Your resume looks terrible...you're hired
June 15, 2010 8:31 AM Subscribe
World Cup filter: How does current Côte d'Ivoire manager and former England manager Sven-Göran Eriksson keep finding work?
This is actually a serious question. I am far from an expert in soccer/football and was hoping someone could fill me in.
Seriously, everything this guy touches turns to poison. England tanked in 2002 when the World Cup was theirs for the taking. The 2006 campaign was a disaster.
His tenure at Manchester City ended badly. And Wikipedia is telling me that Mexican fans held a "victory party" when he was dismissed as coach of their national team.
So seriously, it seems like the last thing I'd want to do if I wanted to succeed in the football world would be to hire this guy. Yet he keeps finding work. What am I missing?
This is actually a serious question. I am far from an expert in soccer/football and was hoping someone could fill me in.
Seriously, everything this guy touches turns to poison. England tanked in 2002 when the World Cup was theirs for the taking. The 2006 campaign was a disaster.
His tenure at Manchester City ended badly. And Wikipedia is telling me that Mexican fans held a "victory party" when he was dismissed as coach of their national team.
So seriously, it seems like the last thing I'd want to do if I wanted to succeed in the football world would be to hire this guy. Yet he keeps finding work. What am I missing?
Well I dunno if I'd say the WC was England's for the taking.. that's quite a stretch.
His tenure at Man City ended b/c Thaksin Shinawatra is a 'parachute owner' who thought cutting cheques would result in instant success, and when that instant success didn't come after only one season, Eriksson was let go...
In general though, his track record prior to that was pretty good -- you could make a compelling argument that he was brilliant at Lazio, winnning a lot of stuff, crucially not just domestic but European titles... winning at that level requires at least some tactical nous, and there's a limited number of coaches in the world who can demonstrate success at that level.
posted by modernnomad at 8:56 AM on June 15, 2010
His tenure at Man City ended b/c Thaksin Shinawatra is a 'parachute owner' who thought cutting cheques would result in instant success, and when that instant success didn't come after only one season, Eriksson was let go...
In general though, his track record prior to that was pretty good -- you could make a compelling argument that he was brilliant at Lazio, winnning a lot of stuff, crucially not just domestic but European titles... winning at that level requires at least some tactical nous, and there's a limited number of coaches in the world who can demonstrate success at that level.
posted by modernnomad at 8:56 AM on June 15, 2010
I am far from an expert
Yeah. I've no idea where you've got your info but it's almost all misguided. This seems like a grudge. One scan of his wikipedia page will dispel almost everything you say.
posted by fire&wings at 9:05 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah. I've no idea where you've got your info but it's almost all misguided. This seems like a grudge. One scan of his wikipedia page will dispel almost everything you say.
posted by fire&wings at 9:05 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
We see the same pattern in American sports, particularly football. For example, was there any good reason the Cleveland Browns hired Eric Mangini after a 23 and 25 record in 3 years for the Jets?
I believe what explains this phenomenon is that the employer values the fact of the experience over how well the job was done. The Browns thought it was better to have a coach who had been a head coach of an NFL team than someone who had not had that experience. The number of coaches who have coached World Cup Teams is small, probably smaller than former NFL coaches.
posted by pasici at 9:05 AM on June 15, 2010
I believe what explains this phenomenon is that the employer values the fact of the experience over how well the job was done. The Browns thought it was better to have a coach who had been a head coach of an NFL team than someone who had not had that experience. The number of coaches who have coached World Cup Teams is small, probably smaller than former NFL coaches.
posted by pasici at 9:05 AM on June 15, 2010
We see the same pattern in American sports, particularly football. For example, was there any good reason the Cleveland Browns hired Eric Mangini after a 23 and 25 record in 3 years for the Jets?
