times a season, for one minute at a time, would have evaporated all of his problems with mourinho ....this while the chelsea crowd chanted jose's name more and more regularly. I bet romans stomach tightened in a knot more and more every time he heard it. This is the cult of personality that roy speaks of. But roman couldn't ever acknowledge this to himself or anyone else, and all the yes men around him were never going to say it. This very piece here is the reason why shankly's oft quoted words about owners should be seen (write cheques) but not be heard is so deeply perceptive about the nature of successful ventures.......in a football club, the "owners" need to leave their personalities at the door, their ego's ( their selfish needs for love and approval ) set aside for the greater good. We here at this great club have been taught a painful lesson in this very area, where in a nightmare scenario, we don't just have one owner whose own needs are greater than the needs of the club, we have two, for our sins. 


So chelsea's story cannot be anything but a reflection of romans shadow ( shadow being that which remains unconscious and unacknowledged, as roman's need for love and approval remains unackowledged. And of course, what remains repressed in this way, will always tend to find expression in indirect ways....in this case, rationalizing mourinhos dismissal as having to do with results on the pitch or whatever, rather than the un-ownable truth that jose had not only taken away romans toy, but he was also getting all the attention that roman believed should be his.....so roman, basically, took his ball back and said 'I don't like this game, let's start a new one without him' )

And it is also not a surprise, if recent psychological musings are correct, that as a man still in his thirties, he is still very much engaged with acting out some kind of hero myth. This changes, it seems, certainly by your fifties, where conquering and winning ( love too ) ceases to have the same pull, and wider, more generous myths start to get played out, where "I" don't need to be the hero in any story, as twenty and thirty year olds are fated to play out it seems ......

I did want to mention that when roy used the word fascist about mourinho, it had a little truth to it, though I cannot remember where I read it, but jose is fairly well known in portugal for his quite extreme right wing views, something that comes as no surprise seeing how he operates, gifted leader that he is. But, as colin wilson said about hitler and stalin etc. "there is nothing more dangerous than "Right" men," ie, men who believe they are right to the point where everyone else is wrong.

Mind you, he wrote that before the age of forums!!

by the way, hwieniawski, there are two of us for liverpool and juve....though very much in that order!

[royhendo]

Nice to see you to see you nice Manifest! More in a bit but tonight we'll see SWP, Carrick, Barry and Downing pitted against Senna, Xabi, Iniesta and Xavi. It's gonna be a rough ride for England you'd think... no?

[Zeb]

Sam Allerduci spouting his usual nonsense drove me to safety in this thread (He was whittering about Rafa wouldn't have rested an English striker against Portsmouth....)

How would people rate this Spanish team then? The exciting thing for me is that they've got a lot of youth in this team, perhaps sufficient to go for the next two world cups?

[manifest]

thank god it's not on the tv here, but it's ok, the japan australia game is on 

from your friendly neighbourhood muthafukka 

[royhendo]

I'll slip this in now when nobody's looking cos it's not for everyone I guess... (admit it - you're all watching the Spain v England game and praying our boys emerge unscathed eh?).

I was thinking about the Mourinho as 'Fuhrer' idea on the way home and it dawned on me where I'd read the similar connection. It's from a book that's maybe my favourite book - "The Iron Cow of Zen" by a Zen master called Albert Low.

I don't practice Zen but the book is a real gruelling work out for your mind to the extent that if you read it often enough, I've no doubt your mind would 'pop', much as they want it to pop in the Zen discipline, with the goal of returning to the birthright that's obscured by your busy self-centred mind and ego.

Anyway, this might seem a massive tangent again, but hopefully it illustrates the point I was trying to make on Mourinho a little more clearly.

I might actually transcribe it in full, because it's a total mindfuck. Each chapter in the book expands on a Zen Koan - a problem that can't be solved logically and forces the mind to make a jump beyond logic to a land of zany 'in the zone' type satori that words don't really do much justice to by all accounts... not that any of us would know. To achieve enlightenment, you have to give up all attachments apparently, so we're all fucked until we give up the prop in our lives that is Liverpool FC. Ah the irony...

Anyway, as you read, please resist the temptation to replace "One" with "The Special One"... and don't ask what Guti was doing away from training either.

Oh and P.S. no offence is intended if you hold strong religious beliefs or find any of the stuff on Hitler remotely offensive. I'm not making light of the Holocaust or the atrocities of World War 2 - I just think the passages tell you a lot about how people can be influenced when cerain modes of communication are used, and when certain human frailties are targeted in clever ways.

EVERYDAY MIND: ONE IS ONE?

Whenever he was asked a question Gutei simply stuck up one finger. At one time he had a young attendant, whom a visitor asked, "What is the essential point of your master's teaching?" The boy also stuck up one finger. Hearing of this, Gutei cut off his finger with a knife. As the boy ran out screaming with pain, Gutei called to him. When the boy turned his head, Gutei stuck up his finger. The boy was suddently enlightened.

When Gutei was about to die, he said to the assembled monks, "I received this one-finger Zen from Tenryu. I used it all my life but could not exhaust it." When he had finished saying this, he died.
Source: Philip Kapleau - The Mumonkan.

Each koan reveals the whole truth, because the truth is One. Although there are several thousand koans, each can stand by itself. A koan is not like a formula that needs other formulae as supplement and for support. Each koan is a universe in miniature. But what does it mean that the truth is One? This is what Gutei's finger is about. If we can understand Gutei's action and see into the attendant's finger, we shall see that this koan is the koan of our age, a shattered age searching for unity.

Whenever Gutei was asked a question he would raise a finger: what is the meaning of life, why was I born, why must I die, what is God, what is the Devil, what is good, what is evil? Always the same finger came up.

Tradition says that Gutei was alone practicing Zazen in the mountains. A nun came upon him and he asked her to rest and have supper with him. She said she would do so if he could say a word of Zen. Gutei was bewildered and didn't know what to say. The nun turned to leave and Gutei said "It's getting dark, why don't you stay overnight and leave in the morning?" The nun turned back and said again "If you can say a word of Zen, I will stay. If not, I will leave."

