Unless you follow Scottish football, or are Leicester City fan, you're unlikely to know much about Craig Levein. But the Dundee United manager is a leading contender for the vacant position of Scotland's football manager. I was interested to note that his main concern the role was that he might get bored with the lack of day-to-day management required by the role.
For a young manager, who is bright and ambitious, to be concerned about the prospect of boredom in international football managers might seem crazy to most of us. I mean, who wouldn't jump at the chance - even to manage Scotland! But Levein is reported to want to take more responsibility than just the senior team, perhaps taking on a role to build the whole peformance system, more like a performance director in an olympic sport. Actually, I don't blame him.
To have your hands tied to only playing a handful of matches in a season, only having your squad together for small amounts of time, and having little no influence on the quality of players coming through the pipeline might not only be a bit boring but also very frustrating.
Indeed, while we can probably all relate to the stress of not feeling in control, boredom is also a stressor in itself. For those that seek enjoyment, through such things as variety and challenge, in their work boredom is a real possibility if their needs are not met.
Any negative emotion, as boredom is, can be stressful both through the tension that is felt between the actual and desired state, and through effort expended to resolve that tension - particularly when it is unsuccessful.
I think that Levein, in revealing this side of his personality, is demonstrating a high degree of self-awareness that simply adds weight to his suitability for the job. But if the Scottish Football Association decide that he's their man they might have to make the job a bigger one.
Mark Hughes was a sacking waiting to happen. The announcement made on the Manchester City website stated that the team's results were not in line with targets set. Yet Man City are not far off Champions League qualification, so there wasn't a desperate need to act now.
It is often said that football is a results business. But that's true in all professional sports. Its true in business too. CEOs don't get long to prove that they are up to the job. Up to the job - that's an important statement to me.
I don't believe that Mark Hughes was sacked because the team's results had not been up to expectations. I expect he was sacked because the owners didn't believe he was up to the job. He didn't have their complete confidence. I imagine that was true from the beginning. They didn't hire him, and I suggest that their decision not to replac e him immediately was a "let's wait and see" decision rather than "he's absolutlely the right man for the job".
And you know what? If they've taken a good hard look at his plans, his capabilities and - of course - his development needs in the intervening time and they're not convinced that he will deliver what they want, then he has to go. Whether they've really taken such a reasoned and analytical view is my only doubt.
What journalists would have us believe is that a good result in a particular game might have "saved" his job. That's no way to run a football club. You have to accept that you don't always get the outcome that you want, but you have to look at everything that might influence that outcome and ensure that you are doing everything that you can to control what you can.
So let's not kid ourselves. Mark Hughes has been a dead man walking. The only thing that could have saved him would have been if his team had surpassed all expectations, and possibly won the Premier League. But as we saw with Mourinho at Chelsea, even unprecedented success doesn't guarantee job security. Ultimately, Hughes (as a manager) isn't a 'marquee' name, and that's what a mega-rich owners tend to want for their newly acquired football club.
Emmanuel Petit, who played for Arsenal through many of their most successful years under Arsene Wenger, has criticised the club's transfer policy - highlighting the need to balance short term results with long-term strategy.
The worlds of business and sport are increasingly focused on short-term results. Football managers can be sacked within weeks if results go badly and confidence is lost. Business leaders talk of the need to get through the next quarter as being the priority to keep shareholders on side. In the current climate, financial collapse can be just around the corner, as many big names will testify.
Few doubt that Arsene Wenger is building a squad of players that could deliver success in the long-term, but in the meantime he has sacrificed trophies and tested the patience of many fans who expect more. Petit's criticism revolves around Wenger's unwillingness to spend big on new players, break the wage structure, and his apparent willingness to let senior players go when the squad may benefit from their experience.
Chelsea, in particular, among their rivals would appear to have taken the opposite approach, backed by Abramovich's deep pockets. Critics might point to the lack of evidence of a pipeline of home-grown talent. Clubs who buy are at risk of building a house of cards - when the current crop of players goes, where is the bench strength to replace them?
Balance is not easily achieved. Manchester United have done it, although recently they've depended more on bought talent than home-grown. But they have been able to keep refreshing their squad, building for the long-term while maintaining results.