Except of course this is nothing like that because Sven actually has a good record. Won leagues and cups in Italy, Portugal and in Europe, etc, etc,.
posted by JPD at 9:16 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Except of course this is nothing like that because Sven actually has a good record. Won leagues and cups in Italy, Portugal and in Europe, etc, etc,.
posted by JPD at 9:16 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
He keeps getting hired because he wins.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 9:37 AM on June 15, 2010
posted by DieHipsterDie at 9:37 AM on June 15, 2010
Response by poster: @fire&wings: why would I have a grudge against someone I don't know, in a sport I only casually follow?
Anyway, Sven may have had some success, but isn't there a "what have you done for me lately?" issue that should be considered here? Most of his success seems to have come in the 90s.
And none of that success came with national clubs, where a different dynamic clearly seems to be in play. Yet national clubs seem to keep hiring him.
posted by hiteleven at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2010
Anyway, Sven may have had some success, but isn't there a "what have you done for me lately?" issue that should be considered here? Most of his success seems to have come in the 90s.
And none of that success came with national clubs, where a different dynamic clearly seems to be in play. Yet national clubs seem to keep hiring him.
posted by hiteleven at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2010
England is not good enough at football that not winning the World Cup or Euro Championships can rationally be considered a failure. Not qualifying? sure. They lost in '06 on penalties in an exceedingly controversial game vs. Portugal and in '02 they lost to Brazil (The eventual champs) in the quarterfinals. Euro '04 lost on penalties to Portugal at Portugal. And they only had to play Portugal because Zidane is basically incredible.
Most of his success came in the 90's - because he was coaching England from '01-'06. Was at Man City for less than a full season (which is not a meaningful sample size) . The Locals went nuts when he got hired in Mexico, and when they got killed by the US the confederation used the portsmouth rumors as an excuse to can him - 6 months after his first match - 6 months - that's just silly.
posted by JPD at 10:02 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Most of his success came in the 90's - because he was coaching England from '01-'06. Was at Man City for less than a full season (which is not a meaningful sample size) . The Locals went nuts when he got hired in Mexico, and when they got killed by the US the confederation used the portsmouth rumors as an excuse to can him - 6 months after his first match - 6 months - that's just silly.
posted by JPD at 10:02 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Also wiki gives me this tidbit that I think makes the point he was a bad manager even more to bed
Managed to reach the quarter final in three consecutive tournaments (WC 2002, Euro 2004, WC 2006). No other European country achieved this during this period, and on an international level only Brazil. England was also, apart from Sweden, the only European country that did not suffer elimination from group play or failure to qualify during this time (2001–2006). Coincidentally, the same manager Luiz Felipe Scolari knocked England out of all three of these tournaments, first with Brazil and then twice with Portugal.
posted by JPD at 10:04 AM on June 15, 2010
Managed to reach the quarter final in three consecutive tournaments (WC 2002, Euro 2004, WC 2006). No other European country achieved this during this period, and on an international level only Brazil. England was also, apart from Sweden, the only European country that did not suffer elimination from group play or failure to qualify during this time (2001–2006). Coincidentally, the same manager Luiz Felipe Scolari knocked England out of all three of these tournaments, first with Brazil and then twice with Portugal.
posted by JPD at 10:04 AM on June 15, 2010
His appointment as Ivory Coast boss is probably more to do with his being an available, experienced, international manager when they parted company with Halilhodzic 3 months before the World Cup, but his record is not as poor as you suggest. Most of his success came in the 90's because he's been an international manager since 2001 apart from a successful, by their previous standards, season at Man City.
