FootballNews

Craig Foster has taken the blowtorch to Graham Arnold in the following article published in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Any Socceroos coach who has to constantly bleat about his credentials, about the players "respecting him", about them "playing for him" - close to the most pathetically insecure comment a coach can make - and about how he has left a legacy, is, clearly, not up to the job.

This is one of the outcomes of putting Graham Arnold in charge of a successful group of professional players who daily operate at the elite end of the game. It is also the outcome of appointing a coach who has no track record or experience at the highest level and expecting him to be able to control, and inspire, the group to perform to international level.

That task was made even harder by Arnold being the immediate successor to a master coach.

Normally, the only coaches considered for national appointment are those who have succeeded over many years, usually at both domestic and international levels, though not necessarily both. They must have developed the theoretical requirements the job demands and then have successfully applied that theoretical base in practice over many years - usually at least a decade.

Such a coach acquires a certain confidence, arrogance often, in their ability to direct players and win titles. They don't need to argue their case.

They are good enough because their record says they are, period.

I am looking forward to the Socceroos again becoming about the players, the team, the games, the match-ups, the path ahead and the broader game - and no longer about the interim coach's right to the job, despite having proven nothing.

Let's see whether Arnold's credentials make him capable of pitting his wits tactically with the best in the world: After an inauspicious NSL career, he spent half a decade as assistant to Frank Farina in a failed campaign, and then a year under Guus Hiddink as assistant.

Then came his role as coach during the Asian Cup. This misadventure was as famous for the paucity of football Australia produced as the disastrous media persona of the coach both here and in the Asian press. This included famously succumbing to the pressure and blaming the players - a post-match comment that was quickly turned into a supposedly pre-planned "motivational" ploy by the Arnold-friendly media machine.

After all that, he still expects to stay in the role?

What sort of standards are we promoting if that kind of performance is acceptable? The players must be sick of answering the question, "Is Graham Arnold the man for the job?", particularly after they all gave their honest indication straight after the World Cup when they said we needed another quality, experienced technician.

They already knew Arnold was angling for the job, and did their best to direct Football Federation of Australia policy with public cries for another coach who could command respect - not plead for it.

They must also be sick to the stomach of Arnold's constant lobbying, his urging them to give him their support publicly, when all they require is a coach good enough not to need it.

In the end, they players will privately know they are better off when they can just focus on playing - rather than having the freedom to debate and direct team policy and preparation.

And I'm tired of hearing about "lessons". Apparently, we learned lessons from the Asian Cup preparation, from the debacle itself and from every poor performance which should have been better. But when were these lessons supposed to end?

The whole point about having an experienced coach is that he has already learned the lessons and can apply them to, for example, preparing for, adapting to, and playing in Asia.

And this is why the Asian Cup made a complete mockery of all those in the media close to the coach who spouted that Arnold would carry on the "Hiddink legacy".

Sure, Hiddink's tactical system and philosophy when mimicked by Arnold worked in friendlies and in climates that suited a high-tempo pressing game. But after the first game against Oman, when it was clear that this system would not work, the copied tactics went straight out the window and Arnold was lost.

So, too, was any shred of credibility Arnold had with the players.

Why? Because he had no experience to fall back on. He had never been in a major tournament as coach, let alone in Asia, let alone in those conditions, let alone in charge of a group who knew he had completely lost his way.

Ultimately, those are the only lessons that count.

Arnold is undoubtedly a better coach than he was two years ago. He's been lucky. Fortunate to stay involved after his mate Farina was fired, even though most assistants leave as a matter of respect. Fortunate to benefit tremendously from his time under a master coach. Fortunate to inherit teams such as the Socceroos from Hiddink and now the Olyroos from Rob Baan.

The problem with Arnold is one of quality, not nationality. Yes, he's a better coach now. But good enough for the Socceroos? Not even close.

I agree with alot of his comments about his approach, as well as having the ability to motivate the elite. Experience is essential, it has to earned at club level. He should in my view seek coaching gig's in Holland now as he's worked under Guss, and has National team coach of Australia on his resume and he's played in Holland. He would develop and could come back to take the national team job in the future.

Mike Cockerill write an article bout his view on it as well....very different though...

BE CAREFUL what you wish for.

Six years ago, this is what a leading European club manager had to say when two of his players were called up for the first stages of Australia's World Cup qualifying campaign: "The worst aspect is that he [Frank Farina] is applying one rule to certain clubs and a different rule to other clubs … You can't do that as a manager. You can't do that, because it's not right … The strange thing is that Farina played in Europe, so he knows what happens here. But these problems will always exist when the rules favour the national teams. I don't think it is right when everything is to the advantage of country and not the club."

