Holger Osieck is walking an Asian Cup tightrope

Another 90 minutes with Herr Osieck in charge and I can't wait for the next 90 minutes! The 1st half was full of energy, enterprising moves, some slick passing, reasonable defending, world-class goal-keeping and an excellent Holman goal. The 2nd half was sloppy and we were lucky not to concede. But, the lads were still enterprising in their moves - albeit they looked tired, the passing was poor and the defending was amateur hour. But, Federici remained outstanding in goal. And, so, the Osieck haters have to wipe more egg from their glum faces.

I don't mind Asian experience as a factor in selecting a coach and it would probably should be used as a tie breaker between two coaches with similar quality CV. However using it as a prerequisite seems to take things too far. I would like to imagine telling the likes of Capello, Mourinho, Rijkaard that they are not good enough for the job because they never coached in Asia before. If you prove yourself at the highest level then you should be well qualified to coach for the socceroos. Of course if two World Class manager (let say Hiddink and Capello) wanted to coach the socceroos, you would choose someone with Asian experience but I wouldn't say it's a must have quality. If you want someone who could be able to handle the logistics of coaching in Asia, then get them as an assistant. Really in terms of success in Asia. Holger Osieck is hardly more experience in handling the logistical difficulties of Asia than Aurelio Vidmar who manage Adelaide in three ACL campaigns instead of one (Osieck only manage in one campaign in the season he actually won). About Holger being an assistant manager for the World Cup triumph. I'm not too sure how much credit a person gets for being assistant. How much credit do we give Graham Arnold for qualifying to the round of 16. How much credit do we give to Pim Verbeek for reaching Korea to the semi-finals of the World Cup? Remember that Hiddink had nothing but praise to say about Arnold as well and publicly supported Arnold taking over the Socceroos after he left. Osieck has proven to be a good assistant manager and that's the most we can get from his role in 1990 world cup.Low proved to be a good manager after he was given the job but not when he was under Klinsmann

das that's all ancient history - I prefer now not to be identified - thanks.

For heaven's sake ! What's wrong with being multi-skilled ?

dasilva Osieck does have proven success at the World Cup - he was assistant coach to The Kaiser when Germany won the 1990 WC and The Kaiser has nothing but praise for his former assistant. Remember "Jogi" Löw was also an assistant to Klinsman at WC2006 and, in many eyes, Löw was THE Coach of the 2010 WC. The top Assistants will often go on to be the Master - in any sport (Mark Thompson, Ross Lyon & Mark Harvey in the AFL all served time as assistants before becoming "masters") The reason we need someone with success in Asia is b/c we are new to Asia. Over time, as our Football departments gain expeience in Asia I think the "success in Asia" criterion will be less important when choosing the NT Coach. So, in 2000, when Hiddink went to coach Sth Korea although Hiddink had no "prior experience managing football teams in Asia", Sth Korea was an integral part of the Asian Confederation and they would already have had all the "Asian experience" within their football departments & culture.

Thanks dasilva. I have no doubt MF was once a football fan and he displays a deep knowledge of football history. I just don't understand why he's always so negative about everything to do with football. Even before Osieck had coached one game he was saying Osieck would be a failure. Now, Osieck has coached one game and the team's style of play was attractive, the result was fine and yet the negativity is unrelenting. What will make MF happy I wonder?

I agree Ben Osieck does tentatively tick all the box in the FFA criteria. a) proven success in Asia He won one Asian Champions League b) proven success with identifying and developing technically gifted youth He was a youth coach of germany for like 8 years and must have coached some Germany players that ended up winning the World Cup in 1990 c) proven success with the management of a National Football Team Winning the Gold Cup with Canada (breaking the USA/Mexico hegemy) with Canada is a pretty good achievement despite the tremendous luck he achieved (coin toss to advance through the group) d) willingness to live and work in Australia He is willing to do that Now I do have question marks on why success in Asia is such a high priority. Imagine if Guus Hiddink approached Australia in 2000 (for hypothetical sake we were apart of Asia back then) and we rejected him because he hasn't got any Asian experience despite an excellence coaching CV. It would be a joke. If a coach is a proven success at World Cup or Champions League level (which Osieck hasn't) then that should override any success a manager may have in Asia. So that's one question mark I have on the process but really nothing about the process success seems particularly corrupt. I just think that Mr. Football has some sort of prejudice about working for FIFA Technical Committee. Sure most of them aren't great managers but that doesn't automatically make them illegitimate and bad coaches. Osieck just had a break from the high pressure atmosphere of full time coaching at a club/country for a few years and that's all. I don't know why we had to used his position at FIFA against him.