There aren't a lot of international tournaments to win. In his 3 tournaments in charge of England he lost to eventual winners Brazil in '02 and got knocked out on penalties by Portugal in '04 and '06. None of these results were a disgrace and, given the Seaman mistake in '02, the Ferdinand disallowed goal in '04 and Rooney's idiocy in '06, there weren't many fingers pointing to Sven as the problem. The subsequent struggles of Steve McClaren only made Sven's reign look better. His time in charge of Mexico is certainly a blot on his resume
posted by IanMorr at 10:15 AM on June 15, 2010
There aren't a lot of international tournaments to win. In his 3 tournaments in charge of England he lost to eventual winners Brazil in '02 and got knocked out on penalties by Portugal in '04 and '06. None of these results were a disgrace and, given the Seaman mistake in '02, the Ferdinand disallowed goal in '04 and Rooney's idiocy in '06, there weren't many fingers pointing to Sven as the problem. The subsequent struggles of Steve McClaren only made Sven's reign look better. His time in charge of Mexico is certainly a blot on his resume
posted by IanMorr at 10:15 AM on June 15, 2010
I agree with pasici. I'm very far from a soccer expert, but if the pattern you're suggesting holds true, it doesn't sound all that different from career CEOs who go from one failed business to the next. One former CEO for a company I worked for oversaw Playboy during a painful decline, came to our company (Midway) and drove it into bankruptcy, and took over Petty Enterprises (as in Richard Petty of Nascar fame) at a time when Petty himself admitted he'd allowed the company to slip. To find success in his resume, you'd have to go back ten-plus years when he was involved in the launching of ESPN2 and the X Games. Since then, a parade of disasters. But I think what happens is that once you've achieved that level of leadership, your failures end up counting for less than the fact that you've been in that position before and know what the job entails. They'd rather have somebody with a spotty record in place than somebody who's going to be learning on the job. Rightly or wrongly. It's also my theory as to why directors who make truly shitty films continue to find work. Joel Shumacher, I'm looking at you.
posted by ga$money at 10:15 AM on June 15, 2010
posted by ga$money at 10:15 AM on June 15, 2010
The subsequent struggles of Steve McClaren only made Sven's reign look better.
McClaren's a good example of the ups and downs. Takes a relatively small club to its first domestic trophy and the UEFA Cup final, leaves for the England job which doesn't go well, heads off to FC Twente and eventually wins the Eredivisie with them, now off to Wolfsburg in the Bundesliga where he faces a tougher challenge.
You either outgrow the job, walk away from an impossible situation, or get sacked: all managerial careers are punctuated with failure, and most end in failure.
posted by holgate at 10:32 AM on June 15, 2010
McClaren's a good example of the ups and downs. Takes a relatively small club to its first domestic trophy and the UEFA Cup final, leaves for the England job which doesn't go well, heads off to FC Twente and eventually wins the Eredivisie with them, now off to Wolfsburg in the Bundesliga where he faces a tougher challenge.
You either outgrow the job, walk away from an impossible situation, or get sacked: all managerial careers are punctuated with failure, and most end in failure.
posted by holgate at 10:32 AM on June 15, 2010
Response by poster: I thought Sven was heavily criticized for player selection in 2006...as for 2002, they were up a goal on a 10-man Brazil squad and lost. I know it's Brazil we're talking about, but still.
Maybe this is a difference when it comes to soccer culture. I found it interesting that gharr pointed out his record as an international manager, and that others have pointed to the fact that he led England to decent results in world play. But he's never won an international tournament, or even been in a final. More than that, he's never seemed to be able to take a team and make it play above its ability. His teams seem to do about as well as they should, and that's that. Is that really a mark of success?
In hockey, for instance, it seems that teams are much more willing to take a gamble on coaches with no experience and see what it gets them. That's how you get a guy like Dan Bylsma who had zero head coaching experience in the NHL leading a Stanley Cup-winning team. Canada's 2010 gold medal Olympic team was also managed by Steve Yzerman, a former player with no real experience as a GM.
posted by hiteleven at 11:28 AM on June 15, 2010
Maybe this is a difference when it comes to soccer culture. I found it interesting that gharr pointed out his record as an international manager, and that others have pointed to the fact that he led England to decent results in world play. But he's never won an international tournament, or even been in a final. More than that, he's never seemed to be able to take a team and make it play above its ability. His teams seem to do about as well as they should, and that's that. Is that really a mark of success?
