Monday, June 04, 2007
In Defence of Arnie
Long-time readers of this blog might remember me referring to a sober, insightful article by Mike Cockerill after Australia's loss to Kuwait last year.
Right now, that piece is more relevant than ever.
Graham Arnold is copping an absolute bollocking on football forums around the country. Most of this criticism is extremely vague (he couldn't alter the formation to suit the situation, he's too soft on the players, he hasn't got the experience for this job...and that's the more specific comments).
To my mind, one of the few criticisms that's really valid is that, like Hiddink and Farina before him, he has stuck to a single-striker system for too long.
One of the sillier whinges is that he makes too many substitutions in friendlies, thereby altering the shape of the team and disrupting cohesion. All well and good, but, erm, didn't Frank Farina get regularly blasted for failing to give younger players enough of a run in friendly games? That's partly what they are for, after all.
The truth is that, as Cockerill aptly concluded, Arnie is on a hiding to nothing.
It has been made very clear that he will probably be replaced, no matter how Australia fares in the Asian Cup. Certain pundits have placed on him the ridiculous expectation that anything less than victory in the Asian Cup (in our first try, in conditions many of the players will rarely have experienced) constitutes failure.
The FFA, a model of efficiency in its handling of the national team while Hiddink was in charge, has become mysteriously spineless. Arnold was miserably treated in Kuwait City, and the Argentina friendly has been swept from beneath his feet (I still harbour a sneaking suspicion that the Argentine FA would not have had a leg to stand on had the FFA decided to stick to their guns over the game). And a replacement friendly has not been organised for June 6, with the result that few of the top players were willing to rush back to Sydney for a single match - and understandably so.
And had Arnold decided to put his foot down over player availability, would the FFA have backed him up, as they did Hiddink?
In short, Arnold has been provided with inadequate preparation for a major tournament.
Right now, that piece is more relevant than ever.
Graham Arnold is copping an absolute bollocking on football forums around the country. Most of this criticism is extremely vague (he couldn't alter the formation to suit the situation, he's too soft on the players, he hasn't got the experience for this job...and that's the more specific comments).
To my mind, one of the few criticisms that's really valid is that, like Hiddink and Farina before him, he has stuck to a single-striker system for too long.
One of the sillier whinges is that he makes too many substitutions in friendlies, thereby altering the shape of the team and disrupting cohesion. All well and good, but, erm, didn't Frank Farina get regularly blasted for failing to give younger players enough of a run in friendly games? That's partly what they are for, after all.
The truth is that, as Cockerill aptly concluded, Arnie is on a hiding to nothing.
It has been made very clear that he will probably be replaced, no matter how Australia fares in the Asian Cup. Certain pundits have placed on him the ridiculous expectation that anything less than victory in the Asian Cup (in our first try, in conditions many of the players will rarely have experienced) constitutes failure.
The FFA, a model of efficiency in its handling of the national team while Hiddink was in charge, has become mysteriously spineless. Arnold was miserably treated in Kuwait City, and the Argentina friendly has been swept from beneath his feet (I still harbour a sneaking suspicion that the Argentine FA would not have had a leg to stand on had the FFA decided to stick to their guns over the game). And a replacement friendly has not been organised for June 6, with the result that few of the top players were willing to rush back to Sydney for a single match - and understandably so.
And had Arnold decided to put his foot down over player availability, would the FFA have backed him up, as they did Hiddink?
In short, Arnold has been provided with inadequate preparation for a major tournament.
Comments:
<< Home
Mikey
I find the "Arnold bollocking" tedious and uniformed as well - one of the recent ones is that he is "too matey" with the players but no-one seems to have a source to confirm this.
Most of the "bollocking" seems to come from people who don't seem to understand what friendlies are for.
Agree also on the one vs two striker system - but this to me gets back to him trying to emulate Guus' first law to not concede a goal early and then worrying about scoring later. So for the problem is not the one striker per se but Arnold's inability to change a game plan.
That said, he has done a good job all things considered. Even Fozzie gave him credit, particularly in the area of new player recognition.
And for us to win the Asian Cup first time up would be a massive achievement, agreed.
I find the "Arnold bollocking" tedious and uniformed as well - one of the recent ones is that he is "too matey" with the players but no-one seems to have a source to confirm this.