Again Gutei was unable to respond and the nun left. Ashamed of his inability to respond adequately, Gutei resolved to leave the mountain. However, he had a dream which told him a great master would visit him shortly. A few days later an old monk came by. His name was Tenryu. Gutei told him of his encounter with the nun and asked him for a word of Zen. Tenryu immediately held up a finger and Gutei was awakened.

From this time on Gutei also, whenever asked a question, would raise a finger. But why did he do this? What is the connection between Gutei's raising a finger and Tenryu's raising a finger? Are there two fingers - Gutei's and Tenryu's - or one? If two, then is not Gutei simply imitating Tenryu? If one, then how is it we see two fingers?

As well as a little more on Guti giving everyone the finger, Lowe goes on to establish that since the very beginning, humanity has craved this 'One' in its very marrow. He then goes on to hint that its pursuit can lead to problems... big big scary problems of the kind that even Scooby-Doo couldn't solve.

Gutei's assistant saw the One as one finger: Gutei severed the finger. The head monk (referred to in Hui-neng's autobiography) saw the One as a bright mirror. Hui-neng smashed the mirror. From teh beginning not a thing is, not even the One. Thou shalt not make a graven image... and yet we do just this, or have others do it for us, sometimes with ghastly consequences. A fraction of an inch is the difference between heaven and hell, or the Third Reich.

Just as there are those who would dismiss Gutei's assistant and the head monk as of no consequence, as two who had no real understanding, so most would want to dismiss Hitler as some ridiculous clown, strutting across the world stage left vacant for a moment by the true heroes of history. As tramps with ridiculous moustaches and an idealism perverted by the world of matter, he and Charlie Chaplin seemed to be twins: mirror images of the ridiculous reflecting the absurd. And so we laughed at the Great Dictator who, meanwhile, with a massive power never before equalled, crushed Europe.

He then goes on to talk about the ways we rationalise what happened as madness and idiocy and evil to deal with it all, all the while ignoring the fact that it was human nature that made the whole thing happen in the first place. Anyway, to the point on personality cults and their influence on people (this is also something Derren Brown does a lot of stuff on).

Some called Hitler mad, some said he was a Messiah, the incarnation of Oneness: "His never to be forgotten words affected me as the words of a prophet" "The Sun shone all the time he was there." "My belief is that our leader, Adolf Hitler, was given by fate to the German nation as our saviour bringing light to darkness" "The Fuhrer's act [which led to the murder of thousands of his closest followers] is not subject to the dispensation of justice for it was itself the highest form of justice." "He spoke less to the people's political convictions than to their spiritual state." A Hamburg school mistress was one among many who "had witnessed scenes of moving faith which showed Hitler as the helper, rescuer, redeemer from our overwhelming need." Nietzsche's sister said he struck her as being a religious leader rather than a political leader.

In the light of history, we know that some awful calamity occurred, a calamity stunning in its proportions. But what happened? Why did a civilized country follow him and even men of the stature of Heidegger support him?

Madman or prophet, buffoon or messiah, he must have struck some chord deep in the hearts of people. There must have been something beyond all the ranting and raving, the obscene and the spurious. If not, how are we to understand him?

What was extraordinary about Hitler was the speed with which everything was accomplished. It is this speed and the enormity of what evolved that shows the power of Oneness in human affairs. About 1920 Hitler entered politics: an unknown man who ten years earlier had been a tramp. He had no connections, no education, and no money. In twenty one years he had established supreme control over the German people and had an empire that covered Europe... and North Africa...

It is like the wind that blows where it will. It is this that gives the key to understanding prophets as well as demagogues. The speed with which Hitler accomplished everything is a property of catalysis. For example, take oxygen and hydrogen and a flash of energy and there is water. It is like the eruption of an idea. At one moment there is confusion and concern, and the next everything is clear and in order. This flash of insight, of energy, is Oneness at work.

"Hitler's catalyzing powers were indispensible, and everything: the will, the goal, the cohesion, instantly disappeared without the physical presence of Hitler [after his death]."
From Fest: "Hitler"

He then goes on to explore the fact that the idea of "the One" includes both good and evil, and to deny that is dangerous.

Anyway, to the real point... (and oddly a strange precursor to the plot of Fight Club in a way).

Recently an American history teacher conducted a course involving the Nazi era. The students, following a film showing Nazi atrocities, said that the fault lay with the German people and such a thing could never happen in America. The teacher, wanting to show the dynamics involved, conducted an experiment to show the mthods and motivations of the Nazis. With the agreement of his class he introduced vigorouos discipline, immediate response without thought, preferably of the yes and no variety, and unthinking obedience. He removed ambiguity and disorder, replacing them with certainty and security. As did the Nazis, he introduced symbols, slogans, and salutes, so that the class could identify with each other, the "movement" and the leader. After a while, when the movement had taken hold, he claimed it was part of a greater movement that was leading Americans towards a more simple and orderly life based on ideals of humanity and goodness. It is not difficult to see that below the surface of his actions he was arousing order, unity, identity, belongingness, togetherness - in a word, he was arousing Oneness. Order, pattern, structure, meaning, purpose are all ways Oneness manifests.

The teacher wanted the "experiment" to be a short one and just sufficient to give a vicarious taste of Nazism. To his amazement the Movement, which was called the "Wave" spread out from his class among the campus. More and more students became involved, shedding their individuality to become part of a greater whole which as it grew, increased in attraction.

And also as it grew some of its members became moreand more fanatical in their adherence to the Movement and those who were not interested found themselves ostracised, and minority groups began to suffer. In the end the school authorities became alarmed at the monster that was growing in their midst and decided the experiment should be called off.