In hockey, for instance, it seems that teams are much more willing to take a gamble on coaches with no experience and see what it gets them. That's how you get a guy like Dan Bylsma who had zero head coaching experience in the NHL leading a Stanley Cup-winning team. Canada's 2010 gold medal Olympic team was also managed by Steve Yzerman, a former player with no real experience as a GM.
posted by hiteleven at 11:28 AM on June 15, 2010
Response by poster: I think what I am trying to say is this: there are certain coaches in the NHL, and especially in the NFL, who get a reputation for being great with Xs and Os, but lacking in that "whatever it is" that it takes to lift a team to win a big game. Famous examples in the NFL include Dan Reeves and Marty Schottenheimer.
Both of these coaches have fantastic regular season records, but zero championships, and are both now unemployed (at least as coaches).
In club soccer, season play success seems to trump tournament success in terms of importance (though the rising importance of the Champions League might change this). So maybe that's why a coach like Sven with a great record (and some regular season titles under his belt) is still so highly-regarded.
I posed this question as a serious one, to see why Sven was indeed still finding it so easy to get work. Maybe this explains it. I don't think if I put up a thread about Marty Schottenheimer that I would get so many people rushing to defend his honour.
posted by hiteleven at 12:09 PM on June 15, 2010
Both of these coaches have fantastic regular season records, but zero championships, and are both now unemployed (at least as coaches).
In club soccer, season play success seems to trump tournament success in terms of importance (though the rising importance of the Champions League might change this). So maybe that's why a coach like Sven with a great record (and some regular season titles under his belt) is still so highly-regarded.
I posed this question as a serious one, to see why Sven was indeed still finding it so easy to get work. Maybe this explains it. I don't think if I put up a thread about Marty Schottenheimer that I would get so many people rushing to defend his honour.
posted by hiteleven at 12:09 PM on June 15, 2010
I think you're trying to extrapolate one isolated example from a sport you know admit to knowing very little about into sports that you seem to know a lot more about.
I've tried doing the same -- I am huge football (soccer) fan who is currently living in Canada, so a lot of my friends here are into hockey. I try and extrapolate from my knowledge of football to try and make sense of things that happen in hockey, but it just doesn't work.
Did you see the nonsense on Gawker the other day from Americans who thought the English commentator was "overly defensive" about the soft goal England let in? Same thing -- all kinds of comments like "well in baseball you'd never..." etc.. It doesn't matter, they're different sports. Trying to draw analogies between them is a futile exercise.
posted by modernnomad at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2010
I've tried doing the same -- I am huge football (soccer) fan who is currently living in Canada, so a lot of my friends here are into hockey. I try and extrapolate from my knowledge of football to try and make sense of things that happen in hockey, but it just doesn't work.
Did you see the nonsense on Gawker the other day from Americans who thought the English commentator was "overly defensive" about the soft goal England let in? Same thing -- all kinds of comments like "well in baseball you'd never..." etc.. It doesn't matter, they're different sports. Trying to draw analogies between them is a futile exercise.
posted by modernnomad at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2010
Canada's 2010 gold medal Olympic team was also managed by Steve Yzerman, a former player with no real experience as a GM.
That's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. In hockey there's a separate coach and manager, in soccer it's one role. In terms of international play, what does a manager really do besides player selection? Which is not to completely discount the importance of player selection, but I don't think Stevie Y would have got the coaching job, for instance.
posted by juv3nal at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2010
That's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. In hockey there's a separate coach and manager, in soccer it's one role. In terms of international play, what does a manager really do besides player selection? Which is not to completely discount the importance of player selection, but I don't think Stevie Y would have got the coaching job, for instance.
posted by juv3nal at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2010
Best answer: One thing to remember is that managing at an international level is vastly different from a national level, so these comparisons are a bit off.
