I dunno. It's not like Hiddink has lit the world on fire with the Dutch National Team in his most recent stint there.
I don't know if we'll pick up Hiddink but so far it seems like the public doesn't like the way KFA is handling the situation. I hope some head will roll and maybe there'll be some changes.
On another note, I see people talking about what STY "deserves". Ignoring the fact that STY was only in charge for two matches, neither of which we won or even scored in, STY's performance is secondary to KNT's. It sounds harsh, but it sounds true. If we sacrifice how well KNT does in exchange for rewarding STY, then we are no longer entering the WC to represent Korea. We are doing so for STY. I remember reading an article about Crystal Palace when they were promoted to the Premier League. In case you don't remember, Ian Holloway led them to promotion but was sacked in Palace's first season back. Pulis came in and saved them but left over the summer. He was replaced by Neil Warnock, who was sacked and replaced by Pardew, who saved them again. When Palace stuck with the manager who took them up, they were floundering. No matter how much Holloway deserved the job, he just wasn't a PL-level manager. And neither was Warnock. Palace were saved when they ditched Championship-level managers and turned to PL-level (just about, in the case of Pardew) managers. It's the same case here. STY might be a perfectly acceptable manager for AFC level. But based on observations of his game, as well as his performance at the likes of the Olympics, STY is simply not of the caliber to be managing at the WC. I realize by this logic we should ditch our manager every time a better one is available. That would plainly be ridiculous. That's because with a new manager, a team disrupts the continuity and the teamwork built up by the incumbent manager. But what continuity is there here? STY was in charge for two games, and in those games I didn't see anything to suggest we would be tearing something down and starting over with Hiddink. We're already at near-rock bottom. Stielike left us with no foundation to build on. It's essentially a blank slate. In that case I think it only makes sense to go for the better manager, and that's Hiddink.
Even in the example you posted above, and with other countless number of examples, Palace stuck with Holloway after promotion. Some managers thrive at the higher level, others get found out; I can't take one example as a representative indicator of other scenarios. To turn back to Hiddink and STY, I honestly think, in the long run point of view, that giving STY a chance after he stepped up, and barely pushed us through the finish line with those admittedly ugly bore draws, is a better option than giving our hero from 15 years ago a fond farewell retirement tour after his so-so stints with the Netherlands and Chelsea, while watching the Iran and Uzbekistan games in his villa or wherever he felt like watching it from. I do get your point about Stielike basically leaving KNT with a blank slate. But if that Kakao message is anything to go by, Hiddink fumbled or rejected the chance to pick that blank slate up back in June to prep the team for the September WCQs. If the assistant specifically said "Hiddink is willing to manage KNT right now today" back in June, I would totally be in agreement with you that Hiddink should be the one in charge right now, and to burn down the KFA. Hell, if that was the case, then STY could have been given the KNT reins right after the World Cup, it would have made sense for the long term. But I can't excuse Hiddink from shying away from the WC qualifiers. If you were a player, would you have any respect for someone who was willing to manage you if and only if you made it to the World Cup? I sure wouldn't.
Do you know that for certain? Not sure it's worth my time answering that loaded question. I've said everything I've needed to in this thread, enjoy your weekends.
Well yeah, Palace did stick with Holloway. My point is that it was the wrong decision, and Palace nearly suffered relegation for it. I disagree that continuing with STY is prudent. Who does it benefit in the long term? STY will be under pressure to deliver immediate results, just as Hong Myungbo was. And we don't even know if we want to continue with STY after the WC. We can't make decisions based on the long term if we don't even know what the long term is. And no, if I were a player I would not particularly care. Hiddink is a living legend for Koreans. I suspect that would override any doubts about why he didn't take over sooner (and let's be honest, there were plenty of good reasons why Hiddink might not have wanted to take over then).
?? honestly it's just a q lol i'm curious as to why u think sty has what it takes to manage the knt through the wc
hiddink has a dutch frankness, warm charisma, and self-awareness (noonchi) that seem necessary for a successful foreign KNT manager
Why? He picked Cha Duri for 02. The issue is that KFA are lying, corrupt anti-Korean football, self serving scumbags. This trumps any real football reasons for Shin TY being manager which compared to Hiddink is pathetic and meager. The political cronyism reason is also why Shin TY was groomed, not bc of hs football managerial prowess. Football is incidental for these aholes. The entire lot has to be thrown out.
Jang Hyun Soo and Lee Dong Gook already defending STY in public. One who would never get picked by Hiddink and the other who once got dumped by him and still hopes to participate at 40 years.
STY is simply not ready to be an international manager yet (if at all ever) at the WC level. If you can't recognize that, you're clueless.
I hope the KFA investigation swallows these old timers who are hanging on and wasting the KFA budget. Kim Ho Gun was a scoundrel in his playing days and even worse now. How many VPs and committee members can the KFA possible have to employ these useless OAPs?