In order to bring the experiment to an end in such a way as to make his point, the teacher, who was now ostensibly the local leader of the Wave, called a mass rally, which had all the characteristics of a miniature Nuremberg Rally. He said that at the meeting all members would see their national leader - and they did. After allowing tension, expectation and hope to increase to a point, the teacher suddenly flashed a photograph of this leader on to a large screen. It was a picture of Adolf Hitler.

By the way - the reference given for the University experiment says it's from a book 'based on fact' called "The Wave" by Rhue Morton.

[royhendo]

Honestly Manifest that post is phenomenal. Thanks and welcome back mardyfarquahar - it's a real treat to read (well I think so at least).

...In his shoes, with his story, if I was was roman, I'd feel like "Fuck. I spent more money than God ( the one who reputedly lives in the sky, not the anfield one ) on a team of some of the best footballers on the planet, I kept my head down, got out of the way, ...but there is this black hole of a manager who sucks all energy and light towards him and after all of what 'I' did, he gets ALL the credit, ALL the attention.......and whilst he's here, that won't change. I seriously believe that had there been one crumb of intelligence in the chelsea crowd,  they would have figured out that one "Roman Abrahmovitch" chant, three times a season, for one minute at a time, would have evaporated all of his problems with mourinho ....this while the chelsea crowd chanted jose's name more and more regularly. I bet romans stomach tightened in a knot more and more every time he heard it. This is the cult of personality that roy speaks of. But roman couldn't ever acknowledge this to himself or anyone else, and all the yes men around him were never going to say it. This very piece here is the reason why shankly's oft quoted words about owners should be seen (write cheques) but not be heard is so deeply perceptive about the nature of successful ventures.......in a football club, the "owners" need to leave their personalities at the door, their ego's ( their selfish needs for love and approval ) set aside for the greater good. We here at this great club have been taught a painful lesson in this very area, where in a nightmare scenario, we don't just have one owner whose own needs are greater than the needs of the club, we have two, for our sins.

It was beautifully done this. As I read I was thinking "this is a key point - the very strongest clubs in history have been owned by people with almost altruistic motives, or at least motives that were pliable enough to be motivated in altruistic ways". It's something Shanklyboy and Hank have both mused on and if it's OK it would be a good post to add to Shanklyboy's thread Manifest.

I did want to mention that when roy used the word fascist about mourinho, it had a little truth to it, though I cannot remember where I read it, but jose is fairly well known in portugal for his quite extreme right wing views, something that comes as no surprise seeing how he operates, gifted leader that he is. But, as colin wilson said about hitler and stalin etc. "there is nothing more dangerous than "Right" men," ie, men who believe they are right to the point where everyone else is wrong.

Mind you, he wrote that before the age of forums!!

Let the record state, your honour, that at no stage did I refer to our Jose as a fascist, or make any reference to his political beliefs.

What I'm talking about is the manipulation of human nature and the engendering of group catalysis. I'm of the firm belief that, when it's done right, it can set a powerful foundation for a group's development and lead to incredible feats in a short space of time.

McGeechan and Telfer with the 1997 British Lions is an example that came up regularly early in the thread and there are massive parallels, but it was a 'closed end' project where the guys all waved goodbye to one another at the end.

Mourinho on the other hand is tasked with open-ended and long-term sporting development, and until he finds owners who are willing to accomodate life in his shadow as Manifest illustrates so beautifully, he'll sew the seeds of his own downfall (and by extension jeopardise the very project he's setting the foundations for - which in my view ought to be the one thing cherished above all).

Anyway, superb stuff man, really appreciated it.

[Zeb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

Wiki link to the Third Wave experiment.

There has been a lot done on Nazism as a secular religion recently, but I'm not sure it really hangs together beyond certain basic human 'desires/needs'. Order, certainty, knowing your place are things which society is based upon. It's not really unique to Mourinho though to be honest. Ferguson has done a lot of this too - the "us against them" attitude he instills into his teams is just a refinement of what Mourinho has discovered. There is a lot of Mourinho in Ferguson, or vice versa. Some of the accounts of the St.Mirren regime under Ferguson indicate the nature of his own 'personality' cult.

Sorry, mad ramblings while I appreciate Xavi's skill. Those lads can play.

[royhendo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

Wiki link to the Third Wave experiment.

There has been a lot done on Nazism as a secular religion recently, but I'm not sure it really hangs together beyond certain basic human 'desires/needs'. Order, certainty, knowing your place are things which society is based upon. It's not really unique to Mourinho though to be honest. Ferguson has done a lot of this too - the "us against them" attitude he instills into his teams is just a refinement of what Mourinho has discovered. There is a lot of Mourinho in Ferguson, or vice versa. Some of the accounts of the St.Mirren regime under Ferguson indicate the nature of his own 'personality' cult.

Sorry, mad ramblings while I appreciate Xavi's skill. Those lads can play.

That's definitely true Zeb - and a lot of the St Mirren players would later follow him to Aberdeen - in some cases several years after - despite his autocratic behaviour there. Interesting eh?

It's certainly not unique to Mourinho and that's not what I mean - all I'm saying is he does a great job of manipulating these things to get impressive results in a very short space of time. It's an insight into what creates 'a movement', and indeed a personality cult. It's a harsh thing to say but the point is, it brings with it a negative aspect when there's too much emphasis on a single focal point, you know?

[royhendo]

It's funny Zeb cos I was just writing a post on the parallels between Mourinho's early work at Chelsea and McGeechan/Telfer with the 97 Lions (we did a lot on that in the early pages of the thread)... and then extending it to more serious 'projects' such as the USA's 101st Airborne Division as portrayed in Band of Brothers.

All the same principles apply:

- shared foundations/folklore
- clear shared goals
- firm leadership but rules agreed by, delegated to and enforced by the group themselves
- shared vocabulary/symbology/modes of communication/rituals
- engendering of solidarity within the group - positive responses to hardship in 'legendary' ways that build the folklore...

It's interesting eh? Apologies as I don't have any schooling in these things - I just find it interesting.