One
On an international level, you don't get a huge amount of time to coach and train players the way you want them to work. You have to hope that they have enough tactical awareness that they can fit into a system that you want to use. Also, you have a limited pool of players, especially world class ones. It's therefore a lot harder to mold a team in your image, as it were. Also, being a national coach is a bit of a curse - generally, the previous guy has left because the team underperformed during his tenure.
You've got two choices - you can make wholesale changes, when you'll probably lose because new players and new tactics will be unfamiliar to the squad. You might have the best formation in the world, but if the players can't play within it, you're screwed. And you don't have a vast amount of time to coach them either. Or, you can change things incrementally, but risk suffering the same fate as your predecessor, because you're essentially using his system. And it might be the only one you can use. If you've got no good wingers, you can't suddenly demand that the team play with width. If you don't have a big target man, you can't lump it up to him to hold the ball up.
In the domestic scene, if you're given time and are a good manager, you'll generally do well. You can train the players you want, buy in a few every season to improve things, etc. etc. Mourinho's rapid success has made people forget that Chelsea were a top ten, maybe top seven side prior to his arrival, with a core of players already there (Lampard and Terry spring to mind). Abramovich also gave him wads of cash, and he's a good manager. Instant results. Man City weren't as good as Chelsea were when they were acquired, and didn't have the same core of excellent players. So buying people in, you then need to train them in your way, and get the squad on the same wavelength. The only time I can remember instant gelling was the Andy Cole-Dwight Yorke partnership - it was insane how much they understood how the other played. Look how long it took Alex Ferguson to turn Man U into such a great side. Arsene Wenger has been tinkering at Arsenal for years. Look lower down the table - David Moyes gradually improved Everton year on year. Rafa took ages to get Liverpool to their peak (the Champions league was a freak - more on that later). Ancelotti spent years at AC Milan etc. When there's a mesh between a good manager and a good club, they also tend to stay a while. Why? They can grow the squad, make it better and better. Success breeds success. International managers don't have such luxuries.
Two
The international format is vastly different from the domestic one. In a league, you play everyone twice, and play around 28 games overall. The best team will win in the end, because you have to beat your opponents and grind out victories. It's a marathon. National competitions are a sprint. There's a short group stage (with teams of vastly differing ability playing), and then it's knock-out football. Which throws a lot of elements into the mix. Team didn't sleep well the night before? Pitch is a bit funny? Someone's massively on form? Refereeing mistake? All these things have a disproportionate impact that would otherwise even itself out over the course of a season in a domestic league. Giving a penalty in a game is a classic one. Domestically, you get some dead-cert penalties turned down - ref didn't see it, whatever. But then you get some dodgy ones later in the season - your guy took a dive, or slipped, but you get it. Fair enough. In knock-out football, that could be it. Think of travelling to South Africa, training for hours at a camp, to have your chances dashed by a freak call.
Because of these factors, international football also requires different skills. The best one is to be strong tactically, because you don't get a huge chance to train players - you just have to beat the team opposite with what you've got. Which brings me back to Rafa. There's an argument to be made that he was the best tactician in the Premiership. Liverpool improbably made it to the final of the Champions League twice in his short tenure, and the season when Liverpool were genuine challengers to the title (i.e. had a good enough squad), his head-to-head record with the rest of the big four was immense. On the big games, he was awesome. (As an aside, I reckon he'd make a great international manager).
So, what am I saying about Eriksson? Well, firstly, you can't really compare domestic with international success. Look at Scolari. Won the world cup with Brazil, crap at Chelsea. Look at Eriksson - won everything with Lazio, not amazing internationally. It's a helpful shorthand - you don't win things without being very good - but it doesn't necessarily say that the person is going to have the right skills for the job.
Secondly, international results aren't really indicative of much. You're relying on a limited pool of players in this ridiculously short tournament when anything could happen. You don't train them, you can't buy better ones. England are a good side - but you'd never say they were complete. Without Rooney, we'd be screwed. This year, Germany are playing without Ballack, Brazil left Adriano and Ronaldinho back in Brazil. They'll both do well regardless. Compare the French 1998 and more recent squads. After 1998, a whole bunch of their players either got old and worse, or retired. In Korea (2002), they looked awful without Zidane. In 2006, their squad was rejuvenated and they came second.