The same can be said to be true for any sport, whether 'professional' or not. Some years ago I was involved in the review of a major Olympic sport and their 'World Class' programmes. Within the sport there was some appetite for shifting focus (and funds), from what was seen as a bloated and ineffective senior programme, to their talent development programmes. A closer look, however, showed that success at the senior elite level was a crucuial driver of the whole system and that focusing on getting it right at the senior end could bring funding for the other programmes. A shift towards the junior programmes could be highly risky and ultimately result in the loss of overall funding.
Likewise, in professional sports such as football, the first team is the economic driver of the whole system. Revenues from TV, sponsorship, ticketing, prize money and other commercial ventures are dependent on success of the first team. The first team is the 'brand' in so many ways.
So maybe Emmanuel Petit is right. Clearly Arsenal aren't a bad team, but perhaps Wenger and the board have been a little dogmatic in their approach; perhaps just a little too focused on the future and not quite enough on the here and now.
A week ago (as I write this) Manchester United looked imperious and unassailable at the top of the Premier League. It looked unlikely that anyone would stop them defending their title and, indeed, winning an unprecedented quintuple. Two straight defeats and the story is quite different. While they still hold a lead in the Premier League, a Liverpool win tomorrow would cut that back to one point (albeit with a game in hand).
The real story is not arithmetical, however, but psychological. Liverpool, on the back of convincing wins against Man United and Real Madrid, will take fresh confidence from their rivals' defeat at Fulham today, and revitalise their belief that they can still win the title. Chelsea, having lost to Tottenham today, failed to capitalise on their opportunity to close the gap.
In this week of madness, Manchester United have had three players sent off: Vidic, Scholes and Rooney. All three will be missing for Aston Villa's visit to Old Trafford on April 5.
While United have excellent strength in depth, to have three such influential players out won't help them.
But it is Rooney that I'm interested in. I've so often watched Rooney and thought that he was the barometer of the side that he is playing in. For England, who so often seem (at least pre-Capello) to huff and puff their way through games, belying the talent at their disposal, Rooney often cuts an angry figure. When Rooney is angry, England are a team without creativity and spark. With an in-form Manchester United, Rooney is a different man - full of energy, and always lookign to try something different - a maverick if you like.
Rather than being the driver of his team's 'personality', I think that Rooney reflects it. He's not a player that can hide his emotions all that well. I'd put it down to 'climate'. It's the influence of key people (leaders) on the collective mindset of the team.
So what I'm wondering today is this: With Rooney being sent off for stupidly throwing the ball away and, of course, with Manchester United losing two games on the bounce, are cracks appearing in the mental strength of the Manchester United squad, and of Alex Ferguson?
Just before Liverpool stumbled and allowed Man United to overtake them, their manager Raphael Benitez let off a rant about Man United and Alex Ferguson which was seen as a sign of the pressure getting to him. I was therefore interested to note that Fergie was reported this morning as talking about the money that Liverpool would be spending this summer.
I wouldn't call it a rant, but it suggest that Ferguson's mind may have been on Liverpool - which is exactly what Liverpool would want.
Things just might get even more interesting tomorrow - but only if Liverpool can deliver. Which, to be honest, we can't fully rely on....
On one hand 'Big Phil' Scolari's sacking from Chelsea this week was a great surprise. Indeed, when the axe fell, it fell quickly and without much warning. Many commentators were surprised, even though Chelsea's recent results had been poor - or at least not good enough to satisfy owner Roman Abramovich's thirst for trophies.
Looking at it differently, however, Scolari's swift exit is merely a sign of the times that we are in, both in sport and in business. Both are about results. Both seem to be increasingly about short term results. Indeed, football and business are one and the same. Big football clubs, whether PLC or privately owned, just like any businesses, are at the whim of shareholders and other key stakeholders.
It has long been recognised that balancing short and long term results is one of the toughest tasks of a business leader. There's no point in having a great strategy if you don't get good enough results to see it through. If there's no strategy, short term results are going to be hard to sustain. Likewise in football. You've got to earn the right to see through the strategy. You need the youth system, but you need to still be in the Premier League when the new talent starts coming through.