[Zeb]

That's definitely true Zeb - and a lot of the St Mirren players would later follow him to Aberdeen - in some cases several years after - despite his autocratic behaviour there. Interesting eh?

It's certainly not unique to Mourinho and that's not what I mean - all I'm saying is he does a great job of manipulating these things to get impressive results in a very short space of time. It's an insight into what creates 'a movement', and indeed a personality cult. It's a harsh thing to say but the point is, it brings with it a negative aspect when there's too much emphasis on a single focal point, you know?

I certainly agree with the general thrust of your argument roy. But I can think of counter-examples. Shankly had a personality cult, and though it has later been reviled, was there perhaps some wisdom in removing him from the club quite so completely after his decision to step down? To contrast with this, we have the Busby example from Manchester which also had strong elements of a dominant personality seeming to 'drive' things forward but the cult continuing to the detriment of the club.

As other more eloquent posters have highlighted, Chelsea as a club does not structurally seem to be designed to have durability. One could clearly point the finger at Abramovich, just as one could at Walker at Blackburn. It does seem like Abramovich has been taking chairman tips from his genial predecessor at Chelsea and current man in charge at Leeds. Even without the chairman as a factor, you could look at Clough at Forest for an example of what happens when the personality is removed but the structure has not been developed to sustain success. Whether O'Neill will be able to learn from his mentor's mistakes is yet to be seen, but it's obvious that he's learnt some key lessons which he's implementing now.

There is a negative impact when the 'personality' is removed, or steps down, but if the underlying structure is solid and the replacement subscribes to the 'vision' that's when you get success over long periods. The problem is finding the successor of adequate quality, a problem the Mancs will have in abundance in the not to distant future.

It's certainly interesting to read how people view the motivational side of the game though. I don't think that Rafa does rely overly on a 'personality cult' with the players, but as a method to focus the fans I think it actually has more advantages than disadvantages at the moment. Providing Rafa stays on the right path

---

edit: I have no schooling in psychology, I'm actually a medieval historian cum linguist by education who stumbled into military history and makes a small living from it while otherwise hors de combat from work. Seeing people interweaving so many different skillsets on these threads is something which intrigues, fascinates and delights me. And I'd like to thank you all for that

[royhendo]

I'll second that Zeb!

The thing is, I'm concerned that people think this is an attack on Mourinho or on others who've harnessed these forces to their group's advantage. Personally I reckon it's a massively powerful toolkit for knitting a group together... but for long-term sustainability I'd argue it's better to strike a balance between the influence of the central charismatic leader and the alternative (which is what I'd argue we have at LFC) - that of high expectations of professionalism and an almost Darwinian approach to squad building.

We've discussed the flip side of the post-Mourinho decline (and it's amazing to think that 2nd in the league and runner up in the European Cup is seen as a decline by the way, isn't it?) in the post-Michels and post-Sacchi 'upsurge' at Ajax and Milan. The disciplinarian leaves and the players experience relative freedom, and maybe you get a short-term upsurge in performance...? I don't know really - but I think Capello is a good example of a coach who strikes the right balance, and I think it's much the same with Rafa. If they were both motivated to do a single job for the long-term (not the case with Capello these days I know), you'd feel they'd put foundations in place for the system to continue beyond their departure. I think Milan have seen that kind of sustained success as a result of the consolidating work he put in, no?

The Shanks situation feels a little taboo somehow doesn't it? I don't know about you guys, but it's something that's difficult to confront... which maybe highlights the almost spiritual realm the bloke represents.

Regardless, I'm keen to emphasise that in the sporting context, it's not a negative thing - I'm just saying it's potentially a short-term thing that yields phenomenal results, but can bring with it massive problems if it's not managed carefully.

[manifest]

To achieve enlightenment, you have to give up all attachments apparently, so we're all fucked until we give up the prop in our lives that is Liverpool FC. Ah the irony...

no. I can correct you there. liverpool is the path to enlightenment, man utd. are the props, rawk the collective unconscious. 

[JP-65]

I'll second that Zeb!

The thing is, I'm concerned that people think this is an attack on Mourinho or on others who've harnessed these forces to their group's advantage. Personally I reckon it's a massively powerful toolkit for knitting a group together... but for long-term sustainability I'd argue it's better to strike a balance between the influence of the central charismatic leader and the alternative (which is what I'd argue we have at LFC) - that of high expectations of professionalism and an almost Darwinian approach to squad building.

We've discussed the flip side of the post-Mourinho decline (and it's amazing to think that 2nd in the league and runner up in the European Cup is seen as a decline by the way, isn't it?) in the post-Michels and post-Sacchi 'upsurge' at Ajax and Milan. The disciplinarian leaves and the players experience relative freedom, and maybe you get a short-term upsurge in performance...? I don't know really - but I think Capello is a good example of a coach who strikes the right balance, and I think it's much the same with Rafa. If they were both motivated to do a single job for the long-term (not the case with Capello these days I know), you'd feel they'd put foundations in place for the system to continue beyond their departure. I think Milan have seen that kind of sustained success as a result of the consolidating work he put in, no?

The Shanks situation feels a little taboo somehow doesn't it? I don't know about you guys, but it's something that's difficult to confront... which maybe highlights the almost spiritual realm the bloke represents.

Regardless, I'm keen to emphasise that in the sporting context, it's not a negative thing - I'm just saying it's potentially a short-term thing that yields phenomenal results, but can bring with it massive problems if it's not managed carefully.

They are not mutually exclusive though, and the combination, rare as it is, is extremely powerful. 

[royhendo]

This is possibly my favourite page in the thread so far.

JP - I know you have examples to hand... care to elaborate?

