quote:

Showing who’s boss
MARTIN JOL

Suffering on the sidelines is part of the job, but the best coaches at this tournament are the ones who know how to respond when things are going wrong

To the rest of the world Rinus Michels was the father of Total Football. In Holland he had two names, “the Bulldog” and “the Sphinx”. As these suggest, he was strong and never flinched. He was the toughest coach in the world, believe me.
Michels’ Dutch team were champions at the last finals held in Germany — Euro 88 — and the coach who prevails in Berlin next Sunday will be one who has shown some of his qualities. Before Holland’s first match in 1988 Michels dropped Marco van Basten to play a striker called Johnny Bosman. Holland lost 1-0 to the USSR and when the squad got back to their hotel, Van Basten packed his suitcase. “I’m going home,” he said. Michels stopped him. “Marco,” he said, “a player with your quality will always bounce back,” and Van Basten thought, “Wait, that’s right”. He took his suitcase back to his room, went out and trained like a demon, and won his place in the team. The rest is history.

The story shows how coaching is about balance. Management depends on how you turn situations to your advantage. You must keep your authority but also solve problems. This World Cup is being decided not only on the pitch but also in the dugouts, and the coaches who have had the greatest say are examples of what I’m talking about. For me, Luis Felipe Scolari is the most like Michels. He is not tough because he thinks he should act tough — it’s because he is tough.

Along with Jürgen Klinsmann, Scolari was the coach who had the biggest influence on his team during the group stages and second round. Like Klinsmann, he is always jumping and shouting at the sidelines and his emotion inspires his players. When he makes substitutions and tactical changes they always affect the game.

There’s a contrast with Van Basten, who did little but stand with a poker face as Scolari’s Portugal eliminated Holland. Van Basten is strong like Michels but lacks the old master’s flexibility. For example, before Holland’s final group game with Argentina he decided to rest Arjen Robben because he was on a yellow card and stuck to it even though bringing Robben on in the last 20 minutes may have given Holland victory and a much easier game against Mexico in the second round. Contrast this with Sven-Göran Eriksson, who was prepared to be flexible against Sweden. Steven Gerrard was on a yellow but Sven put him on because England needed him and Gerrard scored.

After the Argentina match Van Basten made another mistake. In his press conference he said he was “disappointed” with Ruud van Nistelrooy. A journalist asked: “Have you told Ruud that?” and he admitted he had not. Van Basten went and apologised to Ruud and Ruud said: “Okay, but please apologise in front of the group.” Van Basten promised but at the next training session said nothing. As it finished Ruud said: “Hey, Marco, didn’t you forget something?” and finally Van Basten had to make his apology. But he “punished” Ruud by refusing to play him against Portugal, even as a substitute. A more experienced coach than Van Basten might have handled things differently.

Germany is Klinsmann’s first coaching job and he handled Michael Ballack brilliantly when the midfielder came back from a break following their final warm-up match and reported he had a calf strain. The trouble was that Ballack did this instead of reporting his injury immediately after the friendly — he had fancied a couple of days with his family — and reckoned he was a big enough player to get away with it. But Klinsmann dropped him. Then, having made his point, he brought Ballack back in and, from that moment, he was Germany’s best player. You have to be brave.

Talking of bravery, Klinsmann kept on attacking Argentina on Friday even though the South Americans had the better quality players and control of the game. This meant Germany would leave spaces at the back, but Klinsmann had no fear and seized the initiative. He made three substitutions, all of them positive players who had an impact on the game, and kept urging his players forward. Even then you could not see where Germany’s goal would come from until Miroslav Klose equalised, but Klinsmann said afterwards: “I knew we would score.” In football, as in life, he seems to have faith in being positive and Friday was his reward.

Jose Pekerman, whom he defeated, was tactically in a class of his own during this World Cup but let himself down. For the first time he was negative. At the crucial moment he substituted Juan Roman Riquelme for a defensive player and didn’t use Lionel Messi. Overall, I admired Pekerman. His side were like a football machine with their fluid way of changing formations and positions. Pekerman proved himself a tactical expert even if he lost his nerve.

Marcello Lippi is shrewd. Usually, he is a man-manager figure but when Daniele de Rossi was sent off against the USA, Lippi wouldn’t speak to him. He was inflexible on purpose. “I will leave De Rossi to stew,” he said. “What he did was bad for Italy and I don’t need him.”

Carlos Alberto Parreira did the opposite in standing behind Ronaldo and Adriano when they weren’t playing well, and Raymond Domenech did similar with Zinedine Zidane and Patrick Vieira. All of these players scored goals to reward their coaches’ faith.