Most of the "bollocking" seems to come from people who don't seem to understand what friendlies are for.
Agree also on the one vs two striker system - but this to me gets back to him trying to emulate Guus' first law to not concede a goal early and then worrying about scoring later. So for the problem is not the one striker per se but Arnold's inability to change a game plan.
That said, he has done a good job all things considered. Even Fozzie gave him credit, particularly in the area of new player recognition.
And for us to win the Asian Cup first time up would be a massive achievement, agreed.
Sorry Mikey, one last comment... The scheduling of the game was the main problem and the lads did need a break - Uruguay didn't spend their summer preparing for the World Cup like we did.
I don't have a problem with the key lads missing really - they'll be back and in training for the Asian Cup soon enough. One issue might the lack of friendlies closer to the AC kickoff - Singapore is nice to give us a soft game coming in but maybe a game against one of the other group teams - Sth Korea, Japan, or whatever.
I don't have a problem with the key lads missing really - they'll be back and in training for the Asian Cup soon enough. One issue might the lack of friendlies closer to the AC kickoff - Singapore is nice to give us a soft game coming in but maybe a game against one of the other group teams - Sth Korea, Japan, or whatever.
...I don't have a problem with the key lads missing really - they'll be back and in training for the Asian Cup soon enough. One issue might the lack of friendlies closer to the AC kickoff - Singapore is nice to give us a soft game coming in but maybe a game against one of the other group teams - Sth Korea, Japan, or whatever....
Heartily agree with you on that one. Incidentally, I've no doubt at all that we could have arranged another friendly on June 6 (and I've little doubt that we could have held the Argies to that game had we really wanted to). TBH, the preparation for this tournament appears pretty slapdash all round, especially by contrast with the WC.
Heartily agree with you on that one. Incidentally, I've no doubt at all that we could have arranged another friendly on June 6 (and I've little doubt that we could have held the Argies to that game had we really wanted to). TBH, the preparation for this tournament appears pretty slapdash all round, especially by contrast with the WC.
And the slapdash nature of the preparation is exactly why Arnie needs to go and needs to be replaced by a 'bigger name'. Hiddink would have got his way because he is Hiddink and commands respect. Very few second-guessed him. Arnie gets second guessed because he has no solid reputation. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy with Arnie. Arnie should go to Europe and see what he can achieve. A good run and maybe in 10 years he can be NT coach. For now, irrespective of whether he is good or not, he doesn't wield the influence (in the media or the corridors of power) to do what is needed. It might be harsh on Arnie, but that is how coaching at the highest level works - you live and die by your repuatation.
# posted by 
: June 4, 2007 at 11:55 PM
: June 4, 2007 at 11:55 PM
...And the slapdash nature of the preparation is exactly why Arnie needs to go and needs to be replaced by a 'bigger name'. Hiddink would have got his way because he is Hiddink and commands respect....
It's a chicken-and-egg situation though, isn't it. I just don't like the idea that you have to be a pushy foreigner to get decent support from the national body...because that is the way NT affairs have been run for the last several WC cycles, IMHO.
...Arnie should go to Europe and see what he can achieve. A good run and maybe in 10 years he can be NT coach....
Again, I'm not sure whether managerial success in Europe should be a criterion for the NT job...considering that Australian coaches would face huge obstacles establishing themselves there. It would essentially mean forcing locals out of contention for the NT job, IMO, which can't be a good thing.
It's a chicken-and-egg situation though, isn't it. I just don't like the idea that you have to be a pushy foreigner to get decent support from the national body...because that is the way NT affairs have been run for the last several WC cycles, IMHO.
...Arnie should go to Europe and see what he can achieve. A good run and maybe in 10 years he can be NT coach....
Again, I'm not sure whether managerial success in Europe should be a criterion for the NT job...considering that Australian coaches would face huge obstacles establishing themselves there. It would essentially mean forcing locals out of contention for the NT job, IMO, which can't be a good thing.
It is chicken and egg Mikey, however I feel that this is pretty much the case in most football federations around the world. Not saying it is a good thing, but the pushy, big-name coach seems to get the grease.
It doesn't have to be EU that Arnie goes to. He may be a good coach, it is hard to tell, but he loses 'street cred' because he has no track record of coaching to fall back on. That is always a recipe for disaster in a country where the game is emerging. Again not saying it is right, but it is the way it is.