[Zeb]

Just from the field of military history, this is an article on the Prussian General Staff and how the structure was solid enough to provide 150 years of excellence. It's probably not going to appeal to all, but I'll throw it in because it may have some indirect relevance to the thread and how to institutionalise excellence:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/lind.html

[tea_tree]

Oh no, of course everyone knows he has nothing to prove. He is arguably the best manager in the world currently. The amount of success he's had in so many different jobs is unreal. I'd say he'll do a good job, but obviously the league title is pretty much finished for them now. It'll be interesting to see how quickly he has an effect on the squad and how they fare in europe.

However, as I said, should he fail, it wouldn't change anything in my eyes. I doubt there's a single manager in the world who could revolutionise this Chelsea squad into something credible in such a short space of time. If he were to do it, it would be nothing short of miraculous. I guess in that sense it certainly is a real test to just how amazing a manager he really is.

Sorry to interupt. I read this post and something didn't seem right. On what basis can Hiddink be considered one of the best managers in the world? That sounds like a gross overstatement and overestimation of his abilities especially based on what he has actually achieved. He has not really had THAT much success to be placed in that bracket has he?

[shanklyboy]

Just from the field of military history, this is an article on the Prussian General Staff and how the structure was solid enough to provide 150 years of excellence. It's probably not going to appeal to all, but I'll throw it in because it may have some indirect relevance to the thread and how to institutionalise excellence:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/lind.html

Some brilliant stuff in here.
I love the Prussian General staff analogy Zeb.
I'm currently trying to put together Part 2 of an earlier thread and the similarities are striking.

Roy.....I don't know what your Mrs thinks but if your kids ever want a FarmYard story before they go to bed........don't read them The Iron Cow of Zen for fucksake..........my heads in bits!

[Manila Kop]

Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any better...

Roy, Manifest, Zeb - thanks for all that, truly a great way to get my mind humming for the day ahead!  I should dust off my copy of 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' and post some relevant passages on Hitler's personality cult for comparison.

[Manila Kop]

Okay, just saw Villa's goal against England, and Xabi's smart interception and sniper-rifle assist to him.  I always thought we should have gotten Villa instead of Keane, if we were going to buy a strike partner for Torres (cost aside) and they all play so well together for Spain that I just can't help thinking how good it would be seeing them link up at Anfield  Ah well.

[-Sad Fuck-]

Does anyone think one of the main things defenders need to do in order to attain level three football is to be able to keep possession of the ball with relative ease?

I think at the moment we keep the ball relatively easy, but this is only due to often having Alonso so fucking deep, we've got that extra man to pass it to and fro when the other team's backed off. Just wondering whether or not if our defence develops to a degree where their ability to regain possession, then being able to keep it with relative ease, would result in possibly one of our two defensive midfielders pushing into a rather more adventurous position.

I basically got the idea after watching the Spain game tonight. They were missing Puyol, and Marchena didn't start, who are arguably the two centrebacks most easily compared with your typical English centreback, good header, positioning, strong etc....

Instead, they started with Pique and Albiol, along with Capdevilla and Ramos on the flanks. When I first saw that back four, I admitted I thought Heskey might cause some problems, but I was pleasantly suprised. The ability of the two full backs, along with the ability to keep possession so well, as the intelligence and fantastic reading of the game they possess, they didn't have too much trouble. Okay, you could argue that had they backed off a bit too much when Cole was played through, along with SWP getting a shot away too easily in the second half, but the fact that England found it so hard to get the ball in the first place is obviously a good form of defence. With the plethora of midfielder who keep the ball as good as any midfield I've ever seen in my life, and you're pretty sorted.

We actually have something very close to this, or at least I believe we do. Daniel Agger and Martin Skrtel are two of the finest centrebacks in Europe with the balls at their feet. Agger's fairly well spoken for, most of us know what he can do, and why it'll be a fucking tragedy should he leave. Skrtel on the other hand's a fairly different story. He's built up this profile of being some sort of madosadistic sociopathic baby eating machine, which does him no justice. He seems to be getting comparisons with Vidic, which I'm not sure why, they're not that alike, I only presume it's due to their demograpghic locations. I don't think Skrtel's as good on the ball as Agger, but he's not that far behind, and what he loses out on from Agger he makes up in other defensive areas, such as being slightly better a heading, possibly slightly quicker and stronger too. (BTW, a couple of quick examples of Skrtel's ability on the ball are both of our goals at WHL last season, which were i] Voronin, about 1:15 through this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKezZ2QMTXQ&feature=related and ii] Torres, which I couldn't locate, but Skrtel breaks on the counter ald lays if off to Yossi).

Arbeloa's awesome at this. He's never going to be as quick as Micah Richards, or as dynamic as Daniel Alves, but his consistency and ability to keep the ball is so important, I think many of our fans dismiss how good he really is. Okay, so you might not have him play week in week out, but I think it's important tonight that he showed us he can play left back as well, looking like he's played there his entire career whilst doing so. Insua/Aurelio/Dossena are obviously plenty for down the left, so I'm guessing Johnson on the right would tick all the boxes for this 'Back four' which is pretty good defensively, but better at retaining possession and creating opportunities for other members of the team.

Sorry if that's hard to comprehend, it's pretty late, haha.

[mercury]

Very very insightful stuff from manifest. 

Yes, conciously or unconciously we all neglect Abramnovich (perhaps we all wish him away so Chelsea will implode) but when he is the real soul behind Chelsea's recent rise?

The scenario at Chelsea in effect is perfect for Hiddink.  It is not unsimilar to a national set up:  it's not about building and dealing with what you have, and often within a defined period too.  And after Graham (no mark coach who in fact has done quite well), Scolari (high repute coach),  the silde on the league and quite some elapse of time since Mourihno, now is a good time to come in.  I expect Hiddink to do well.

Quickly skim the Prussian General Staff model.  There are similaries to the Administrative Officer system:  elitist and life tenure; the important aspect of it is its selection criteria /culture:  frankness and out of the box (institutionalising different opinions).  This has its own baggage but as one piece of the puzzle in the entire system and if it remain true to its remit, this can work.

[LF]

 

Hitler and Stalin.

