Who's the best coach/manager?

[england66]

but it doesn't take away anything from what he achieved at Euro 2004.


No doubt...and I never said it did. His tactics were horrible but effective....but...he has no "plan B"...."what do I do after these other fcuks have figured me out"..?? The way to beat Greece is to do what they do, get everyone behind the ball and then score first....They don't know how to change tactics and come back from a deficeit....as was shown at the recent Euros.....By the way....file this....Greece have NEVER beaten England....EVER...their record is played England 9 times....won...0...lost...7....drawn....2....scored 5.....conceeded...23....The England team that didn't qualify for the '94 World Cup beat Greece 5-0 in a warm up for Greece who had qualified....The England team that didn't qualify for Euro 2008 beat Greece 4-0 the last time they met...

[Massimo_Oddo]

No doubt...and I never said it did. His tactics were horrible but effective....but...he has no "plan B"...."what do I do after these other fcuks have figured me out"..?? The way to beat Greece is to do what they do, get everyone behind the ball and then score first....They don't know how to change tactics and come back from a deficeit....as was shown at the recent Euros.....By the way....file this....Greece have NEVER beaten England....EVER...their record is played England 9 times....won...0...lost...7....drawn....2....scored 5.....conceeded...23....The England team that didn't qualify for the '94 World Cup beat Greece 5-0 in a warm up for Greece who had qualified....The England team that didn't qualify for Euro 2008 beat Greece 4-0 the last time they met...

Well given the players he had, those were the best tactics he could use. He played to the teams strengths.

Good for England, but in the end it meant very little. England has NEVER won the Euro's. Greece has.

Not sure what you're trying to prove with the other stuff. The fact that England didnt qualify for those 2 tournaments was pretty embarassing.

[england66]

Well given the players he had, those were the best tactics he could use. He played to the teams strengths.

Good for England, but in the end it meant very little. England has NEVER won the Euro's. Greece has.

Not sure what you're trying to prove with the other stuff. The fact that England didnt qualify for those 2 tournaments was pretty embarassing.


No doubt but I am wondering why you are still touting Greece as some sort of great team...?? when they can't even beat England....ever.

[Massimo_Oddo]

No doubt but I am wondering why you are still touting Greece as some sort of great team...?? when they can't even beat England....ever.

i'm not touting them as a great team. Quite the opposite actually. They're quite a mediocre side, and i think Rehagal deserves some respect for what he achieved with them.

[Duck Manson]

i'm not touting them as a great team. Quite the opposite actually. They're quite a mediocre side, and i think Rehagal deserves some respect for what he achieved with them.Small crap teams have been doing the same thing for decades (play basically a 7-3-0 and attempt two counter attacks per game to win 1-0). He just got lucky. Nothing he did with Greece deserves any praise. It's more impressive to get crap teams to play nice football and don't win, then to win with crap players playing crap football and get lucky.

[Untroubled by Reason]

Small crap teams have been doing the same thing for decades (play basically a 7-3-0 and attempt two counter attacks per game to win 1-0). He just got lucky. Nothing he did with Greece deserves any praise. It's more impressive to get crap teams to play nice football and don't win, then to win with crap players playing crap football and get lucky.
I would argue that you can "get lucky" for a game, but not a whole tournament. I'm not saying I liked Greece's style of play in the least, and I strongly discourage the stringent, negative football that Rehagal employed. That said, when you can take an undertalented team and win a major tournament with them, even you must admit, you've managed something beyond luck.

[Duck Manson]

It's a tactic based on luck in my opinion. To score a goal statistically you need to create a certain amount of goal scoring opportunities. Greeces tactic was to score the goals needed in less then the norm, and thus based their chances on luck. Certainly they couldn't be based on talent because they don't have any.

[vonni]

the tactics otto used in 04 was defensive but certainly not luck. chances not taken by opposing teams doesn't mean they were 'lucky' not to conceed, but it takes great skill to do so. i don't think you appreciate what it takes in the art of being a 'defender' or playing defensive football in this case. i'm no supporter of it either but not being able to break down a well organised defence is something that needs to be acknowledge. part of being a successful coach is creating a strong team cohesion which greece had

[Duck Manson]

I'm not talking about defense, I'm talking about offense. Anyone with two legs can play defense if you're two against one. If you win a tournament and create a total of 10 chances you've been lucky. Very lucky.