Finally, people know these things (and those mentioned above). That you can't judge him on internationals so well. That the two formats are different. They go with the fact that he's experienced, and steady. You know what you're getting. He's not a gamble, but he's not great. It will be interesting to see him go back into club football long-term, as that will then become the new benchmark of how good he is. Whether he'll want to is a different matter - his reputation is good enough that he can always get well-paying jobs, so whether he wants to test himself properly when he can just cash in, who knows?
posted by djgh at 12:49 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
One
On an international level, you don't get a huge amount of time to coach and train players the way you want them to work. You have to hope that they have enough tactical awareness that they can fit into a system that you want to use. Also, you have a limited pool of players, especially world class ones. It's therefore a lot harder to mold a team in your image, as it were. Also, being a national coach is a bit of a curse - generally, the previous guy has left because the team underperformed during his tenure.
You've got two choices - you can make wholesale changes, when you'll probably lose because new players and new tactics will be unfamiliar to the squad. You might have the best formation in the world, but if the players can't play within it, you're screwed. And you don't have a vast amount of time to coach them either. Or, you can change things incrementally, but risk suffering the same fate as your predecessor, because you're essentially using his system. And it might be the only one you can use. If you've got no good wingers, you can't suddenly demand that the team play with width. If you don't have a big target man, you can't lump it up to him to hold the ball up.
In the domestic scene, if you're given time and are a good manager, you'll generally do well. You can train the players you want, buy in a few every season to improve things, etc. etc. Mourinho's rapid success has made people forget that Chelsea were a top ten, maybe top seven side prior to his arrival, with a core of players already there (Lampard and Terry spring to mind). Abramovich also gave him wads of cash, and he's a good manager. Instant results. Man City weren't as good as Chelsea were when they were acquired, and didn't have the same core of excellent players. So buying people in, you then need to train them in your way, and get the squad on the same wavelength. The only time I can remember instant gelling was the Andy Cole-Dwight Yorke partnership - it was insane how much they understood how the other played. Look how long it took Alex Ferguson to turn Man U into such a great side. Arsene Wenger has been tinkering at Arsenal for years. Look lower down the table - David Moyes gradually improved Everton year on year. Rafa took ages to get Liverpool to their peak (the Champions league was a freak - more on that later). Ancelotti spent years at AC Milan etc. When there's a mesh between a good manager and a good club, they also tend to stay a while. Why? They can grow the squad, make it better and better. Success breeds success. International managers don't have such luxuries.
Two
The international format is vastly different from the domestic one. In a league, you play everyone twice, and play around 28 games overall. The best team will win in the end, because you have to beat your opponents and grind out victories. It's a marathon. National competitions are a sprint. There's a short group stage (with teams of vastly differing ability playing), and then it's knock-out football. Which throws a lot of elements into the mix. Team didn't sleep well the night before? Pitch is a bit funny? Someone's massively on form? Refereeing mistake? All these things have a disproportionate impact that would otherwise even itself out over the course of a season in a domestic league. Giving a penalty in a game is a classic one. Domestically, you get some dead-cert penalties turned down - ref didn't see it, whatever. But then you get some dodgy ones later in the season - your guy took a dive, or slipped, but you get it. Fair enough. In knock-out football, that could be it. Think of travelling to South Africa, training for hours at a camp, to have your chances dashed by a freak call.
Because of these factors, international football also requires different skills. The best one is to be strong tactically, because you don't get a huge chance to train players - you just have to beat the team opposite with what you've got. Which brings me back to Rafa. There's an argument to be made that he was the best tactician in the Premiership. Liverpool improbably made it to the final of the Champions League twice in his short tenure, and the season when Liverpool were genuine challengers to the title (i.e. had a good enough squad), his head-to-head record with the rest of the big four was immense. On the big games, he was awesome. (As an aside, I reckon he'd make a great international manager).