How does Sven compare? Well, tactically and technically you can’t say England offer anything new. Sometimes they’ve played what I call “coincidence football”. They haven’t been adventurous and they’ve just waited for things to happen.

But in the Sweden game Sven passed a big test of management when Wayne Rooney showed dissent after being substituted. Sven chose not to address the matter publicly but I’m almost 100% certain he did something behind closed doors to show Rooney he was wrong. Why? Because Rooney came out in the next game and ran his socks off for the team. Sven is probably more a man-manager than people think.

bron: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29497-2252504,00.html

quote:

Op zondag 2 juli 2006 12:18 schreef Bep het volgende:
Dat gezeik ook altijd , als nederland een doelpuntje meer had gescoort dan was Marco de hemel in geprezen.

quote:

Ik denk dat Martin Jol hier een punt heeft. Een meer ervaren coach zou meer uit het Nederlands Elftal gehaald hebben dan Marco. Hoe hij sommige spelers heeft behandeld ( van Bommel & van Nistelrooij) is naar mijn mening onacceptabel, bij elk ander land hadden ze van Basten er nu gewoon uitgegooid.

quote:

Op zondag 2 juli 2006 12:42 schreef knowall het volgende:
Gedurfd hoor, kritiek geven op de verliezende trainer met alle 'achteraf-kennis' die je hebt. Waar was Jol trouwens met z'n kritiek toen Oranje nog alle wedstrijden won?

quote:

Op zondag 2 juli 2006 12:53 schreef Nyrem het volgende:

[..]

Dat heet analyseren?

quote:

After the Argentina match Van Basten made another mistake. In his press conference he said he was “disappointed” with Ruud van Nistelrooy. A journalist asked: “Have you told Ruud that?” and he admitted he had not. Van Basten went and apologised to Ruud and Ruud said: “Okay, but please apologise in front of the group.” Van Basten promised but at the next training session said nothing. As it finished Ruud said: “Hey, Marco, didn’t you forget something?” and finally Van Basten had to make his apology. But he “punished” Ruud by refusing to play him against Portugal, even as a substitute. A more experienced coach than Van Basten might have handled things differently.

quote:

Op zondag 2 juli 2006 12:57 schreef Ludacriss het volgende:
Wat een gezeik over dat achteraf kritiek geven. Er moet toch eerst gespeelt worden voor je kritiek kan geven? Of zie ik dat nu verkeerd?

Van mij mag van Basten het in 2008 nog een keer proberen... als het daar weer niet lukt moet ie naar mijn mening weg.

quote:

Op zondag 2 juli 2006 17:18 schreef egilio het volgende:
Hij begint iig verkeerd. Ik ken iig niet de bijnamen "the bulldog" en de "sphinx" van michels....Wel de "Generaal"....

quote:

Op zondag 2 juli 2006 12:40 schreef Cubewoods het volgende:

[..]

Waarom is het al die andere ervaren trainers dan ook niet gelukt met Nederland?

quote:

Op zondag 2 juli 2006 12:42 schreef ed_reeb het volgende:
van Basten heeft gekozen voor een minder ervaern elftal met minder vedettes om zo een hecht team te bouwen... misschien was t nu te vroeg voor echte resultaten ... misschien was het naief om de echte vedetten thuis te laten..... we zullen t in 2008 kunnen concluderen... en dan beoordelen... dan heeft ie niet meer t excuus van een onerveren spelersgroep... en martin jol.. tja ach.. tis altijd makkelijk beoordelen achteraf... maar wat heeft martin jol precies allemaal gewonnen?

quote:

Op zondag 2 juli 2006 12:18 schreef Bep het volgende:

Het jong heeft het prima gedaan , volgende keer komen we hopelijk wat verder

quote:

Op zondag 2 juli 2006 22:25 schreef Ludacriss het volgende:
Natuurlijk heeft Martin Jol gelijk maar ik vind wel dat Marco van de fouten die hij heeft gemaakt snel moet leren. Ik verwacht in ieder geval een betere resultaat op het EK dan dit WK. Als het dan alsnog fout gaat moet ie ontslagen worden

quote:

Op maandag 3 juli 2006 12:14 schreef slaveloos het volgende:
Martin Jol krijgt zelfs Mido aan t voetballen Maak hem bondscoach, haal seedorf terug in een beckham achtige rol op rechts, ga gewoon 4-4-2 spelen, zet robben in een soort giggs rol op links, en geef hem een schop onder zijn hol als ie schwalbes maakt ipv voetbalt.
Moet je eens kijken waar je op uitkomt