Ferdinand Cesarano
10 Jan 2006, 02:46 PM
During the past few weeks, there have been two stories involving the languages that players speak:
* the Josemi-Kromkamp swap, which was due, in part, to the Josemi’s difficulties with English and Kromkamp’s with Spanish
* Harry Redknapp's complaints about players who cannot speak English, occasioned by an incident in which one of his Portsmouth players, Viafara, did not follow the manager's instructions upon entering a match because he did not understand them
What I found surprising is that these teams evidently do not employ interpreters, despite functioning in a worldwide market for players. Redknapp's frustration at being unable to communicate with some of his squad is understandable; yet surely his ire should be directed not towards the players but towards the club for failing to provide adequate support.
Also interesting was the mention by the bilingual Benitez that he conducts his practices and meetings exclusively in English, despite the many Spaniards on the squad. (Contrast this with Chelsea under the non-English-speaking Ranieri, who needed players to translate his instructions into English; or with exclusively-English-speaking Bobby Robson at Lisbon and Porto, where a young Mourinho worked as his Portuguese interpreter.)
This seems to highlight a key advantage that a multilingual manager would have over one who speaks only English (or one who, like Benitez, is bilingual but uses only English as a matter of policy): the greater likelihood that the linguistically-dextrous manager will be able to issue in-game instructions to a given player in his dominant language. (Are we to believe that Benitez, if placed in Redknapp’s shoes in the Viafara situation, really would have insisted on giving instructions in English to a Spanish-speaking player? Interesting/bizarre if true.)
So, I am wondering whether the situation that 'Arry faced represents the norm in the Premiership, or whether the other teams with monoglot coaches have interpreters on staff and/or on call. To have interpreters would seem to be a minimal expense in return for a great benefit.
Au, ech pli bone, parolu chiuj Esperanton!
(Or, even better, have everyone speak Esperanto!)
* the Josemi-Kromkamp swap, which was due, in part, to the Josemi’s difficulties with English and Kromkamp’s with Spanish
* Harry Redknapp's complaints about players who cannot speak English, occasioned by an incident in which one of his Portsmouth players, Viafara, did not follow the manager's instructions upon entering a match because he did not understand them
What I found surprising is that these teams evidently do not employ interpreters, despite functioning in a worldwide market for players. Redknapp's frustration at being unable to communicate with some of his squad is understandable; yet surely his ire should be directed not towards the players but towards the club for failing to provide adequate support.
Also interesting was the mention by the bilingual Benitez that he conducts his practices and meetings exclusively in English, despite the many Spaniards on the squad. (Contrast this with Chelsea under the non-English-speaking Ranieri, who needed players to translate his instructions into English; or with exclusively-English-speaking Bobby Robson at Lisbon and Porto, where a young Mourinho worked as his Portuguese interpreter.)
This seems to highlight a key advantage that a multilingual manager would have over one who speaks only English (or one who, like Benitez, is bilingual but uses only English as a matter of policy): the greater likelihood that the linguistically-dextrous manager will be able to issue in-game instructions to a given player in his dominant language. (Are we to believe that Benitez, if placed in Redknapp’s shoes in the Viafara situation, really would have insisted on giving instructions in English to a Spanish-speaking player? Interesting/bizarre if true.)
So, I am wondering whether the situation that 'Arry faced represents the norm in the Premiership, or whether the other teams with monoglot coaches have interpreters on staff and/or on call. To have interpreters would seem to be a minimal expense in return for a great benefit.
Au, ech pli bone, parolu chiuj Esperanton!
(Or, even better, have everyone speak Esperanto!)