The man in question was Dick Advocaat, then manager of Scottish side Rangers. The players involved were Tony Vidmar and Craig Moore. Advocaat is now poised to replace Graham Arnold as coach of the Socceroos. As Australia prepare for a marathon World Cup campaign starting next February - an odyssey that will take in eight time zones - the demands on the players will be massive. In terms of club-versus-country, it won't be a battle. It will be a war.

Just how hard will Advocaat be prepared to fight the system for a team he once decried for playing "Mickey Mouse" games? It's one of many unanswered questions surrounding Football Federation Australia's obsession with appointing a so-called "big name" foreign coach.

Unlike previous World Cup campaigns, this one will be a marathon, not a sprint. Will Advocaat, just about to turn 60, have the right amount of passion and energy for such a challenge?

Just over two years ago, at the conclusion of a disappointing Confederations Cup performance, FFA chairman Frank Lowy got rid of Farina. From that moment on, the man who makes all the big decisions in the game has clearly taken the view that only foreign coaches are equipped to take the Socceroos to the next level.

There's little doubt Lowy felt vindicated by Guus Hiddink's contribution, with good reason. But like Terry Venables before him, Hiddink wasn't in it for a long time, he was in it for a good time. Hiddink bludgeoned through his agenda - on issues such as the playing schedule, training programs, support staff, public appearances, commercial commitments - because he didn't care about the fallout. He knew he would be gone by the time the complaints started to surface. Some players, for instance, believe they are only now starting to recover physically from the brutal pre-World Cup training regime.

It was left to Arnold, the faithful lieutenant, to pick up the pieces. Cajoling burnt-out players to put their hands up for selection - juggling the conflicting demands of concurrent Olympic Games and Asian Cup qualifying campaigns; coping with employers who wanted to slash costs after the extravagance of the Hiddink era. And all this while his boss, Lowy, was offering half-hearted support.

Lowy has been searching for a star coach for more than 12 months. Some of the negotiations have taken place virtually in front of Arnold's nose. Incredibly, some have even taken place on match days. As the FFA has been continually rebuffed, Arnold's reign has stretched from one game to the next until, when all avenues were exhausted, he was given his big chance to stake his claim at the Asian Cup. In a dressing room full of egos, where authority is the coach's biggest weapon, it proved to be a poisoned chalice. But Arnold was not blameless, and the black-and-white of the scoreboard shows he failed.

Arnold's last game as Socceroos coach came on a soggy evening at the MCG this week, and ended in defeat against Argentina. His record over 15 games [six wins, four draws, five losses] won't win any awards, but in the context of a team in transition, is reasonable. Especially when you consider there were times when the FFA wouldn't let him pick players from the A-League, and, by and large, he couldn't promote any of the Olyroos.

When Central Coast striker Nik Mrdja came on for the final few minutes at the MCG, he became the 53rd player capped by Arnold during his tenure. After trial and error, Arnold claimed afterwards he could hand a list of between 30-35 players to the next coach for the World Cup campaign. He said he was "proud" of that legacy, with some justification.

Could a foreign coach have laid that sort of groundwork? Not likely. Would a foreign coach have put up with the restrictions imposed on Arnold during the transition process? No way.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. While a foreign coach may indeed benefit the Socceroos, the rider from Lowy that he must also be a "big name" reveals a potentially fatal flaw. "Big name" foreign coaches are, by definition, coaches who have been there, done that. Which explains why it's taken the FFA so long to single out Advocaat. Most coaches who fall into this category can earn more elsewhere. Most, if not all of them, do not want to uproot and move to the end of the footballing world.

It's hard to escape the impression Lowy's shortlist has got shorter because most of the candidates see it as a job to be taken if they can't get a better offer.

Advocaat's vacillation as he waits to see if Zenit St Petersburg qualify for next year's Champions League bares this out. If he does take the job, it seems he intends to still live in Europe. How does this fit in with the obvious conclusion reached by Arnold that, because of travel and timing issues, A-League players will be crucial to the World Cup campaign?

In insisting on a big name, the FFA might have compromised its objectives. Venables didn't leave a legacy, nor did Hiddink. Both had short-term targets. Advocaat's target - to reach the World Cup - might be the same, but the process will not be short term. If the FFA is to go foreign, why not find a younger, lesser known, coach who has passion, drive, and enthusiasm? One who wants to make a name, not one who has a name already.

All of this, of course, pre-supposes that Australian coaches aren't good enough to coach the Australian team. It's a view promoted by certain sections of the media, voiced by some noisy supporters groups, and - clearly - supported by Lowy.