A big name coach (like the ones you have suggested in the past) buy the game locally a lot more than on-field tactics.
BOTN
It doesn't have to be EU that Arnie goes to. He may be a good coach, it is hard to tell, but he loses 'street cred' because he has no track record of coaching to fall back on. That is always a recipe for disaster in a country where the game is emerging. Again not saying it is right, but it is the way it is.
A big name coach (like the ones you have suggested in the past) buy the game locally a lot more than on-field tactics.
BOTN
# posted by : June 5, 2007 at 11:07 AM
: June 5, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Mikey wrote...."It's a chicken-and-egg situation though, isn't it. I just don't like the idea that you have to be a pushy foreigner to get decent support from the national body...because that is the way NT affairs have been run for the last several WC cycles, IMHO......."
I tend to agree with Anonymous on that point. It is unfair on local coaches to be sure, but in this day and age of marketing and gargantuan egos in the game, the more humble local coach perhaps doesn't receive the recognition they deserve. Unfortunately, a foreigner with an overinflated reputation such as Venables - who was arguably no better than the likes of Matic and Scheinflug - will basically have the key to the city, while the locals have to make do with what they're given. It sucks, but that's the way things work.
FWIW, I think Arnie's doing quite a decent job given his lack of access to the very best squad, which is something Hiddink never had to contend with. Before anyone argues that Hiddink would always have the best players, his reign happened to coincide with the period where the players themselves were highly motivated to appear anyway. This is arguably one of the least favourable times to call players up.
Mikey wrote.... "Again, I'm not sure whether managerial success in Europe should be a criterion for the NT job...considering that Australian coaches would face huge obstacles establishing themselves there. It would essentially mean forcing locals out of contention for the NT job, IMO, which can't be a good thing....."
Completely agree here.
Is someone like Houllier (particularly for the dollars being mentioned) honestly more qualified for NT management? Houllier obviously has excellent qualifications, but is he better positioned to get the best out of Australia's national squad given the ad hoc nature of the international calendar? The jury's out IMO.....
- TFO
I tend to agree with Anonymous on that point. It is unfair on local coaches to be sure, but in this day and age of marketing and gargantuan egos in the game, the more humble local coach perhaps doesn't receive the recognition they deserve. Unfortunately, a foreigner with an overinflated reputation such as Venables - who was arguably no better than the likes of Matic and Scheinflug - will basically have the key to the city, while the locals have to make do with what they're given. It sucks, but that's the way things work.
FWIW, I think Arnie's doing quite a decent job given his lack of access to the very best squad, which is something Hiddink never had to contend with. Before anyone argues that Hiddink would always have the best players, his reign happened to coincide with the period where the players themselves were highly motivated to appear anyway. This is arguably one of the least favourable times to call players up.
Mikey wrote.... "Again, I'm not sure whether managerial success in Europe should be a criterion for the NT job...considering that Australian coaches would face huge obstacles establishing themselves there. It would essentially mean forcing locals out of contention for the NT job, IMO, which can't be a good thing....."
Completely agree here.
Is someone like Houllier (particularly for the dollars being mentioned) honestly more qualified for NT management? Houllier obviously has excellent qualifications, but is he better positioned to get the best out of Australia's national squad given the ad hoc nature of the international calendar? The jury's out IMO.....
- TFO
# posted by : June 5, 2007 at 11:11 AM
: June 5, 2007 at 11:11 AM
My view is that whatever Arnie does the FFA have made up their minds that they need a name to build football's reputation.
That is why they have given Arnie back the under 23s.
They don't want him to loose face. They want him intact for his chance for the world cup after next.
That's how the big boys play this game. It isn't a secret.
That is why they have given Arnie back the under 23s.
They don't want him to loose face. They want him intact for his chance for the world cup after next.
That's how the big boys play this game. It isn't a secret.
'And the slapdash nature of the preparation'
I think they are doing what they think Australian football can afford.
We got 61,700 to the game. Sydney FC didn't get anywhere near that for the Asia cup games in Aust. Maybe the Aust TV audience wasn't that big. When they do we will be able to splash out and take financial risks. Lowy has taken these types of risks before. He has a better idea of what is going to work now.
I think they are doing what they think Australian football can afford.