Mr. Football/Pippinu used to be a writer for the 442 Website, regularly writing articles about Melbourne Victory a while back (this one http://au.fourfourtwo.com/blogs.aspx?CIaBEID=1095 where he predicted the rise of Mitch Langerak way back at the beginning) and he also used to have a football blog at http://pippinu.blogspot.com So he was a fan of Football he just got disillusion about some of the details the World Cup bid and some of the football fans itself and now turn back on the game in terms of active support. Nevertheless he is not exactly a person with no knowledge of the game bagging it for the sake of it. In any case, he has the right of an opinion an Holger Osieck and pretty much just saying we shouldn't be too quick to positively judge him after just one good performance in a friendly.

I apologise for playing the troll card however you made a firm statement and didn't provide any facts when I asked, so I figured you were trolling (which was my second post, not the first). You still haven't answered mind you as, the article you posted is about a possible advantage of the selection decision but talks nothing about the process. The FFA had a selection panel, all of whom had to declare any conflicts of interest in relation to applicants. They had established criteria and they had a budget. They then assessed applicants against those criteria and made a decision based upon the applications they had received. Because you don't like the final decision doesn't mean the process is improper, which is what you are claiming. The FFA can't please everyone, all it can do is try to ensure that it employs good governance and recruitment processes that meet corporate norms. This, to the best of my knowledge, has occurred. If you have knowledge otherwise then please enlighten us.

MF I have no issue with appointing a manager from the Balkans but I don't understand why you think any of the names you listed would have been a more appropriate choice than Osieck. Heck some of the names you listed have managed obscure club and National Football teams so I can only imagine you would have been equally scathing in your criticism if the FFA had hired any of the names on your list. I have no doubt, whomever the FFA hired as NT Manager, you (and other negative people in Australia) would have been crictical. I reckon life is too short to always be negative.

MF Face it you are just an extremely negative person about everything to do with Football. Our National Team got a terrific result (albeit in a practice match) a) AWAY from home b) against one of the top European teams, who have only conceded 1 goal in their last 660 minutes of football at World Cup finals and who took the game seriously as their Euro2012 opponents all played qualifiers last night and c) created chances and played attractive football Yet, all you can only think of are negatives and, quite frankly, it's all a bit tedious. I don't even understand why you bother providing so many constant opinions on football, when your preferred sport, Aussie Rules, is in the middle of a Finals series and your team, Footscray is playing? Is Aussie Rules so dull that you need to opine about Football issues? I think we all get it - the following 5 points are a summary of your thoughts about Football: 1. you don't like the Game 2. you don't like our National Team 3. you don't like our National Coach 4. you think the Global arm of the Game's organising body is corrupt 5. you want our 2022 WC bid to fail.

Fussball I'm surprised that you would question the sheer amount and quality of coaches that have hailed from the Balkans who are employed all over the world - far too many to list - many of the them of the highest pedigree. Here are a few I've been able to remember - but there are stacks more, absolutely stacks: Branko Ivankovic Ivica Todorov Luka Peruzovic Blaz Sliskovic Victor Piturca Leaving the Balkans behind, another name that I thought of was Gabriel Calderon. But it's a bit hard to just pull names out of my head, and a bit unfair that you would expect me to do that. My argument remains: 1. Is that the best we could do? To pull a bloke out of semi-retirement who has spent the last couple of years in the FIFA bureaucracy? and 2. Isn't there a serious question mark over whether this was a fair dinkum selection process?