I was at a conference before Christmas, where the speaker was talking about business leadership increasingly being about getting through the next quarter. Abramovich might be seen as being twitchy or impatient, but that's roughly where Scolari was. Abramovich was unhappy, basically, with this quarter's results, and wasn't confident that the next quarter - basically to the end of the season - would be good enough. So, he's bringing someone in - most likely Gus Hiddink - that he believes can provide those short term results. If Hiddink earns the right to stay for the long-term, however, it remains to be seen whether he will choose to.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Get updates on Twitter@sportpsychrob
This morning I listened to Garry Richardson (Radio Five Live) interviewing one of the English Cricket Board (ECB) management board about the Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores debacle. I can't remember who - that's not important. Neither is the interviewing style of Richardson, whom I find infuriating. (He clumsily piles in with questions of people that he must know - unless he has been stuck in his journalistic bubble for too long - that they can't answer, and then pushes them for more are more specific details on the same issue. Anyway, I digress.)
Clearly the man from the ECB was maintaining a professional silence on the stickier issues. Was he going to comment on who was behing KP and who was behing Moores? Was he going to reveal the details of private conversations? Of course not. But it was the line of questioning (Richardson's apparent lack of understanding of professionalism and leadership), which was almost childish, which got me thinking about how this whole issue had not been resolved.
Kevin Pietersen is clearly a talented and driven cricketer. Peter Moores arrived in the England job with a good record in county cricket.
So why couldn't they just work things out? Why not sit down and work out the best solution for the England cricket team?
If Pietersen had doubts over Moores coaching methods, couldn't they have discussed them? It strikes me that we have on one hand a professional, modern coach, schooled in the science of the game and taking an analytical approach; and a flair player. I don't know what went on and won't pretend to, but was Moores unable to influence his captain as to the efficacy of his methods? Was KP just too arrogant and proud to listen and give ground? Or did Pietersen have some really valuable insight that was being overlooked?
Like I say, I don't know. But this is yet again a story of failure in English Cricket. Moores and Pietersen have collectively failed to co-exist as leaders, to work together and bring their respectives strengths to bear for the good of the England cricket team.
Personally, I can't help thinking that a large chunk of responsibility lies with Pietersen. In a leadership position you somply cannot declare: "It's him or me", assuming that reports are actually true. At the beginning of the week, the papers were speculating that Moores would be sacrificed, but to me that made Kevin Pietersen's position untenable. The only real defence for Pietersen would be his inexperience - in which case he could have been coached to handle things more appropriately. Maybe Moores' postiion was already untenable, so they both had to go?
But let's not forget that even though they are leaders, both are led. So the failure is also one of leadership in the ECB. Ultimately, Hugh Morris, the MD of England cricket is responsible for his team. It strikes me that this all came to a head very quickly and publicly. We can't blame him for this being leaked to the press, but I think that it is entirely reasonable to question his leadership in this situation.
I'm not going to paint all sports managers with the same brush, but having worked in both sport and coporate business, it seems that an awful lot of sports teams focus their efforts on building their performance on the field - and rightly so - but ultimately organisations do or don't meet their objectives and it is rare for them to excel under poor leadership, no matter how high the investment in systems, processes and people.
This week Roy Keane left Sunderland, after just over 2 years in charge of the Black Cats. What's behind this? Is it a good decision for Keane? What lies in store for the former Manchester United man?
Of course I can't answer all of these questions, but as a sport psychologist, football fan and talent manager I can't help but have my views. There's also no shortage of opinion in the media to draw upon.
Roy Keane - Player to Manager
The first thing to note is that Keane's entry into football management was at least as unexpected as his departure from Sunderland. As a player, he had little patience for other players, and indeed coaches or officials, that didn't have his passion and drive for performance. But he was also a very contradictory character, capable of being very self-destructive (notably his feud and possibly career-ending tackle on Alf-Inge Haaland).
At the time of his appointment, I thought that he would be spectacularly successful as a manager or a complete train wreck. I have to admit I was leaning to the latter, but his strength of character and refusal to accept the status quo meant that he was, in retrospect, the perfect catalyst for a revival at the Stadium of light.
