Why an Australian coach was not the best option

Wow thanks Feras... very rare to see someone not slam a counter-argument simply because it is counter to the original point! For the record... I didn't say I *wasn't* in favour of an oversees candidate, just that it comes with a much greater risk and cost. I can understand why the FFA purely from a corporate viewpoint wouldn't go there. Personally, I would've loved to see Hiddink back - he's not the unknown quantity that any other foreign manager would've been. If we had the money, I would've thrown it at him for 8 months and given Postecoglou a part-time assistant role in conjunction with finishing the season at Melbourne Victory. But I doubt the FFA had the money for that.

While I subscribe to "the right man for the job is the right man for the job regardless of where they're from", I tend to think some people's obsession with NOT having an Aussie coach is as bad as some people's obsession with having one. We've had, in the last 5 World Cup cycles, 4 foreign coaches with no prior experience in Australian football. You can put a big tick next to Guus Hiddink's name, but Osiek probably gets as big a cross and with Venables and Verbeek 'disappointing' is probably the overall sentiment about their reigns. Despite what many would say in hindsight, these weren't poor or unqualified choices either. Venables had a wealth of experience in English and wider European football. Verbeek was an experienced Dutch coach who had worked with Hiddink. Osiek had prior experience in Asian football and was probably hired primarily because of his successful spell in charge of a very similar footballing nation - Canada. Probably one of the main reasons Hiddink succeeded where others failed - and there are a number of good books and articles discussing his time here - was his ability to comprehend and build a team around the "Australian mentality". He worked out very quickly that Australians couldn't be coached the way the Dutch teams were coached, just as South Koreans had to be coached a different way again. Regardless of how good a coach is, if they can't unite the time around a common ethos they won't succeed... and uniting an Australian team definitely involves playing the Australian way. This is why I believe Bielsa, who doesn't even speak our language, would really struggle to lead our national team. An Australian, particularly one who has built as good a case as Postecoglou's to coach the national team, is a safe choice. Not necessarily the best - but certainly safe. Given the cost and risk of hiring a foreign coach, I can see why the FFA went with the choice. A Hiddink or a Trappatoni or a Rijkaard might've been able to come in for a very expensive 8 month spell, and they may even have achieved decent results at the 2014 World Cup, but would that even be enough to be confident they were the person for the next 4 year cycle, even if we could afford such a high profile name for such a long contract? If not, wouldn't you just be robbing the man for that next 4-year cycle from a valuable experience in 2014 just like the experience everyone had been calling out for Osiek to give to younger players?

Appointing Ange as part time assistant to Bielsa with Ange succeeding him post WC or AC would have had the following advantages: 1 Ange learns all he can from El Loco 2 We get the benefit of a coach with big tournament and intl experience 3 Ange can lead on the "communication with stakeholders" side of things 4 Bielsa isn't asked for a five year commitment 5 Ange can continue with Victory until say the end of this season. Gives Victory plenty of time to find replacement and allows replacement all of 14/15 pre-season to build his style with the players. This might have been best of both worlds if El Loco up for it. Would an unemployed El Loco say no to a highly paid opportunity to coach at another WC ?

Bielsa would have been my preferred option as well. I don't think language issues are that big a barrier. You get yourself a good translator. Brian Robson didn't speak Spanish when coaching Barcelona and so had a translator by the name of José Mourinho to help him.

Nick Let me tell you about Ange. He's a proud man but so are many coaches, there's loads of qualified proud International coaches on the planet & they all get sacked as you say if their teams dont perform. I've no doubt also he's a proud Australian,but so are many coaches. However theres one major point of difference between Ange & the rest be they local or from overseas, its called "having a point to prove". I dont know whether you saw the interview with Foz it was cringeworthy at best ,but it either started there(point to prove) or was lying dormant inside the man & Foz provided the catalyst for it to burn inside him. Lesser man would have packed their coaching bags there & then. That point being that he is stubborn yes, but a good coach, & will prove it. He did that emphatically at the Roar & wished to continue at Victory,but now see's a higher plane to "prove himself" on.

That's a good post Towser. You are right to some extent I think, Ange is probably 'more likely" to stick around but as Feras says below it might be more because he doesn't have that many other options, dunno. (and its hard to say an aussie would certainly stay longer after we have just sacked our foreign coach who wanted to stay...) I also have the impression that the longevity of a national coach is much shorter than it used to be. Now we are talking 2 to 4 years max I would say: if you don't qualify for the euro, Asian cup or WC, you're out and as we have a big tournament every couple of years it's a tough gig. (Ange is certainly safe until the 2015 AFC though but after that it may not be up to him like in most cases).

Fuss I have just read that article & enough said If you accept everything Les says as gospel then so be it.I was involved in coaching here in Australia at least 30 years ago & any coach I employed who did not include dribbling in his programs or refused to teach how to pass a ball with the outside of his foot would have been sacked on the spot. In the earliest coaching courses (1974/5) run in this country 5 basic skills were used as the cornerstones & booting a ball 40 metres was not treated as a necessity though the opportunity to use a long ball in a passing movement was not frowned upon either.& it shouldn't be.It's called vision. The 5 skills were Heading,Receiving, Dribbling,Striking a ball & Tackling. These skills were broken down into facets, I was asked to demonstrate the three ways of having a shot at goal,full volley, half volley & chip. Crag Johnston has an excellent piece of equipment using a ladder where it has been altered to allow a kid to dribble using left & right foot while additions to the gear allows wall passes to be added to the exercise.We used red cones. Now Les may or may not have been exposed to this type of coaching that is not the problem, for, as I am tired saying, it is getting the knowledge down to where it matters. jb PS Frank Farina was a junior from Mareeba who went to the AIS where he stayed until being signed by Canberra to play in the NSL while attending for 3 years & then to the Socceroos. Les' article asks more questions than it answers I'm afraid. jb.