It's interesting but I've seen how many people have taken to Mourinho after he left Chelsea. Astonishing how people who once swore they hated his guts loved him suddenly.

Sam Allerduci spouting his usual nonsense drove me to safety in this thread (He was whittering about Rafa wouldn't have rested an English striker against Portsmouth....)

How would people rate this Spanish team then? The exciting thing for me is that they've got a lot of youth in this team, perhaps sufficient to go for the next two world cups?

The best teams don't necessarily win the world cup. You never know when their current generation can go down a notch or two, why only 4-5 years ago the likes of Joaquin, Raul, Tristan etc seemed untouchable.  In football things and perception can change before you know it. If things go well, the majority of the Euro 2008 squad could go on to the 2014 world cup.

Sorry to interupt. I read this post and something didn't seem right. On what basis can Hiddink be considered one of the best managers in the world? That sounds like a gross overstatement and overestimation of his abilities especially based on what he has actually achieved. He has not really had THAT much success to be placed in that bracket has he?

Why not? He has a proven track record at club and international level. The Eredivisie of the 80's isn't the one of today. It was quite good, Ajax had Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkaard and Bergkamp etc. Got the European cup as well, add up South Korea's brilliant 4th placed finish in the 2002 world cup and even getting Russia qualified from a group also containing Croatia and England, going on to the semi's in the Euro's.

[Manila Kop]

LF, just to balance the Hiddink love-in a bit...

June 30, 2008
Guus Hiddink is one of the best . . . isn’t he?
Gabriele Marcotti

Arsène Wenger once told me that there was only one way to judge how good a manager is: give each one in a league the same sum of money, tell him to assemble a team and then see who is top at the end of the season.

Alas, because we cannot do that, we have to rely on subjective tools. And even those are imperfect. A modicum of media savvy and a dash of spin can make anyone look better or worse than they are. Let me prove it to you.

Guus Hiddink is one of the best managers in the game

You need only to see his teams play to realise that he is one of the shrewdest tactical minds in the game. And he is a phenomenal motivator as well, a man who gives players the self-belief that enables them to overachieve.

But do not take my word for it. Look at his record. His first managerial stint at a big club was with PSV Eindhoven in 1987. He took over in March, they won the title in May. The next year they did the treble, winning the Dutch Cup and European Cup as well as the league. And the next season they did the double. What more do you want?

He went to Valencia – new league, new country – and took them into the top four two years in a row. Later, he went to Real Madrid and they won the World Club Cup. He returned to PSV in 2002 for four seasons, winning three league titles. And in 2004-05 he took them to the Champions League semi-finals, going out on the away goals rule to AC Milan, the eventual champions.

And that is just as club level. Some of his best work has come with national teams. He took Holland to the quarter-finals of Euro ’96 and the semi-finals of the 1998 World Cup, both times going out on penalties. In 2002 he took South Korea to the semi-finals of the World Cup. And four years later he helped Australia to qualify for the World Cup for the first time, getting them into the knockout phase.

Plus there was Euro 2008. First he helped a mediocre Russia team to qualify for the tournament ahead of England, then he took them to the semi-finals, knocking out heavily favoured Holland along the way.

Hiddink clearly is a serial overachiever and one of the best in the business. Or there is the counterview . . .

Guus Hiddink is a self-promoting opportunist

There is a reason why one Dutch commentator dubbed him Guus Geluk (after the Disney character, Gladstone Gander, Donald Duck’s far luckier cousin). Like Forrest Gump, he is in the right place at the right time.

For a start, you need to take those PSV titles with a grain of salt. PSV had won two on the bounce before he took over, so all he did was keep things going. And besides, with all due respect, Dutch titles are a dime a dozen.

That is why good Dutch managers go abroad and win things. And Hiddink is not one of them. He spent four seasons at Valencia and Fenerbahçe and never finished higher than fourth. OK, he won the World Club Cup with Real Madrid. Big deal. He was sacked halfway through the season, that is how bad they were. And how about his stint at Real Betis? Three months of futility with a team who finished eighteenth.

You want to talk about his exploits in Europe? OK, he did win the European Cup 20 years ago, but that was when it was a lot easier to do so, when there was only one club from each of the big leagues. And, by the way, that season he did not win a single game after the second round, only a series of boring draws. In fact, in his entire career he has won only one European Cup or Champions League match from the quarter-final stage onwards. Is this is your definition of genius?

But I am glad that you have brought up the national team because it is good to debunk a few more myths. He had one of the most talented Holland teams in history and won only one match out of four at Euro ’96. And at France ’98 he did knock out Yugoslavia and Argentina on the way to the semi-finals. He did it thanks to late, late goals, which may help to explain his Guus Geluk moniker.

South Korea? OK, you need a barrelful of salt for that one. Or have you forgotten the refereeing against Portugal, Spain and Italy? Three red cards, two penalties and a dozen or so dubious officiating decisions . . .

As for getting Australia to the World Cup, effectively he had to overcome only one team to do it (and, even then, it took penalties). Once there, what did the Socceroos do? They beat Japan – the only match they won in the tournament.

Russia? Don’t be deceived by their run to the Euro 2008 semi-finals. They won only two of their five games in 90 minutes – against Greece and Sweden. Oh, and before you say how these are great results because Russia and South Korea are poor teams whom Hiddink turned into competitive sides, consider instead that two of the past four Uefa Cup winners are Russian and that South Korea have qualified for every World Cup since 1986 (which is more than can be said for France, England and Holland).

The bottom line is that Hiddink’s greatest strength is self-promotion. With the complicity of a lazy and gullible media, he cultivates the image of a footballing sage when in fact his results indicate the opposite. The point of all this? We know and we don’t know. We don’t really see managers, except through the distorted lens of our own prejudices and bias, their own self-promotion (or lack thereof) and the cacophony of spin. And spin, as I hopefully showed above, can make someone such as Hiddink look like a visionary or an opportunist.

