Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Japan' started by Acidman, May 18, 2006.
Zico for Sure! Without question
as player or coach?
Hama, I am sorry.... I killed your thread I wanted to merge, but I messed up
Japan was much stronger under Troussier.
However, under Zico, Japanese team plays more creative football although Japan was stronger under Troussier.
Japan should not have let Troussier leave Japan.
And I do miss Troussier's translater-- whatever his name was. The guy was so overacting it was quite entertaining.
and now troussier will make china wake up and japan will shake
I also like Troussier better. He seems to have good success where ever he goes. Zico has given players more freedom, but we will have to wait till World Cup to get a final verdict.
Also I am sure to like Troussier more because he is an authoritarian manager. I prefer managers and coaches who are like that. That's the way I coach basketball.
Zico for me. Troussier did his job well, but Zico faces much harder tasks:
1.) Under Troussier, the only Euro-leaguers were Nakata and Ono if I remember
correctly (not absolutely certain). Zico has to take his pick from several
Euro-leaguers and cream of crop from J-leaguers. The pressure on Zico was
much harder; there's not a day I haven't seen some form of "Zico prefers
Euro-leaguers too much and neglects J-leaguers" discussion somewhere
2.) Troussier could concentrate on perfecting the team without worrying about
the results, since his team had an automatic qualification to WC2002. Zico
had to go through Asian qualification rounds, which is NOT a pushover, AND
still had to work on fine-tuning his team. Despite this, Zico managed to get
Japan pass through the qualification rounds in first place - something Japan
has never done before (to be fair, Troussier may have been able to do the
same; then again, maybe not).
3.) I don't remember the 1998-2002 periods too well, but I get the impression
that Zico had to worry about injured players (especially Nakata) more than
Troussier. I could be wrong.
4.) Two Asian cups, one by Troussier and one by Zico. Both were won by
Japan, but Zico had to do it in a strictly anti-Japan China. Don't have much
info on what it was like in Lebanon 2000, but chances are it was nowhere
near as anti-Japan as in China.
5.) Troussier's team played in Japan. Zico's team must go to Germany. Enough said.
The above five are reasons why I support Zico over Troussier - even if Japan
ends up losing all three matches against Australia, Croatia, and Brazil. If
Zico can install some badly-needed tactics (as he's reported to be doing
recently according to Japanese newspapers), he may be able to do much more. Hey, I'm being optimistic here.
Troussier was more systematic. I think that was a necessary step for Japan NT. I think Japan NT realised that, with a rigid organization on the pitch, it's possible to compete against some of the top sides in the world. Yet, the development would've been insufficient if it had stopped there.
Zico was the next phase for me. He taught Japan NT that creativity of individuals is also a very important element of world football. This, to me, is a very important lesson as Japanese culture tends to see individualism as a disturbance to a harmonic group mentality.
For me, both are important and finding the middle ground is the future for Japan NT.
They both did what was best at the time. History will judge them no doubt, but I have this inkling that people would look back and say, they both made a progress that was necessary for the evolution of Japan NT. If you like, Troussier is the Stone Age. Zico is the Iron Age. The Nuclear Age to come.
Power Of Foot gave me negative reputation, WHAT THE ******** FOR, rep that i deserve is fine but i didn't say anything you ********ing cock face