I guarantee you Feras unless Ange is sacked for incompetence he will be around at the 2018 World Cup in Russia That will happen whether you agree or not or deem it logical or illogical.

Nick Its not a matter of "we need an aussie or it has to be an aussie”,its quite simply a matter of an Aussie is the only one who will hang around long enough to stamp some sort of "playing style on the National team that will carry them into the future. Now that doesn't mean he has to be born & raised here ,he just has to have set down roots here & we can go back To Rale Rasic,Frank Arok who extracted the most out of the players at their disposal. Hiddink,Verbeek & Osieck were paid to do a job. They did it left (Voluntarily/shoved) we now see the results of no long term planning. England did the same Eriksson & Capello ,now back to Roy Hodgson & a major enquiry by the FA recently into the performance(or lack of) of the England team. If we lived in a perfect world & somehow Hiddink or Bielsa decided that they were going to make Australia their home until they departed this mortal coil & would accept a wage equivalent to Ange's then logic tells you that would be your proven choice. However we dont.. Ange may or may not be able to restore National pride or get better results or understand players better than a "proven International coach" but I guarantee one thing he will stay around long enough to give it his best shot & that for me is well worth the gamble over what has happened since 2006.

Fuss- you of all people I should not have to reiterate as to the planning & release that went into preparing the master plan. Rob Baan was hired in 2007 (6 years ago) to prepare this plan & apparently it took 2 years to come up with a curriculunm with 2 main directives, (1) All teams should play a "Dutch" 4-3-3 formation & (2) juniors have to be introduced & inducted to play SSG's on smaller pitches. Now why this took 2 years to prepare is totally beyond my comprehension for these 2 factors in football have been around "forever",the Brazilians first using 4-3-3 in the 58 World Cup,the Socceroos using it in the 1974 World Cup,& countless clubs using it all over the world. So what is "new" about that ?. SSG's on small pitches were first suggested in Australia in 1975 & many of our older Socceroos have admitted playing in them during their junior days..So we have the 2 main factors of the "new" plan ,not actually new ,but someone has been paid well for 2 years to plan this huge step forward. Who is kidding who? Then as you say the plan is introduced in 2009???? & by 2013 we have the main man declaring he is not satisfied with progress & just weeks later tells us he is leaving after the World Cup. So the plan that has taken 6 years to "plan" (don't laugh) & implement is without it's "driver" come next year. I have read the curriculum & to be honest see a lot of nice diagrams & coaching hints which although not new are doubtlessly helpful to people who can fully understand how to interpret them.That throws up the million dollar question .Who is explaining all the information to little Johnnie's dad who is coaching his son's under 12 team & innocently doing untold damage to the kids' football education.Just yesterday I was talking to a golfer,also a dedicated football man,who informed me he has his Colts team playing 4-4-2 for that's what suits his players?. Not happy jb

jb Maybe our "Mr Football", Les Murray is reading our posts? He's written an opinion piece about "The Dutch Legacy". Source: http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/les-murray/blog/1171321/Double-dutch-on-Dutch-legacy In particular, Les makes the observation: "The Dutch influence on our youth development began no more than six years ago. Given that a footballer’s development is a 10-year process, from age eight to 18, those who have benefitted from or have been influenced by the Dutch methods are now just 14 years-old. These are hardly boys who should now be ready to play for the Socceroos. Neither is it fair to judge 23-year olds, who can’t pass the ball in a straight line, on the basis of the Dutch influence. It is far more likely that they were products of the old, pre-Dutch era, and were maybe coached by O’Connor himself." This is exactly what I've been saying for a while. PS: No, I am not - nor am I related to - the Great Man, Les Murray! :-)

Very interesting and though-provoking piece Feras. I don't know if A.P is the right person for the Socceroos however I do think he has qualities and deserves a shot. However, like you, I do cringe when ppl say "we need an aussie or it has to be an aussie". And I think you summed it up well in this sentence: "In my mind, it is utterly incomprehensible how we have, as a “football family”, come to the conclusion that an Australian coach will restore pride in the national team and that somehow is the silver bullet to end our poor performance misery." I do not understand why, as per principle, 'only' an aussie can get better results, understand players better, have more pride and envy to perform?! I actually think that people who think this way are as guilty as the people who write off aussie coaches or players just because they are Australian, i.e. do not come from a traditional football nation ( I have been guilty of this in the past, mea culpa!). I think its time we look at the ability of a coach/player rather than his passport to decide whether or not he can do the job. And when it comes to Ange, I am more than happy for him to have a crack.

That's not how it works though. Most good coaches have jobs already or don't want to be associated with being rejected by X. It's not usually a public process.