So what's better? An unproven manager at the domestic level who had consistently demonstrated a knack for being unable to make substitutions and traffic adjustments in matches at all levels? Or a proven legend who wants one last chance? I pick our Dutch Cincinnatus over anyone (especially a feckless decision maker like STY).
How the hell is it good for the long term to give STY a chance? What is this, a university? Is STY the chosen one on tenure track? WTF? In the real world, it's pretty easy to spot great managers when hiring for positions. Preparation/Process, integrity, expertise and execution/flexibility are what I look for when hiring people. These are things I continuously strive to improve myself at work. Let's look at STY. Integrity - Given how he's a player's coach, and the way our players respond to him, he seems (from the outside) to have integrity that garners the players' respect. Preparation/process - he tends to over prepare for the first match and then things fizzle out. He is very poor at setting up the team for set pieces. He has no discernable style but vacillates between three tactics from what I've seen over the past three years. Expertise - he's lacking experience. Plain and simple. He's not a forward thinking young manager who has had top league success. He's a mildly successful product of a Galapagos islands region/league who had a tepid result at the u23 tournament. HMB won us a bronze medal as manager and had a stint under hiddink as an assistant, yet failed spectacularly at the WC. But we want to try again with STY!? Execution/flexibilty - here is my biggest gripe about STY. He is unable to execute as he has insufficient experience to be flexible when things are not going as expected. He is overly cautious and bottles decisions/substitutions. It was bad enough enduring the Honduras match in Rio. Russia will be even more humiliating of an experience if he is there standing like a statue unable to make a decision.
Let me make this clear, my comments are far less of a referendum on STY's managerial skills than it is on Hiddink's conduct of action the past few months. I do not live my life willing to bend myself over for a previously influential, even legendary, figure in my life, who reaches out to me while they are aware I'm at despair, and promises to help me out as much as he can, but once and only once I have climbed myself out of my dwelling of despair. I don't play soccer waiting or hoping for superstars and legends to show up purely for the big tournaments. If that's how you live your life, or how you want your national team to go about things, a big hearty congratulations to you. Call it pride if you like, I don't mind, pride is important to have in moderate doses. I'd like to call it self-respect. Feel free to conflate the corruption and the Hiddink issues. Related they may be, my point still stands.
Delusional or ingrate are the terms that come to mind for your sentiments rather than pride or self-respect. The same sentiments led to disastrous decisions like hiring and sticking by Ulishit. Edit... Your posts are straight up laughable. The entire premise of your argument is based on Hiddink acting wrong b/c he was unwilling to take the manager position when UliShit was sacked. Really? And based on that "slight", Hiddink is a has-been and you have too much "self-respect"/"pride in moderate doses" to accept his offer now? Pop yourself out of that naive bubble of yours. 1. Contact through representatives requires tact. You open the dialogue and then discuss options. Hiddink's intentions may have well been to manage the WCQs in Sept. Who knows? All we know is that his approach was swatted away. Negotiations require tact. I do it for a living. How Hiddink and his representatives approached this situation was the proper way to do things. 2. KHG lied. The KFA also appointed STY and put on a charade of considering domestic options. 3. There's nothing wrong with elite (Yes, Hiddink is still elite - perhaps you were too young to remember, but he was in a down-cycle when he joined us pre-WC02) mangers wanting to manage after WCQs are over. Hiddink, in fact, never had to go through a WCQ cycle with us. There was no reason to place his reputation at risk to get us qualified through WCQs. 4. This self-respect b.s. sounds awfully like the self-reliance b.s. that the NorKs throw around all over the place. 5. If you cared even a bit about the KNT, you would want Hiddink in there to put in some kind of roadmap and structure for the team and to try and clean up the mess the former players have left the KFA in. It's actually embarrassing that the former semi-pros are now in charge of the KFA wrecking havoc and putting out this line of "self-respect" and "self-reliance" on a committed foreigner/domestic manager; and some are lapping it up.
The more I think about it, the more laughable your point becomes. And while you may want to not "conflate" the KFA corruption and Hiddink issues, it is impossible to bifurcate the two, particularly using the twisted logic you've employed. The KFA technical committee, above all else, wants to control the KNT manager. That's why they've repeatedly rejected Senol Gunes over the years. And that's why they unsuccessfully tried to smear Hiddink now.
I sure am enjoying and laughing my Saturday away trying to discern any meaningful points you are trying to make in response to my points. I enjoyed your point #3 especially. As if a co-host would actually go through a WCQ cycle, lol. Perhaps if you do negotiations for a living, I can't imagine how you can't see the irony of your point #1. Yes, we all know point #2. Thanks for point #4, I'm just not going to dignify that with a response. And lucky you, I agree with you mostly on point #5, although it does not reverse my outlook on this, and I already have considered all that in mind. I've said enough on this topic than I feel I need to, not going to spend my weekend adding to this any further. My points stand, and sorry to say that I am not swayed by any of your arguments or insults at all.
Agreed, such is the nature of the beast of football administration. Hiddink just had to step up a bit more, and he could have been a folk hero once again. It's a shame for everyone involved. Cheers.