What results in World cup? Semi final with a less rated, but home team? If you want results by that criteria (results in club and national team level), the best would be by far SCOLARI, brasilian champion, world cup 2002 champion with Brasil, and Euro2004 finalist with Portugal.
Naming someone as tactically naive as Rijkaard cracks me up in the first place. He doesn't belong on this list period.
Of COURSE you can. Rijkaard got completely outcoached in that encounter. Mourinho guessed his starting lineup and then Rijkaard completely failed to anticipate Chelsea's tactics in the second leg. Hell, if Drogba puts away that 1 on 1 he has with Valdes in the first leg, Chelsea goes into halftime up 2-0 with Barcelona having one shot on goal. I won't even go into Rijkaard's failure at Euro2K.
OK , I'll bite. Then by the same token , I couldn't blame Mourinho for Chelsea losing to Liverpool. Fact is , I do.
By far? Hiddink won the European Cup, 5 dutch league titles and 4 dutch cups with PSV. He won the club world cup with Real Madrid. He reached the WC semifinals in 1998 with Holland and in 2002 with South Korea.
So now you're blaming the coach for players missing penalties. That's a bit rich even for you Nicephoras. Did you even see that game v Italy? Holland completely and utterly outplayed the Italians. I'm not saying that I find Rijkaard a great manager, he's still at the start of his career. But to blame him for Holland's failure to score penalties at Euro 2000 is, well, downright silly.
Your usual hyperbole misses the point. Holland started that game with 2 defenders. Given that they played 90 minutes against 10 men they're lucky. They would have been exposed just as Barcelona were by Chelsea. Incidentally, Delvecchio's shot in the extra time was the best chance either team had. Rijkaard continues to believe that if you just throw enough talented attacking players on the pitch you're bound to win. He's set to turn Barcelona in the Spanish version of Arsenal, only with a bigger bankroll.
The point is that Holland was the better side in that game BY A MILE. They lost not because they were the lesser side, but because they missed penalties. Whereas what you were implying was that they lost because of the manager's poor decisions. Can I just point out to you, by the way, that even the Liechtensteins of this world create chances against Holland. That's the Dutch style of football, it's taking calculated risks. The fact that you're not fond of that style is of no concern to me. Also I can't believe you're still bitter over Chelsea getting slagged off in the international media for playing negative football in the away leg, and for Barcelona getting more respect than Chelsea in general. Get over it for god's sake.
You also FAIL to see Rijkaards awareness to field a players best capable of winning from the opponent. In this case the Orange engine is attack with possession. His philosphy was to outscore the opponent. usually that way wins you a lot of games like we've witnessed. This is OUR style of play. Who the hell are you to condemn it? You're still a nobody with a big mouth who constantly feels the urge to attack other views if they don't coincide with yours. It was right when they said that it was the best attack versus the best defence. We came short because of bad luck. I'm very curious how many people will agree with you that this attacking style is not the way to play. You work with the players you have. besides, Barca lost because of personal errors in the defence. Not because he used the 'wrong' tactic.
Did you actually SEE the game? Yes, Chelsea played a counter which any decent defence could foil, but they didn't because they had a lapse in concentration which translates into a PERSONAL error. You can't blame the coach for that. Rijkaard wanted to pressure Chelsea's side which is a THEIR way of playing. Ofcourse they could do something different and choose for Chelsea to play ballpossession, but they simply don't have the players to cope with that. barca has an integrity to maintain, attacking football that made Barca. So you see now how rediculous it speak of a 'rijkaard failure' in that aspect.
The fact that it doesn't win is what concerns me in this discussion. What? What does that have to do with Rijkaard's obvious tactical naivete?
No, he fields the players capable of scoring the most goals without sufficient regard for how many they would allow. Gosh, interesting how the same type of "bad luck" happens to Holland's "attack at all costs" mentality all the time. Whereas the one trophy you won was after a game in which you scored two goals agains the run of play and the opponent missed a penalty. Hmmmmmmmmm.............. You can play however you want, I don't care. The issue is how effective it is. Yeah, that must be it. Going into London up 2-1 means you should attack, attack, attack. Right - good idea. There's a reason tactically naive sides don't win. Even Brazil plays conservatively when it needs to.
Which one are you referring to? Uh, no they can't. Chelsea are very good on the counter, and given how many goals we scored last year, that's a moronic statement. You know, one goal might be an accident. Two could be bad coincidence. Three is a bad pattern that likely has something to do with poor coaching. So its not Rijkaard's fault for adopting a bad strategy because........that's the strategy he adopted. Are you retarded? That's the whole bloody point! Then perhaps he should have used a different lineup! No one makes Barca play with only one midfielder who knows how to tackle except Rijkaard. Do you realize that for all the talk of Real Madrid's awful defense they only allowed 3 more goals than Barcelona? ROTFLMAO "Integrity". LMFAO
So you seriously believe that a small country like Holland would have been more successful on the international football stage if they had played as solidly as, say, Norway. It doesn't occur to you at all that the Dutch attacking style of football might have in fact attributed to the relative success of Dutch football. Or is it just that you would like the whole world to play football like Chelsea, or worse still, Italy. Because it is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that you resent anyone who dares to speak up against Chelsea.
Neeskens, you are really beginning to sound stupid with all the Italy bad-mouthing. Do you realize that Italian success on the international and club level dwarfs that Holland? Further, Italy have dominated the direct encounters with Holland to the tune of 4 Italy wins, one draw, and only one Holland win. I just wanted you to note that Holland are nobodies with respect to Italy in terms of footballing history so I would think twice before badmouthing a nation who has vastly more success than Holland (who have been probably the most overrated nation in football). BTW, I would just like to again remind you that you guys failed to even qualify for the last WC. Some achievement.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be a tweaking of a strategy? If coaching was so easy as to bunker all day, everyone would do it. That's what coaching is! Did France play particularly boring football in 98 and 2000? You keep turning this around to Chelsea for some bizarre reason. Rijkaard's coaching ability has nothing to do with Chelsea. Play however you want. If you want to call Chelsea's style negative (its not), you're more than welcome to. You know, its funny. I've not claimed on this thread that Mourinho is the best coach in Europe, yet somehow you make the completely illogical leap to me resenting anyone who speaks against Chelsea because I think Rijkaard's a mediocre coach. Tell me, just how did you get from A to B?
We're talking about one game of football here. Anyone who claims that Italy won that 2000 semi on football merits clearly is an idiot. I've always said Holland's overrated myself btw, so I don't know what you're on about. This discussion is about whether that semifinal was lost because of Rijkaard's tactical ineptitude. That said, I would like to enquire about Italy's current qualifying campaign, but perhaps best not.