So, what am I saying about Eriksson? Well, firstly, you can't really compare domestic with international success. Look at Scolari. Won the world cup with Brazil, crap at Chelsea. Look at Eriksson - won everything with Lazio, not amazing internationally. It's a helpful shorthand - you don't win things without being very good - but it doesn't necessarily say that the person is going to have the right skills for the job.
Secondly, international results aren't really indicative of much. You're relying on a limited pool of players in this ridiculously short tournament when anything could happen. You don't train them, you can't buy better ones. England are a good side - but you'd never say they were complete. Without Rooney, we'd be screwed. This year, Germany are playing without Ballack, Brazil left Adriano and Ronaldinho back in Brazil. They'll both do well regardless. Compare the French 1998 and more recent squads. After 1998, a whole bunch of their players either got old and worse, or retired. In Korea (2002), they looked awful without Zidane. In 2006, their squad was rejuvenated and they came second.
Finally, people know these things (and those mentioned above). That you can't judge him on internationals so well. That the two formats are different. They go with the fact that he's experienced, and steady. You know what you're getting. He's not a gamble, but he's not great. It will be interesting to see him go back into club football long-term, as that will then become the new benchmark of how good he is. Whether he'll want to is a different matter - his reputation is good enough that he can always get well-paying jobs, so whether he wants to test himself properly when he can just cash in, who knows?
posted by djgh at 12:49 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: @modernnomad: I get your point...and believe me, I'm not trying to be one of those obnoxious "well, in North America, things are like this..." kind of fans. I was just doing my best to understand the situation.
I was actually under the impression that a lot of people hated Sven. Maybe it's just the British press, who never seemed too kind to him.
posted by hiteleven at 12:50 PM on June 15, 2010
I was actually under the impression that a lot of people hated Sven. Maybe it's just the British press, who never seemed too kind to him.
posted by hiteleven at 12:50 PM on June 15, 2010
Best answer: Oh, also, consider diminished expectations.
He's generally been taking steps down since England - Mexico aren't as good (not ranked as high, for sure), Ivory Coast the same. Notts County are crap. etc. etc.
I'd be more worried if he waltzed into a top club, or a top national side, next. A big club need rebuilding or an ok national team, less so.
posted by djgh at 1:07 PM on June 15, 2010
He's generally been taking steps down since England - Mexico aren't as good (not ranked as high, for sure), Ivory Coast the same. Notts County are crap. etc. etc.
I'd be more worried if he waltzed into a top club, or a top national side, next. A big club need rebuilding or an ok national team, less so.
posted by djgh at 1:07 PM on June 15, 2010
The answer has been given elsewhere but it is simply: it seems to me he is Ivory Coast manager because he goes where the money is, was available, and has a respectable modern track record in international tournaments -- the three quarter finals on the trot achievement -- plus a background as someone who has won in Italy, which has cachet in the elite managerial merry-go-round.
posted by galaksit at 1:17 PM on June 15, 2010
posted by galaksit at 1:17 PM on June 15, 2010
As far as I can tell the British press pretty much hate any coach of the England team (because the English team 'should' win everything, and if they don't then there must be someone to blame, and oh look! There's the manager!). To actually look good in their eyes I think you'd have to ... uh ... defeat Brazil and Argentina, playing together, by double digits, back to back, or something. Maybe just winning the World Cup would do it, but not if they've already decided they don't like you.
posted by jacalata at 5:24 PM on June 15, 2010
posted by jacalata at 5:24 PM on June 15, 2010
it seems to me he is Ivory Coast manager because he goes where the money is, was available, and has a respectable modern track record in international tournaments
The roving manager who's brought in to provide a catalyst to an emerging or struggling footballing nation isn't a new phenomenon. Bora Milutinović has coached five different World Cup squads, including the US in 1994. His club record is rotten.