Problems mount
Having created change at the club, Roy Keane then took Sunderland to the Premier League. Although the squad was limited in ability, its spirit and determination helped Sunderland to survive its first season without relegation. At this point we had seen very little, if any, of Keane's more volatile nature, as he remained the model of calm and focus on the touchline.
In the close season, however, it became apparent that even with Keane in charge, Sunderland was not the most attractive destination for the best players. In the end, Keane spent over £70 million on 33 players, as he had to compromise on quality and found himself with a bloated squad. He had some genuine quality in specific positions, but Keane's Sunderland was not a team of superstars.
In order to take the club on a level, not just to fight relegation but to climb the league, Sunderland would need to sell before buying any more players. That could prove to be difficult (for the next manager).
There has been talk of Keane losing the confidence of the players of late. His team has lost six from the last seven games. It certainly seems that Roy Keane questioned his ability to take the club any further.
Looking ahead
It is probably safe to assume that Roy Keane is as ambitious as a manager as he was as a player. When it looked like he had taken Sunderland as far as he was likely to, this may have created a problem for Keane.
People have talked about Roy Keane as a successor to Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United. Whether that's his goal or not, the Sunderland job was not going to be a platform from which Keane could demonstrate that he has the qualities to be manager of an elite club on a European level. His chances of European football were slim, so he wasn't going to demonstrate that he could guide a team to the European Cup or Premier League title. He wasn't going to be able to demonstrate that he could manage the most talented players.
So Roy Keane, Sunderland manager, was always going to be a risk for a top European team to recruit.
If he was to become a top team's manager, he wasn't going to do that from the Stadium of Light. But the Sunderland job could be a stepping stone to a stepping stone to a top job. Maybe he could be the next Everton, Aston Villa, Tottenham or, dare I say it, Newcastle manager (not assuming that any of these jobs will be available any time soon). Should he take a team like this to regular European football, with some sort of trophy along the way, then perhaps the top job would be realistic. At least it would take him one step closer.
The alternative for Keane might have been relegation, and he might not have been able to contemplate having relegation - or failure - on his CV.
As a talent manager, I think that while the timing and nature of his resignation from Sunderland could have been better, he was going to have to leave some time soon. Sunderland was Keane's "development role" in talent management language. If it wasn't going to give him more opportunity to develop in the ways that he wants to, he was right to go.
I can't predict Keane's next move, let alone his next again, but I will say that the manner of his resignation this week, in an unmanaged and abrupt manner (how has he helped his successor?) probably hasn't helped his cause. It suggests that he's still not quite thinking about the bigger picture - something he'll have to do at a top club - and it also serves as a reminder of his volatile past.
This week has seen two managers from the English Premier League, Alan Curbishley and Kevin Keegan, leave their clubs (West Ham and Newcastle United, respectively) quit their posts. In both cases the issue appears to be their loss of control over transfers, and perhaps other aspects of the club management.
This has caused a great deal of debate about management, and the role of the Director of Football in particular. Both Curbishley and Keegan had been working in a structure that included a Director of Football. Both are very experienced managers. Importantly both were in position when Directors were appointed 'above' them.
Both men were used to running the football side of the club. They reported into the board. They had a backroom team, including an assistant manager, that reported to them. Then, they found that their powers were diminished by the appointment of another man, a Director of Football, who took some of their resonsibilities from them.
So what is a Director of Football? Dave Bassett, a long-time football manager, described the role as
" ..... a buffer. The director of football is answerable to the board but there to assist the manager. He's experienced in football and there to help the board members who don't have that experience." (Source: Wikipedia)
This description, for me, captures one of the key problems that occurs when a Director of Football is introduced into a British club, particularly when there is an incumbent manager. Fundamentally, the Director of Football should not be there to "assist" the manager, but to manage the football division or function of the club (including "the manager"). Because of changes in the game, professional football clubs are now complex organisations, with huge commercial and match-day operations. One might argue, therefore, that there is a need to create an executive team, like any large corporate, that works together to create and deliver the whole organisation's strategy, who manager their function "down the line". In this respect, the Director of Football should be the equal of, say, the Finance Director, or the Operations Director and creates the Football Strategy. This should include such things as setting the strategic direction for coaching, talent identification, recruitment (transfers) and youth development (the academy).