[jerrito]

That said, when you can take an undertalented team and win a major tournament with them, even you must admit, you've managed something beyond luck.

Exactly. Many coaches have attempted this tactic and all have failed. Can anyone name another country that actually succeeded in a tournament with this tactic? Not one game, but over the course of an entire competition? The goal is to win the cup and he succeeded, against all odds, regardless of the ugly tactics. Having said that, I hope we never see another team manage it again.

[jerrito]

It's a tactic based on luck in my opinion. To score a goal statistically you need to create a certain amount of goal scoring opportunities. Greeces tactic was to score the goals needed in less then the norm, and thus based their chances on luck. Certainly they couldn't be based on talent because they don't have any.

To score a goal you need to create 1 opportunity, and take it.

They put down Spain in qualifying (and won the group!), host Portugal twice, the Czech Republic and France. Luck is always involved, but to say they had no talent and Rehnhagel deserves no credit is absurd. That was difficult competition and if managers are ever to receive credit, he certainly should.

Again, I am not arguing for their style of play (I dislike it as much as anyone) but they won. That counts for alot in my opinion, both in favor of their players and coach.

[Massimo_Oddo]

Small crap teams have been doing the same thing for decades (play basically a 7-3-0 and attempt two counter attacks per game to win 1-0). He just got lucky. Nothing he did with Greece deserves any praise. It's more impressive to get crap teams to play nice football and don't win, then to win with crap players playing crap football and get lucky.

He did what he could with his resources and he won. Sure there was an element of luck involved in it, just like any tournament win.

[vonni]

I'm not talking about defense, I'm talking about offense. Anyone with two legs can play defense if you're two against one. If you win a tournament and create a total of 10 chances you've been lucky. Very lucky.
i disagree that anyone with two legs can play defence, even if the defence outweighs the offence. like i said before in my previous post.

to come up against quality opposition each game and to take their chances is no luck. ofcourse luck is apart of the game but to take their chances as they come by doesn't constitute luck.

[Huckerbury]

glen roeder

[Untroubled by Reason]

glen roeder
Assuming you're serious, managing a few mid-table Premier league clubs doesn't really compare to the persons in the poll, does it?

[Duck Manson]

He did what he could with his resources and he won. Sure there was an element of luck involved in it, just like any tournament win.True. He certainly did nothing new. Smaller clubs and countries have been doing the same thing since forever. That they won is luck because those kind of tactics never last. Except that time of course.

[Duck Manson]

i disagree that anyone with two legs can play defence, even if the defence outweighs the offence. like i said before in my previous post.At that level I'd say any two defenders can successfully defend a player.to come up against quality opposition each game and to take their chances is no luck. ofcourse luck is apart of the game but to take their chances as they come by doesn't constitute luck.It's obviously luck when you create so little for so many games and still don't go out.

[Untroubled by Reason]

At that level I'd say any two defenders can successfully defend a player.It's obviously luck when you create so little for so many games and still don't go out.
It seems most of the other posters don't agree with you. At the end of the day, it's better to be lucky than good; however, it's amazing how "lucky" you get when you're prepared and focused. And that's down to the coaching, isn't it?

[Duck Manson]

It seems most of the other posters don't agree with you. At the end of the day, it's better to be lucky than good; however, it's amazing how "lucky" you get when you're prepared and focused. And that's down to the coaching, isn't it?Coach obviously has a say in this. I still don't rate Greece as something great. They won playing some of the worst football ever seen. If I was a coach I'm not sure I'd want that on my resume. The sad thing is that 100 years from now all people will know is that they won, not that they were like watching grass grow in slow motion.

[Untroubled by Reason]

If I was a coach I'm not sure I'd want that on my resume.
Are you kidding me? Hey, if I was Rehagel, all my resume would say is:
WON EURO 2004
:D