The snarky but accurate answer to the question 'why do clubs/nations hire Sven?' is this: they couldn't get Guus Hiddink.
posted by holgate at 7:35 PM on June 15, 2010
The roving manager who's brought in to provide a catalyst to an emerging or struggling footballing nation isn't a new phenomenon. Bora Milutinović has coached five different World Cup squads, including the US in 1994. His club record is rotten.
The snarky but accurate answer to the question 'why do clubs/nations hire Sven?' is this: they couldn't get Guus Hiddink.
posted by holgate at 7:35 PM on June 15, 2010
Maybe it's just the British press, who never seemed too kind to him.
The British press are a bunch of jngoistic fucknozzles, mostly writing for sports fans who are just as hopeless. There's a large chunk of any sports public who dovetail neatly with whatever xenophobic stereotype applies to their home nation (ugly American, humourless Kiwi, arrogant Aussie, little Englander, etc), and England has it in spades, and the papers cater to and encourage it. England are the best, they have the best players, they invented football, SPIRIT OF 66 WHO WON THE WAY ANYWAY!, all that crap.
Sven committed the unpardonable sins of (a) being a foreigner, (b) not winning every competition AS IT ENGLAND'S DIVINE RIGHT, and (c) shagging some hot notable English women. As such, he was a great blame-magnet.
(b) is the most important thing; it's almost impossible to understand the disconnect between expectations from a certain segment of the English sporting public (and press) and reality unless you either are in England, or have regular sporting contact with them. England win against New Zealand at International rugby once every 10 years, on average, and once every 30 years when playing in New Zealand. When England won the Rugby World Cup a substantial segment of said sporting public (a) suddenly became rugby fans, and (b) were telling everyone how England were going to dominate the world of rugby union, South Africa, New Zealand were done for, etc, etc.
Virtually no-one in the English press thinks it's their job to say something like, "Hang on, we're just one footballing nation amongst about a couple of dozen who could conceivably win a World Cup, we haven't done it in decades, and if our players were that good the EPL wouldn't be full of foreigners", because that wouldn't make as much money as building new managers up, feeding the fires of unreasonable expectation, and then selling copy on how crap the new manager is.
posted by rodgerd at 3:12 AM on June 16, 2010
The British press are a bunch of jngoistic fucknozzles, mostly writing for sports fans who are just as hopeless. There's a large chunk of any sports public who dovetail neatly with whatever xenophobic stereotype applies to their home nation (ugly American, humourless Kiwi, arrogant Aussie, little Englander, etc), and England has it in spades, and the papers cater to and encourage it. England are the best, they have the best players, they invented football, SPIRIT OF 66 WHO WON THE WAY ANYWAY!, all that crap.
Sven committed the unpardonable sins of (a) being a foreigner, (b) not winning every competition AS IT ENGLAND'S DIVINE RIGHT, and (c) shagging some hot notable English women. As such, he was a great blame-magnet.
(b) is the most important thing; it's almost impossible to understand the disconnect between expectations from a certain segment of the English sporting public (and press) and reality unless you either are in England, or have regular sporting contact with them. England win against New Zealand at International rugby once every 10 years, on average, and once every 30 years when playing in New Zealand. When England won the Rugby World Cup a substantial segment of said sporting public (a) suddenly became rugby fans, and (b) were telling everyone how England were going to dominate the world of rugby union, South Africa, New Zealand were done for, etc, etc.
Virtually no-one in the English press thinks it's their job to say something like, "Hang on, we're just one footballing nation amongst about a couple of dozen who could conceivably win a World Cup, we haven't done it in decades, and if our players were that good the EPL wouldn't be full of foreigners", because that wouldn't make as much money as building new managers up, feeding the fires of unreasonable expectation, and then selling copy on how crap the new manager is.
posted by rodgerd at 3:12 AM on June 16, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ghharr at 8:55 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]