Different clubs will define the role of the Director of Football and the head coach, or manager, differently, and I would argue that it doesn't matter what titles you use. But one thing should be clear, the manager reports to the DoF. You simply cannot have any confusion, as there seems to have been at both West Ham and Newcastle.
What this says is that the role of manager is also different. They no longerr report straight to the chairman. They don't set the overall strategy, necessarily. They don't oversee the academy, the scouts, and they may not negotiate contracts.
But they might. They might have the final say on who is recruited. They should have some say. After all, they have to manage the team's performance. Just like when I was recruited I was interviewed by my prosective manager, and by her line manager - but my line manager ultimately has to manage me and probably, therfore, made the ultimate decision.
What absolutely must be clear, however, is where the accountabilities and responsibilities lie. Someone has to make the decisions. In my experience, the person that will "get it in the neck" if the decision is wrong, must be allowed to make it.
The relationship must also work to the advantage of the club, too. This is why it ultimately needs to be a manager-report relationship. That does not mean that it should not be collaborative, open and even friendly. It simply means that ultimately, someone is in charge. I would imagine that both Curbishley and Keegan would have a problem with this, and understandably so with their experience, especially given the retrospective nature of the changes made at their clubs.
So, is there a place in the modern game for the likes of Curbishley or Keegan? The manager that does it all?
I'm going to stick my neck out and say no. Not at the highest levels of professional football. Not as we've come to know it in the UK. I don't think that a senior football manager, whatever you call them, can do everything from strategy setting to coaching the team and leading them out on matchday.
In every career path you have to make a choice. Are you a manager or a doer? To take the step to the strategic level, every manager has to put behind them - at some point - the hands-on skills that got them where they are. In management, it is often the things that mark you out as sucessful at the start of your career that can get in the way of success as you progress. In a large, complex footballing operation I believe that's a choice that has to be made. You can be a coach (maybe the equivalent to a middle manager, as you also have reports - the coaches and players, maybe support staff), or you can truly become a senior manager.
Indeed, that's what Alex Ferguson is. When Carlos Quieroz was assistant manager, Sir Alex left first team training to him. Yes, he took charge on match day, but he'll have made decisions using the input from his "operational" assistant manager. Call them Director of Football and Head Coach, if you like. Sir Alex manages transfers, and built the struture that has become one of the most productive football factories in modern times. But he doesn't do everything.
At lower levels, even in the professional game, I don't think the complexity is there to necessitate having a Director of Football. In many ways the lower tiers of professional games are the SMEs to the corporates that top the Premier League.
So, the football manager isn't dead but big, complex clubs need to recognise that one manager can't do it all. Every club needs someone to manage the football operation, but some clubs need someone to set the overall club strategy, and perhaps additional 'managers' - for example to head the academy. Different clubs will use different models. Director of Football and Head Coach, Manager and Assistant Manager, Director of Football and Manager. It isn't the model that ultimately matters, so much as the implementation. And that's what Newcastle and West Ham got wrong.
After another post-collapse radio interview, I'm convinced that Michael Vaughan, the England cricket captain, only ever has to say two things (at least after a first test, or most one-day matches):
1) "It's unacceptable"
2) "we have to bounce back"
After that, it's only variations on a theme.
What is wrong with the England cricket team that they just don't learn?
I write this after meeting my second head sports coach or team manager this week, and hearing about the pressure that they are under, the responsibility that they take on to deliver results and to support a team of paid or volunteer coaches, and having to deal with committees, governing bodies and parents.
Head coaches of sports teams of all shapes and sizes will recognise many of these. They'll also recognised the unsociable nature of the job - often working when peers are not, and not when their peers are (or just working all of the time). It can be quite isolating, as it can being in charge of any organisation.
Not surprisingly, being a sports coach can be something of a love/hate affair. Most are in it because they are passionate about the sport, but that passion can be hard to maintain when work is stressful.
In sport, the athletes get the most attention, and rightly so. But coaches often lack opportunities to refresh or develop their knowledge and skills, and the head coach arguably gets the least. They are expected to be the ones that know what to do. But we all need to learn and improve.
