B. The parallels
All three cases show symptoms
of the same problems, even when the particular results of the three teams
are different.
The reasons for this different
results is rooted in the actual difference between the teams and in the
actual difference of the power and results of their opponents, sometimes
even in the sheer accidental character of the turn of events in individual
matches.
But in all three cases we
can witness similar common dilemmas, similar discussions, and similar paradoxes.
1) the question of a long
term policy and the role of the FA's
2) the discussion about
European professionals vs. home based players
3) indigenous coach or
foreigner?
1) the question of a long
term policy and the role of the FA's
If the various comments
and reports can be trusted, all three countries suffer from the lack of
a long term policy and poor preperation before matches. Both recently fired
coaches of Ghana and Nigeria had accused their FA of working against them
and providing miserable organisation. Often coaches have to go to court
to get remaining salaries after having been fired, as it is again in Ghana's
case.
Too often coaches seem to
be considered as something like witch doctors who are thought to turn water
into wine (what a lot of coaches indeed promise who apply for jobs) and
later get accused of having turned wine into water.
Nigeria, well prepared,
with the best players together (what had been the case), and Ghana weakened,
should have won this group easily. The idea that any coach could have 'prevented'
them from leaving a team like Liberia behind, with their collection of
players from minor important leagues around the world, is just ridiculous.
A second danger in this
way of thinking could be that upcoming better results get attached too
easily to the coach-firing scenario. This is an oversimplified thinking,
further covering the true misery.
Nevertheless Bonfrere's
firing had been inevitable as Nigeria had been paralysed by the power struggle
and had faced hardly other perspectives than sooner or later create a desaster
which would result in such a decision.
A national team is only together
for very limited time. To reach a certain quality, consistency is much
more important than the question whether a particular player has been left
out or not. This is one of the reasons why France is at the top.
The players have been older
when winning the European championship in 2000 (than the Nigerians are
today) and had included players like Deschamps who had not been in best
form but important for the coherence and functioning cooperation of the
group. In 1996 later success coach Aimee Jaquet had been harshly criticised
for his policy but in 1998, after four years he had built something really
strong to stay.
One has to see that one
year national coach is somewhat like 5 years club coach because of the
few matches and few weeks they are together.
France is also famous for
their youth program. In Africa Mali and Burkina Faso, two poor countries
and no football giants recently have caught up with Ghana and Nigeria on
youth level, a signal that the established have neglected growing their
talents, and rather seem to consider success as naturally given.
But a youth program has
to begin at least 10 years before it has an impact on a national team.
It is very demanding to ask for such a long breath in many African countries
and in difficult economical circumstances.
African Soccer reported
that Cameroons Under 17 team for the African championship had been poorly
prepaired, mentioning unpaid bonusses, lack of kits and boots and no preperation
matches. The Olympic team had been said to have won despite wrangle
over bonusses and the national team is actually suffering from the back
and forth changes between coaches of different philosophies.
Preperation matches do not
seem to be possible for the Nigerian national team, too. It seems any appointed
match gets cancelled and postponed. Again Bonfrere and the FA accused each
other. But what counts is the result. At the same time Egypt stages preperation
tournaments and Tunisia has an extensive acclimatization camp at Reunion
for a Madagascar away match.
2) the discussion about
European professionals vs. home based players
Common in all three countries
is the discussion about the professionals and their attitude. The professionals
are often accused of a lack of discipline, commitment, and modesty in and
around matches.
In Ghana and Nigeria the
call for the integration of homebased players had grown louder and louder
and Ghana had stunned international observers when they had played their
qualifier against Nigeria with a squad featuring entirely home based players.
Now particular properties
of the situation have to be addressed here to understand the dilemma.
All those professionals
live and work in a totally different world (Europe) and have a different
view on things than the homebased players and coaches. They are all caught
in the club vs. country dilemma, under pressure from both sides to deliver
the best. Often they are suffering from their decisions, whatever they
are.
They all have to travel
a lot which is very tyring and they have problems readapting to the African
conditions of a problematic climate for their kind of game, playing on
much more difficult grounds and after only one or two training sessions.
This damages their performances
in single matches like the World Cup qualifiers. When it comes to tournaments
they normally should reach a much higher level - either by more
extensive preperation or in the process of the tournament.
It is difficult to blend
them with homebased players or have them cooperate with homebased coaches
- they have different views on the world and speak a different language
of football. Educated in European clubs they had to learn a different philosophy
and often feel superior to their homebased countrymen. This again is understood
by those as a complacant behaviour and leads to further conflicts.
There is no doubt they are
the superior players as any homebased player who turns out to be a talent
will immediately be recruited and will hardly refuse the European job.
This makes a squad of homebased players a paradox. If they are successful,
they will not be homebased for very long. They will move abroad, they will
have to fight for a place in the team of their new club, be in the club
vs. country conflict and will develop the same symptoms.
Even an integration of more
than one or two talents from home clubs is not easy. The professionals
then have to adapt to the level of the home league and foreign coaches
find it much easier to work with 'Europeans' anyway as they have the same
education.
This is what makes integration
of homebased players difficult while it is dangerously profitable
in the same time: the national team is THE transfer display for homebased
players and a lot of people can earn money with it. This is another point
which can carry trouble into a team.
Considering this and taking
into account also the very limited time to build a team, the policy of
Bonfrere concerning the selection of players was so only logical. But several
other factors added up and a maybe unlucky match at Sierra Leone then was
too much when in other cases it only had been a repairable slip.
Nigerian supporters might
point to Ghana here, where homebased players had successfully been tested.
But the success did not come with the blend, it came only after all professionals
had been barred from the team and this special Ghanaian case is rather
the exception to the rule: first of all it was not a home based squad mixed
from the various clubs. It was more or less the entire club line up of
Hearts Of Oak Accra, second of all this is an exceptional squad with no
parallel in Nigeria, and third of all it had been the idea of a necessary
new build up based on a particular group of players which know their ways
of cooperation and coherence to make up for individual deficits. A unique
chance for a build up of a future team and shortlived in the same time:
not only that it had to defend against the resistance of all those who
want to see Ghanas best professionals play in the team, the concentration
on one home club had to result in further opponency from the supporters
of the others.
The discussions which player
from what club (and what ethnic background) can become at least as destructive
as the discussion around the European professionals. At least those often
add up to an easier managable size of potential candidates.
3) indigenous coach or
foreigner?
Another epic discussion
is the appointment of foreign coaches.
Here old rules still apply:
Pros: Foreign coaches are
more neutral (at first moment) concerning most of the problems resulting
from ethnic grouping or even club rivalries. Foreign coaches speak the
(football) language of the professionals and often have underwent a better
education, considering technical aspects. They might have better access
to modern developments on the medical sector and could provide a superior
personal infrastrucure monitoring the European based professionals. They
have a better chance to become accepted as authority by those professionals
than indigenous coaches..
Cons: They have problems
adapting to the particular circumstances and mentalities. There is a number
of foreign coaches which have been quite successful working with African
teams what not necessarily means they had been successful with European
teams before. Many good coaches are scared away by the reports of their
colleagues problems with the associations during or after contracts. If
they have to integrate homebased players they often run into difficulties.
In relation to African coaches they are expensive and their wages are subject
to constant discussions amplifying a critical view. Here they are welcome
as a vehicle to transfer responsibilities upon. Hiring an expensive coach
can be an alibi for association officials.
Often the work of coaches
is considered rather by single results which to some extent are pure accident.
And often the coaches are taken who promise the most. Here foreign coaches
often more work as directors to manage a complete build up program, an
effort which abruptly becomes terminated when the first national team produces
bad results. |