We got 61,700 to the game. Sydney FC didn't get anywhere near that for the Asia cup games in Aust. Maybe the Aust TV audience wasn't that big. When they do we will be able to splash out and take financial risks. Lowy has taken these types of risks before. He has a better idea of what is going to work now.
...They don't want him to lose face....
I think he's lost a lot of face already, because plenty of fans are unable to react rationally to NT results, or to look at the deeper reasons behind them.
Same thing happened with Farina. Although, to be sure, he made plenty of mistakes as NT coach, by the time he was sacked you had half the fans in Australia thinking he should never be employed again.
In truth, part of the reason he ended up looking so bad was that the support he got from the various national bodies during his time in charge was nothing short of pathetic.
I think he's lost a lot of face already, because plenty of fans are unable to react rationally to NT results, or to look at the deeper reasons behind them.
Same thing happened with Farina. Although, to be sure, he made plenty of mistakes as NT coach, by the time he was sacked you had half the fans in Australia thinking he should never be employed again.
In truth, part of the reason he ended up looking so bad was that the support he got from the various national bodies during his time in charge was nothing short of pathetic.
Different anonymous here....
Ange P (yeah, yeah I know) was critical last week of FFA cost-cutting. He said he felt we were taking "shortcuts" and doubted whether we were doing enough to prepare for the Asian Cup.
Unfortunately, I agree with him.
Our preparations smack of belt-tightening and Arnie (who is, I fear, somewhat dispensable to the FFA) will get all the blame if we don't do well. :(
Ange P (yeah, yeah I know) was critical last week of FFA cost-cutting. He said he felt we were taking "shortcuts" and doubted whether we were doing enough to prepare for the Asian Cup.
Unfortunately, I agree with him.
Our preparations smack of belt-tightening and Arnie (who is, I fear, somewhat dispensable to the FFA) will get all the blame if we don't do well. :(
# posted by : June 5, 2007 at 10:54 PM
: June 5, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Cockerill really got it right when he stated that Arnold was on a "hiding to nothing".
The FFA is very publicly undermining Arnolds authority by talking about replacement coaches like Houllier, while at the same time really not putting themselves behind the coach in the lead up to what is, let's face it, probably the second most important tournament we can be a part of short of the World Cup!
Sure, as the FFA want to replace Arnold, the team's failure will play into their hands when they lure their big name manager here. But I thought the sport's administration would realise that success at the Asian Cup would be far more beneficial to the image of the sport than the mere hiring of a high profile coach.
Going into the Asian Cup with a threadbare preparation calendar, with public sentiment being that anything less than a win will be a failure is not a good combination.
Should we be embarrassed for whatever reason, how much worse will it make the FFA's bargaining position when it comes to recruiting as well?
In my opinion Arnold has done enough to deserve some support and the benefit of the doubt. Losing 2 - 1 to a fully primed Uruguay should not generate the negativity that it has in some quarters. Especially when all three of the goals came due mainly to individual defensive errors, and cannot be squarely blamed on any tactical mistakes.
The FFA is very publicly undermining Arnolds authority by talking about replacement coaches like Houllier, while at the same time really not putting themselves behind the coach in the lead up to what is, let's face it, probably the second most important tournament we can be a part of short of the World Cup!
Sure, as the FFA want to replace Arnold, the team's failure will play into their hands when they lure their big name manager here. But I thought the sport's administration would realise that success at the Asian Cup would be far more beneficial to the image of the sport than the mere hiring of a high profile coach.
Going into the Asian Cup with a threadbare preparation calendar, with public sentiment being that anything less than a win will be a failure is not a good combination.
Should we be embarrassed for whatever reason, how much worse will it make the FFA's bargaining position when it comes to recruiting as well?
In my opinion Arnold has done enough to deserve some support and the benefit of the doubt. Losing 2 - 1 to a fully primed Uruguay should not generate the negativity that it has in some quarters. Especially when all three of the goals came due mainly to individual defensive errors, and cannot be squarely blamed on any tactical mistakes.
I agree in principal Mikey but you have to admit that Arnie has made some pretty strange gaffs. I'm not against a single striker system, how could you be when it has worked so well for us, but to use Scott McDonald as that striker is a rather strange decision wouldn't you say?
Post a Comment
# posted by : June 6, 2007 at 8:18 PM
: June 6, 2007 at 8:18 PM << Home