Many senior managers in the business world have an executive coach, because they don't have the support of colleagues or a line manager that lower level employees do. This tells us that no matter how good we are, most of us need help sometimes.
A sport psychologist with the right kind of experience, or perhaps a peer - a head coach from another sport, or other senior practitioner can provide that kind of support. Someone that can listen, support and, importantly challenge your ideas, perceptions, beliefs and actions. Someone that will call it like it is, hold a mirror up to you, however you want to express it.
All high performance clubs or programmes should incorporate some form of support for their head coach or performance manager/director. Nationally funded programmes can offer this, but what about the rest?
Don't try and do everything on your own. Whether you seek an external professional, or simply develop mutually supportive relationships outside of your own sport is up to you. Just do it...
When Sam Allardyce left Newcastle United last week after less than a
year, it became clear that cold, hard analysis wasn't behind the
decision. All of the respected commentators agreed that Big Sam needed
time, and that given time he would develop a strong team.
But that wasn't the issue, was it? As Alan Green summed up perfectly
while commenting on the Man United vs Newcastle match last weekend,
Allardyce's failure was not on the field, even though results were
unspectacular. He was never the right man for Newcastle. In a city
where passions run high, he was never able to make the emotional
connection with the Toon Army that Kevin Keegan did. Maybe it was the
style of football. Maybe it was his personal style. Maybe both.
Kevin Keegan hasn't been in football for a few years. There's nothing
rational that suggests he's really the man for the job (whatever the job actually is) - although he
might do well - but he's a hero on Tyneside and has already captured
the hearts of the fans. That might be all that the manager needs up
there. Certainly any manager needs the good will of the fans at some time or another.
For Big Sam, there is the comfort of a huge payoff, but his pride will
be dented. If nothing else, he will hopefully have learned a big lesson
in stakeholder management.
What price for Shearer as assistant? (He was pretty cagey on Match of the Day tonight).
We've talked about this on iStadia before and I honestly have no insider knowledge about the people involved or what they are doing, but it concerns me deeply that the ECB - to my understanding - have widely used sport psychologists but we keep seeing the same problems reocurring.
What's the ROI (Return on Investment) on sport psychology in English cricket to date? Probably hard to isolate it as a variable, but I'm guessing not great....
What can we deduce from this about practice in sport psychology?We can't say that sport psychology is not helping, but it is a concern that the English senior team appears to be so mentally fragile.
My guess might be that the problems may be systemic and caused at an organisational level, while a sport psychologist may only be considered to be part of the team that works with the players and may have little influence. I don't know, I can only speculate that something isn't right, at some level in the ECB.
There certainly seems to be something wrong, rather similar to the football, that successive coaching regimes are struggling to overcome. It is easy to say that we don't have a winning culture in this country, but some sports, such as cycling and rowing, seem to be doing better than others.....
In the run-in to big games I quite like to
try and work out (because I’m sad like that), from the messages that are coming
from the coach and key players, is what the motivational climate in the camp
is, and therefore how the team might play.
The vibes that I’m getting from England and McLaren
in particular are about determination and professionalism – about “getting the
job done” and meeting expectations. This suggests that the focus is very much
on the result and its consequences, but also on staying in control.
So what? Well, even though the manager has called
for an up-tempo approach to the game, we might not expect too much creativity
or flair to be on show. It’s going to be about discipline and sticking with the
plan, and it could be a pretty nervy affair. So, I would expect it to be tight – maybe only one goal in it.
I guess you could say that’s what most people
would predict but still, that’s what I’m picking up from a psychological point
of view.
Of course, on the day, the climate could be
different, and I think the thing that could do most to change it could be an
early goal. No matter who gets it, things could go in all sorts of directions
from there!
I've just come back from phase 1 of a management development programme
we are running for a multinational client. Part of this programme was
for the teams of managers to create a theatre performance. I'm sure
that many of you will have come across variations on the theme.
What was most interesting was that my team were incredibly focused on
their goal - the performance, determined and structured. By the end of
the first day they were way ahead. They had planned the whole thing,
and were even writing specific lines.
Meanwhile, at 11am the next day (the performance was planned for 6.30pm), one or two teams didn't even have a theme sorted out.