[LF]

that article is pure and utter bullshit. 

Winning league titles is no easy business what a load of shit that is. His PSV team beat out a brilliant Ajax team managed by Cruyff. Oh and look at him talking bout the European cup. From his great logic the European cups won by Milan = zilch?

Why would it matter how he won games as long as he won the games? I don't think he is a genius or whatever. But he is a damn good manager who has had major success whatever way you look at it.

Again how does it matter how did the Dutch knock out Argentina? All that matters in the end is he led the Dutch to the semi's in 98 where they lost unfortunately in penalties to Brazil. Same in Euro 96 to France. Let's not forget Euro 96 had one of the most talented English and Scottish sides in memory. The Dutch side was good, but they weren't overwhelming favourites.

Do we really have to take any of these controversial decisions into account? Almost every successful manager has had controversial decisions to go their way. If we were to nitpick we could take away lots of trophies and cups from many successful managers. End of the day he got South Korea to defy all fucking odds and almost took down Germany in the semis.

Does he not understand the magnitude of Hiddink's achievements with Australia? He got them to qualify from a group containing Brazil, Croatia and Japan. Something he neglects to mention. Does he think Japan are minnows in football? Spoken like a true guy with no understanding of Asian football. They are on par with Australia and many European nations. It was one of the toughest groups in the world cup, with all the other 3 teams having the quality to qualify. Australia's first true big international tournament and almost led them to beat Italy in the second round.

Russia. He got them to qualify from a group containing Croatia and England. England and Croatia were the favourites to qualify. You know with words cunning people can create lots of false impressions which seems quite logical at first. Love how he cleverly takes only 90 minutes of football into account. Maybe he expects me not to remember Russia beating a very good Dutch side? So that's 3 wins out of 5. Reminding ourselves who Russia played in the Euro's - Spain, Sweden, Greece, Holland and Spain. 3 European champions and Sweden. Ibrahimovic. So 3 wins out 5 is not bad is it? Losing to Spain isn't bad either. They were the best team in the Euro's.

And yes they were great results for Russia and South Korea. Both were their most successful ever showings in International football. South Korea may have qualified for all the world cups since 86, but they were always beaten senseless in the world cups. They had never won a match in the world cup and 2002 they held their own against the best and won their first ever match on route to a 4th placed finish knocking out Italy and Spain. Big achievements.

The bottom line is that I've seen many poor articles but this one is right there among the top. With the complicity of lazy journalism and gullible people, he has cultivated the image of Hiddink as an opportunistic lucky man when in fact his results indicate the opposite. The point of all this? Gabriele Marcotti is a bitter Italian, who can't fathom the fact that South Korea under Hiddink beat Italy in 2002.


edit - It seems in my haste I made lots of schoolboy spelling mistakes. 

[kavah]

The Times

...And in 2004-05 he took them to the Champions League semi-finals, going out on the away goals rule to AC Milan, the eventual champions.

 

[royhendo]

Marcotti loves these devil's advocate positions, doesn't he? He argued a while back that Hiddink as an attacking coach was also a myth, because PSV made it through to the European Cup under him having barely even won a game during their run (always qualifying on pens or away goals)... anyway - he's a good coach. Personally I feel any assertions of 'best' is opening a can of worms.

[Hank Scorpio]

Degs,

Remember when you called Alonso 'Mad Xabi' in reference to how he played for Spain?

You know what we have?  We have 'Half Xabi'.  A player who we are only using to half his full potential.  This could to do with the players he has around him but there is not much doubt there is so much more to Alonso than what we see on a regular basis at Anfield.

[Hank Scorpio]

Arbeloa's awesome at this. He's never going to be as quick as Micah Richards, or as dynamic as Daniel Alves, but his consistency and ability to keep the ball is so important, I think many of our fans dismiss how good he really is. Okay, so you might not have him play week in week out, but I think it's important tonight that he showed us he can play left back as well, looking like he's played there his entire career whilst doing so. Insua/Aurelio/Dossena are obviously plenty for down the left, so I'm guessing Johnson on the right would tick all the boxes for this 'Back four' which is pretty good defensively, but better at retaining possession and creating opportunities for other members of the team.

Arbeloa is one of the players who hinders us in possession imo.  He more often than not has a 'poor' touch.  What I mean is that his touch/passing is not in tune with positive possession football.  He can keep the ball but what he generally does is kill the flow of the move by either having a 'poor' first touch (ball going 3 feet off the ground delaying the time for the next touch) or hesitating in making his decision for the next pass.  While players like Alonso have the next pass in their heads before they receive the ball, Arbeloa tends to decide what to do with the ball when he receives it.

Jamie Carragher is also good at keeping the ball but I would not necessarily describe him as good in possession.

[royhendo]

This Agger stuff is getting me down... ah well - a bit of escapism never did anyone any harm... well... it probably did... but still... if Gerrard ever did accept a role on the right, then...

[Aside - actually, it'd be interesting to hear Shanklyboy's views on whether we came close to bringing this lad in during the last couple of seasons...]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/feb/12/sid-low-fernando-torres-spain-england-benitez

Crowd shows up well, as does Torres' perfect partner

Rafael Benítez may have been worried about his striker's fitness, but he'd be better off wondering how to get David Villa to Anfield

 
With every minute Rafael Benítez grew more concerned but, like those who feared a repeat of the racist chanting that marred the last meeting between these two countries in 2004, he need not have worried. Fernando Torres did not break down last night. Instead, he was withdrawn after 64 minutes to a roar of approval from ­Andalucía and a sigh of relief from Anfield. Vicente del Bosque insisted that he will return to Liverpool in "perfect" condition, more than capable of playing two games a week for the rest of the season.

The credibility of Benítez's insistence that his team have the attacking power to maintain a title challenge, even in the absence of the offloaded Robbie Keane and the injured Steven Gerrard, was not stretched further by a setback for the man on whom much of their hopes now rest. Nor was Spain's reputation damaged further by racist abuse. Instead, there was a fiesta; whistling of God Save the Queen and mocking of David Beckham was as bad as it got.