The greatest tragedy, however, is that the people who really count - the players - also seem to share the view. The great hypocrisy is that the same players who proclaim we need a foreign coach in charge of the Socceroos will, in a few years, be looking for coaching jobs themselves.

Arnold's parting shot was his best. Claiming some of the criticism came from people who wanted to "hammer Australian coaches", he said: "I've worn a lot of flak because I'm Australian … at the end of the day, Australia makes and develops good coaches, but some people think that because you're Australian, you don't belong here."

Sadly, too many of the doubters are inside the Australian dressing room. Whether the ringleaders change their tune once Advocaat, Australia's first "long-haul" coach, takes charge, remains to be seen. Often the best lessons have to be learnt the hard way.

Mike Cockerill wrote:Often the best lessons have to be learnt the hard way.

thats not just football...

We do have high expectations for Arnold because he gets paid enough has enough hangers on as he wishes and suppossedly has a name for himself. Working with Kosmina between the two of them what a disaster. Arrogance and wasted money is all we can expect. Foster is right, he is in the know and can see all the politics going on. and thats all it is. spend as much as you like play who you like, kick out Aloisi ,no comments after helping them in the WC campaign, just treat everyone like sh.. and it will all be fine surround yourself with another bunch of macho wank...and all will be well. WE WILL SHOW them all quoted. God help us all Mr Lowry get you your men out now looking ahead.

I hate it how people defend Arnold. Lets get this straight. Arnold is a nice bloke. No doubt about it. He really wants to manage Australia well, he does care. The problem is that he is inexperienced and is not fit for such a job. He is ill equipped.

The reason Australian Football is not very impressive is that there never was a football culture present. Brazillians are great footballers but very bad cricketers (if they know what cricket is). Its just not the traditional Australian sport. That is why relying on Australian coaches is useless. I am sick and tired of having to learn lessons and hearing comments that we did our best. That is pathetic. We are a laughing stock. So what if we did well in the world cup? So what? We sucked big time against Asian teams in the Asian Cup. But NO we did well in the world cup. That was over a year ago. Its not relevant anymore. So Greece won the European Cup in 2004. Where are they now?

Enough of learning lessons. Lets put some of these into practice. Anybody who is suggesting that Australian coaches at this time are equal to overseas coaches just doesnt know football. Australian OUR coaches are inferior. Name one coach that could lead Australia today?

Mike Cockerill wrote:Mike Cockerill write an article bout his view on it as well....very different though...

Just over two years ago, at the conclusion of a disappointing Confederations Cup performance, FFA chairman Frank Lowy got rid of Farina. From that moment on, the man who makes all the big decisions in the game has clearly taken the view that only foreign coaches are equipped to take the Socceroos to the next level.

History shows this was the right decision. We qualified for the World Cup (by the slimmest of margins), punched above our weight at the World Cup and were within a whisker of a quarter final then semi final berth.

Fact - Lowy made the right decision and was vindicated.

Mike Cockerill wrote: There's little doubt Lowy felt vindicated by Guus Hiddink's contribution, with good reason. But like Terry Venables before him, Hiddink wasn't in it for a long time, he was in it for a good time. Hiddink bludgeoned through his agenda - on issues such as the playing schedule, training programs, support staff, public appearances, commercial commitments - because he didn't care about the fallout. He knew he would be gone by the time the complaints started to surface. Some players, for instance, believe they are only now starting to recover physically from the brutal pre-World Cup training regime.

Hiddink is a proven winner. He had his agenda and he bludgeoned it through. That is one major reason why he is a winner.

As for players complaining about the training regime....come on...lets get real here - this is the World Cup we are talking about - not some mickey mouse league - the best players in the world - the best teams in the world - facing off against each other - do they want to be serious competitors or not. Maybe these one or two whining players should have chosen cricket instead of football!!!

How long was the pre world cup training regime? - six weeks? How does that compare to playing 60 games in the UK Premier League over 10 months?

Mike Cockerill wrote: It was left to Arnold, the faithful lieutenant, to pick up the pieces. Cajoling burnt-out players to put their hands up for selection - juggling the conflicting demands of concurrent Olympic Games and Asian Cup qualifying campaigns; coping with employers who wanted to slash costs after the extravagance of the Hiddink era. And all this while his boss, Lowy, was offering half-hearted support.

Poor guy. That must have been tough. How did he cope with such massive stresses?

Welcome to normality. Most people have real jobs Mr Cockerill, have to constantly juggle conflicting demands in a cost cutting environment and have to cope with real life stresses.

Arnold had a fantastic opportunity to do a job he really wanted.

Mike Cockerill wrote: His record over 15 games [six wins, four draws, five losses] won't win any awards, but in the context of a team in transition, is reasonable. Especially when you consider there were times when the FFA wouldn't let him pick players from the A-League, and, by and large, he couldn't promote any of the Olyroos.