The performances were judged on a number of criteria, chosen by the
"festival committee" with reps from each team. As well as the business
message etc, on of the criteria was audience reaction (noise).
Which team won?
Certainly not mine. While fairly clever and well structured, their
"play" simply had no theatre. There was no creativity, no fun. They
even took making people laugh too seriously. They were, however,
clearly focused on their "goal". Sure, maybe they could have defined
their goal better, but even if they had set out with the goal of making
people laugh, they wouldn't have succeeded. In the festival committee
meeting they also guarded their idea, and were holding on so tight to
their idea that although they were clearly supposed to work together to
put on an evening's entertainment with a coherent message, they wee
extremely reluctant to adapt. They had also lost sight of the fact that
this was a learning experience, and they didn't take any real personal
risks.
To be really creative you have to be prepared to put the goal to one
side. Have some fun. Kick things around for a while, without being
preoccupied by making progress. The team that won in the end put
together a reasonable enough play in terms of content, but it wasn't
strong. But, they played to the crowd, got everyone involved, and had a
whale of a time.
At the end of it (I wasn't allowed to help them with their content), we
had a short debrief and it didn't take long for the penny to drop.
Hopefully in future when they need to be creative they'll be prepared
to take their eye off the goal, at least for a few minutes.
In sport you have to be creative too - whether creating an opportunity to score in a team sport, or simply finding a new way to go faster (which although is a goal, staying focused on the goal isn't likely to be a source of inspiration).
Any thoughts on why the England football team so often struggles to inspire?
Marting Jol, Tottenham Hotspur's head coach (manager) has an uncertain future at the club. This comes after a 4-0 weekend but two previous defeats. Apparently (according to the BBC) top club officials have "lost faith" in his ability to deliver top 4 finishes on a consistent basis (despite the fact that 5th is their highest spot for many years).
When is it appropriate for the club to consider replacing their coach? I've always been critical of chairmen sho panic and sack their coach after a bad run, and believe that the decision should be based on whether or not they believe that the coach has the ability to turn things around - taking a longer term view.
Whether they are right or not in their assessment, that seems to be what Spurs are doing. They aren't going to be swayed by a 4-0 win, rather they are unsure if they have the right man to get them where they want to go. If they are right, then I guess he would have to go, but if not, it would be a costly mistake.....
Join iStadia's Global Sport & Exercise Network today!
If you are not a member yet, registering is quick and easy! Click here for Quick Registration and keep up to date with what is happening in the community, network with and learn from iStadia's growing community of experts.
However if you are a sport & exercise professional or business and would like to promote yourself by building a detailed, search-engine friendly profile to attract potential clients, customers or employers, we recommend Full Registration.
eline might not only be a bit boring but also very frustrating.
Chelsea, in particular, among their rivals would appear to have taken the opposite approach, backed by Abramovich's deep pockets. Critics might point to the lack of evidence of a pipeline of home-grown talent. Clubs who buy are at risk of building a house of cards - when the current crop of players goes, where is the bench strength to replace them?
Rather than being the driver of his team's 'personality', I think that Rooney reflects it. He's not a player that can hide his emotions all that well. I'd put it down to 'climate'. It's the influence of key people (leaders) on the collective mindset of the team.
Looking at it differently, however, Scolari's swift exit is merely a sign of the times that we are in, both in sport and in business. Both are about results. Both seem to be increasingly about short term results. Indeed, football and business are one and the same. Big football clubs, whether PLC or privately owned, just like any businesses, are at the whim of shareholders and other key stakeholders.
)
People have talked about Roy Keane as a successor to Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United. Whether that's his goal or not, the Sunderland job was not going to be a platform from which Keane could demonstrate that he has the qualities to be manager of an elite club on a European level. His chances of European football were slim, so he wasn't going to demonstrate that he could guide a team to the European Cup or Premier League title. He wasn't going to be able to demonstrate that he could manage the most talented players.
They reported into the board. They had a backroom team, including an assistant manager, that reported to them. Then, they found that their powers were diminished by the appointment of another man, a Director of Football, who took some of their resonsibilities from them.
I am amazed to see that 