But if Torres survived unscathed, he did not carry his usual dynamic threat, that little burst of pace and assuredness of touch still to return after a season in which he has suffered the same hamstring injury three times. Unlike the man who replaced him, Fernando Llorente, Torres did not score; more importantly, though, unlike Llorente nor did he depart hobbling. "Torres played 70 minutes and was fine; our only concern is for Llorente," the Spain coach said.

Torres was a willing runner at the England defence. Lively, he drew blocks from John Terry and Glen Johnson, and almost found a way through with a sharp turn. But he was not the striker who scored 33 club goals last season and then Spain's most important goal in 44 years, to win the European Championship. Small wonder Benítez is so keen to protect him; no surprise Seville was so keen to see him.

Del Bosque spent much of the build-up defusing rumours of a falling out with Benítez. The Liverpool coach complained bitterly that Torres was not ready for a call-up; Del Bosque picked him to start, while his suggestion that giving Torres a long run-out "might be good for him" would have positively infuriated Benítez. As the second half started, Spain boasted four Liverpool players including, perhaps unexpectedly, Torres. The week's accusations provided the backdrop to Del Bosque's broad, mischievous smile as he reported the striker's clean bill of health afterwards.

Rather than vent his fury at Spain, Benítez's energies could be better channelled into persuading David Villa to reproduce his partnership with Torres on ­Merseyside. A huge outlay and subsequent loss on Keane looks folly against talent like this; Villa might cost more, but he is certain to leave Valencia and goals come guaranteed. Privately, he prefers to remain in Spain but England has not been ruled out.

The top scorer at Euro 2008, Villa has 145 goals in 269 games at smaller clubs. Forever on his toes, swift and alert, Terry and Jagielka simply could not deal with him. He slotted home coolly from Andrés Iniesta's clever pass after 25 minutes, only for the linesman to rule it out. But he was not to be denied. A pass from Xabi Alonso took him well beyond Terry, then he turned Jagielka inside out and finished smoothly.

It was his 25th goal for Spain in 42 games and he set a national record by scoring in his sixth successive match. Villa did every­thing Benítez would have liked to have seen Torres do – including walk off after 55 minutes. Torres would have wait a few minutes more. So, too, would a concerned Benítez.

Edit... just saw this MK - Sid evidently agrees...

Okay, just saw Villa's goal against England, and Xabi's smart interception and sniper-rifle assist to him.  I always thought we should have gotten Villa instead of Keane, if we were going to buy a strike partner for Torres (cost aside) and they all play so well together for Spain that I just can't help thinking how good it would be seeing them link up at Anfield  Ah well.

[royhendo]

Just from the field of military history, this is an article on the Prussian General Staff and how the structure was solid enough to provide 150 years of excellence. It's probably not going to appeal to all, but I'll throw it in because it may have some indirect relevance to the thread and how to institutionalise excellence:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/lind.html

This was really interesting Zeb, thanks. Personally I reckon there are parallels to be drawn with our own situation. You can't truly implement the right structure in this model until you've genuinely implemented an objective meritocracy... that is, where politics and departmental trade-offs no longer play a part in decision making. You can then make unfettered decisions based on what's right in the context of each problem you face - you're not blocking people's progress from the Academy for politics' sake, for example.

The description of their JCS reminded me of Feynman's investigation into NASA after the Challenger disaster - a kind of institutional paralysis that had developed as a by-product of its beaurocratic structures and processes.

It also made me think of the chapter in Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" where a Gulf-style war game is played out between the full military machinery and a single 'rogue' general tasked with reacting intuitively, and the rogue general wins.

[Manila Kop]

It also made me think of the chapter in Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" where a Gulf-style war game is played out between the full military machinery and a single 'rogue' general tasked with reacting intuitively, and the rogue general wins.

I know that one.  Then the Defense Department reran the scenario but modified the rules to neutralize the insurgent strategy the 'Iraqi' commander used in the first exercise.  Exercise declared a success, then they used the results to build up support for the invasion. 

Re: the Sid Lowe article Roy, I was actually a bit disappointed with it.  He usually puts a bit more meat in his stuff.  There wasn't much analysis on how well Torres and Villa play together (I remember that being a big issue during the Euros) and how he could conceivably slot into the Liverpool line-up as it currently stands.  Of course, an argument could be made that attackers of their quality would function well together especially when surrounded by their national teammates in the club setup, but it does create a dilemma between 'optimizing' 4-2-3-1 or reverting to a 4-4-2 as our default.

[royhendo]

I know what you mean MK - I guess it's just a way to hook the Liverpool angle with his admiration of Villa, which is a hobby horse for him eh?

The Agger stuff... he's been pretty outspoken on the subject it seems and there's no hiding from the issue now you'd think.

[BazC]

Fucking hell. Really enjoyed this page.

Roy, that post on 'Oneness' was immense and that example of Nazism very interesting. I suppose I have to be careful with how I proceed with that last sentence, but if we consider the raw human natures of why so many people followed Hitler in Germany, I think we can start understanding more. I've studied the Nazis along with the historical precursor that led to Hitler's rise to power. I have to say, the way he fostered his ideals into a nation were spectacular. Not only playing on, but propagating then developing ill feelings towards certain ethnic groups (they were easily taken on board by the Germans- there was a massive economic crisis and Hitler provided a way out, but then the way his party got the beliefs instilled into the youth was also very important to consider). In short, the way he took control of and dictated such a country was incredible. Not only because he did it, but because he could do it.

It's very much intwined with considerations of human nature and why we do what we do in groups. Indeed, my posts a page or so back regarding Rafa as a leader and the idea of groups is very much on the same page as all this stuff. The human relations movement and research into groups and conformity is very interesting to delve into. No doubt Mourinho will have encountered this stuff- I believe he has a degree in psychology.

Good stuff.