3. You make a general comment about wanting managers of a certain ethnicity... Where have you been the last five years??

Don't get too excited Fussball, it's a long, long road ahead of us (and Osieck is unlikely to share it with us all the way). I can still recall a couple of Graham Arnold's early games as the NT manager, a couple of draws against the likes of Paraguay and Ghana, which were also full of attacking intent and sweeping, open football. I can recall Frank Farina earning a meritorious draw against Brazil in the second game he ever managed (following a defeat against Brazil in his first game, it was the series that led to Zelic's pre-mature retirement from the NT, following a very public spat with Farina). Frank was to go on and earn some good wins against excellent teams - but would ultimately fail where it mattered the most (and unfortuantely for him, continues to be judged on that basis, a touch unfairly in my opinion). At least on this occasion, for the moment, we've had no walkouts, and that pen wasn't converted - all up, that's actually a good start.

90 minutes with Herr Osieck in charge and I can't wait for the next 90 minutes. It's funny... .. if the lads played badly this morning the "usual suspects" would have been quick to whine, whinge and complain about the poor decision to appoint Osieck. Yet, I get the feeling, we'll never hear the whingers say anything positive after this excellent performance against Switzerland, who were the the only side to beat the World Champions, Spain at WC2010. Switzerland play England in a EURO2012 Qualifier on Tuesday night ... I'll be watching that match with even greater interest now.

MF Let's see if I can summarise your thoughts: 1. You admit you don't know anything about the recruitment process yet you constantly whine, whinge and complain about the recruitment process! 2. You identify one alterantive for the job - Vieira - and you then admit you don't even know what he's been doing for the past 12 months! 3. You make a general comment about wanting managers of a certain ethnicity - without naming anyone! Do you really want us to take your opinions seriously or should we continue to view you as basically someone who is negative about everything to do with Football? What are Vieira's credentials in relation to identifying and developing youth players - given the time he had with the Iraqi squad I'd be surprised if he would have had any influence other than match-day tactical input. In my opinion, no matter who the FFA had appointed you would have been negative with your assessment, which is fine, since you don't follow football or the National Football Team. I don't know and don't care who is the AFL "national coach" or who is in the team to play Ireland later this year ... ... although, I'm have no doubt their names will be on the front pages of the newspapers when they get locked up by the Garda!

These stats actually stand us in pretty good stead for 2018 given the number of 19-23 year olds knocking on the door now.

It was also good to see Spiranovic have a full run in a game with a clean sheet. Hopefully next game he'll unveil Burns.

Ben I'm surprised that you would need to ask the question. A stack of articles have appeared on the subject - in fact every single soccer commentator has expressed a view since Osieck was appointed. I'm surprised that the minute you read an opinion you don't like, you're first reaction is to play the troll card: quite unsophisticated, unbecoming, dull and unoriginal. My opinions are well reasoned, well argued and usually backed with references - which can't be said for 90% of the opinions expressed on the Roar. Here is one articel from Jesse Fink, there were many others: http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/jesse-fink/blog/1017956/Osieck-Beckenbauer-and-a-question-of-questions The fact that we would hire a semi-retired bloke, hiding out in the FIFA bureaucracy for the last couple of years, is sufficent reason to question the whole process, that's before we even get to the substance of the process, which provides even further food for thought.

TomC if you are interested in pseudonyms, you should talk to Art, he knows a fair bit about them. Not that I blame him. I was motivated by similar sentiments. You would be too if you had been the subject of a concerted and organised campaign of targeted personal abuse (many of whom disappeared from the Roar as soon as I was silenced). But this is the interesting thing: I was proven correct on everything I said, the very opinion that was attracting the abuse, of which you were part. The question for all contributors such as yourself, and the Roar editorial team: under what circumstances should a reasonably argued opinion become the target of personal abuse and vindictiveness? That's a question that I find quite interesting. Seeing that you are so interested in holding people to account - what do you think?