Crap. He chose his squads and he could pick however he liked especially for the Asian Cup.

Mike Cockerill wrote: When Central Coast striker Nik Mrdja came on for the final few minutes at the MCG, he became the 53rd player capped by Arnold during his tenure. After trial and error, Arnold claimed afterwards he could hand a list of between 30-35 players to the next coach for the World Cup campaign. He said he was "proud" of that legacy, with some justification.

Could a foreign coach have laid that sort of groundwork? Not likely. Would a foreign coach have put up with the restrictions imposed on Arnold during the transition process? No way.

Crap again. Most of those 53 players were capped during the Hiddink reign. Arnold kept picking the same players again and again. He stuck with the same faces regardless of form and attitude and he was punished in the Asian Cup.

Mike Cockerill wrote: In insisting on a big name, the FFA might have compromised its objectives. Venables didn't leave a legacy, nor did Hiddink.

What.....Hiddink did not leave a legacy....where have you been Mike Cockerill? Was not World Cup qualification and then reaching the second round enough of a legacy? It has elevated the Socceroos from being the worst performing Australian sporting team into sporting folklore. It captured the hearts and minds of the Australian sporting public and will not be forgotten for a long time. It has put bums on seats and created a new army of youngsters kicking the ball in the park.

I dont like to get personal but your an idiot Mike Cockerill. This is an absolutely stupid claim!!!!

Mike Cockerill wrote: All of this, of course, pre-supposes that Australian coaches aren't good enough to coach the Australian team. It's a view promoted by certain sections of the media, voiced by some noisy supporters groups, and - clearly - supported by Lowy.

Farina......Arnold......do you need more evidence? The Socceroo coach should be picked on merit not nationality and there are no obvious Australian born candidates at the moment.

Mike Cockerill wrote: The greatest tragedy, however, is that the people who really count - the players - also seem to share the view. The great hypocrisy is that the same players who proclaim we need a foreign coach in charge of the Socceroos will, in a few years, be looking for coaching jobs themselves.

Sometimes when everyone else in the room is disagreeing with you then maybe you should consider that you might be wrong!

Mike Cockerill wrote: Arnold's parting shot was his best. Claiming some of the criticism came from people who wanted to "hammer Australian coaches", he said: "I've worn a lot of flak because I'm Australian … at the end of the day, Australia makes and develops good coaches, but some people think that because you're Australian, you don't belong here."

Graham Arnold has worn a lot of flak because he has not performed.

At least Frank Farina accepted the appointment of Hiddink was in the best interests of the sport and had the dignity to go quietly.

Mike Cockerill wrote: Often the best lessons have to be learnt the hard way.

Thats why you select an experienced coach who has done it all before. So you dont have to learn everything the hard way!!!

Sorry Cockerill but I disagree with your sentimental arguments.

Agree fuck learning things the hard way! Lets get results, the Asian cup was a step backwards for football in this country!
No doubt if we made the final and had won, it would have been another great moment for the sport in this country! Instead we were a shambles and outdone by a better coached Iraq side!

This is an old story.

Pires, much like Australian Rugby atm.........or maybe not?

I think that the current situation at AU is a clear indication of why being a successful NSL/A-league coach doesn't give you any claims to be a candidate for the socceroo's job!
Merrick has been found out a bit without a star player, what response has he given? Does he have another winning formula?
And if AU win the league this year, no way would viddie be ready to coach the socceroos.

It always seems the reasoning, Farina/Arnold won a title with....
It's an issue in australia that we don't produce many coaches who move overseas to the bigger leagues

not sure if it was posted here but Arnold has applied for the vacant bolton job.

its not vacant anymore gary megson was appointed. foster was out of line to make those comments

I can't believe Megson has been given another chance in the premiership.

He has been an abject failure at every club he's been with in the top flight.

His limit is the Championship and then only with a squad that someone else has put together before being snatched up by another club.

That is the biggest problem with alot of these smaller premiership clubs that have lost a good manager to a bigger club - they are too scared to take a chance on a younger manager and forget that the person they just lost was just that when he was appointed when their club was a struggling championship or League 1 club.

Fred Goldstone wrote:I can't believe Megson has been given another chance in the premiership.

He has been an abject failure at every club he's been with in the top flight.

His limit is the Championship and then only with a squad that someone else has put together before being snatched up by another club.

That is the biggest problem with alot of these smaller premiership clubs that have lost a good manager to a bigger club - they are too scared to take a chance on a younger manager and forget that the person they just lost was just that when he was appointed when their club was a struggling championship or League 1 club.

more or less spot on fred