Who Thinks Scolari Could Do A Job For Us?

[Meshuga]

I don't agree with the claim that Scolari is not a good club manager and that he is only good as a national team manager.

I just think he didn't had enough time at Chelsea to show what he can do as a manager.

When he took over Brazil in 2001 he was hailed as a great club manager but people had doubts about his abilities at the international level.

He was hated and called stupid when Brazil did "average" at best under his helm at the end of qualifying for the 2002 World Cup. Brazilian supporters were pissed at his stubborn ways (i.e., playing with 3 central defenders, playing with 2 defending midfielders and only one attacking midfielder, not calling up Romario who was having a great year in the Brazilian league, etc.) but he proved everyone wrong. He was criticized up until the quaterfinal against England. Before that game he was the great club manager who was not a good national team manager. But from that point forward people in Brazil just loved him and now they want him back.

In Portugal it was similar. He was criticized for choosing to have results over winning with style.

But with Chelsea he tried to sell himself as the messiah who would bring a "Brazilian Style" to the club. And that was his demise given the players he had to work with.

Scolari was a winning club manager with Gremio not because of "Brazilian style" but because he was willing to play the ugly "un-Brazilian" game. He was a winning manager for Brazil because he insisted with the 5-3-2 "un-Brazilian" tactics. With Portugal in 2006, one would have to watch the Portugal vs Netherlands World Cup second round to see what made Scolari so successful: "play ugly when we need the victory".

He caught a lot of flack for being himself in Brazil and in Portugal by choosing ugly vs beautiful game to win matches at any cost. But he always had one or two players who could change the game and get the win.

I think Manchester City has the elements for Scolari to succeed.

 

[bobmcfc]

I don't agree with the claim that Scolari is not a good club manager and that he is only good as a national team manager.

I just think he didn't had enough time at Chelsea to show what he can do as a manager.

When he took over Brazil in 2001 he was hailed as a great club manager but people had doubts about his abilities at the international level.

He was hated and called stupid when Brazil did "average" at best under his helm at the end of qualifying for the 2002 World Cup. Brazilian supporters were pissed at his stubborn ways (i.e., playing with 3 central defenders, playing with 2 defending midfielders and only one attacking midfielder, not calling up Romario who was having a great year in the Brazilian league, etc.) but he proved everyone wrong. He was criticized up until the quaterfinal against England. Before that game he was the great club manager who was not a good national team manager. But from that point forward people in Brazil just loved him and now they want him back.

In Portugal it was similar. He was criticized for choosing to have results over winning with style.

But with Chelsea he tried to sell himself as the messiah who would bring a "Brazilian Style" to the club. And that was his demise given the players he had to work with.

Scolari was a winning club manager with Gremio not because of "Brazilian style" but because he was willing to play the ugly "un-Brazilian" game. He was a winning manager for Brazil because he insisted with the 5-3-2 "un-Brazilian" tactics. With Portugal in 2006, one would have to watch the Portugal vs Netherlands World Cup second round to see what made Scolari so successful: "play ugly when we need the victory".

He caught a lot of flack for being himself in Brazil and in Portugal by choosing ugly vs beautiful game to win matches at any cost. But he always had one or two players who could change the game and get the win.

I think Manchester City has the elements for Scolari to succeed.

good post. I agree

 

[JUSTBLUE08]

The last detailed post has altered my views ..but i do think its a 2 man job when we have a multinational team and foreign owners ..as world football is altering so much .

 

[Meshuga]

would scolari get us playing attractive fast paced attacking football..... yes i think he would. i would like to see us playing in a similar way to Aston Villa and i think big phil could do it.

Scolari wanting to play attractive fast paced football is the myth that cost his job at Chelsea. He was always successful at club and international level when he did the opposite. He was always known for his win at all costs and catching flak for that.

The secret to his success was always his ability to turn star players into role players in order to win games.

 

[foreverblue]

I don't agree with the claim that Scolari is not a good club manager and that he is only good as a national team manager.

I just think he didn't had enough time at Chelsea to show what he can do as a manager.

When he took over Brazil in 2001 he was hailed as a great club manager but people had doubts about his abilities at the international level.

He was hated and called stupid when Brazil did "average" at best under his helm at the end of qualifying for the 2002 World Cup. Brazilian supporters were pissed at his stubborn ways (i.e., playing with 3 central defenders, playing with 2 defending midfielders and only one attacking midfielder, not calling up Romario who was having a great year in the Brazilian league, etc.) but he proved everyone wrong. He was criticized up until the quaterfinal against England. Before that game he was the great club manager who was not a good national team manager. But from that point forward people in Brazil just loved him and now they want him back.

In Portugal it was similar. He was criticized for choosing to have results over winning with style.

But with Chelsea he tried to sell himself as the messiah who would bring a "Brazilian Style" to the club. And that was his demise given the players he had to work with.

Scolari was a winning club manager with Gremio not because of "Brazilian style" but because he was willing to play the ugly "un-Brazilian" game. He was a winning manager for Brazil because he insisted with the 5-3-2 "un-Brazilian" tactics. With Portugal in 2006, one would have to watch the Portugal vs Netherlands World Cup second round to see what made Scolari so successful: "play ugly when we need the victory".

He caught a lot of flack for being himself in Brazil and in Portugal by choosing ugly vs beautiful game to win matches at any cost. But he always had one or two players who could change the game and get the win.

I think Manchester City has the elements for Scolari to succeed.

good post. I agree

If you agree then what is the difference between him and Hughes?

If he did play with five at the back and two holding midfielders, how could that style of play improve upon what Hughes is doing? Maybe is the fact he is foreign?

 

[TudorRose]

When Chelsea beat us 3-1 earlier in the season I thought Chelsea would piss the league.

The football they played and the control they had over the game was the best i've witnessed.

Granted, the competition is over 38 games and teams go through poor patches but I frimly believe that a lot has gone on behind closed doors that has undermined Scolari.

I think he can do a far better job than Hughes and will also attract players. If he was in charge in January Kaka would have signed!

Hughes out.

 

[Spindash]

i wouldnt care if we were in 5th place now hughes is a rag and aways will be so get him out of our club cos if he is still here in the summer i will not be buying a season ticket! end of.

Shame.

 

[Meshuga]

If you agree then what is the difference between him and Hughes?

If he did play with five at the back and two holding midfielders, how could that style of play improve upon what Hughes is doing? Maybe is the fact he is foreign?

Scolari managing Manchester city would not mean that he would have "five at the back and two holding midfielders". He had 5-3-2 with Brazil because Brazil had a mediocre generation of central defenders. That was his winning combination with that team. And it was successful.

But the specific tactic is not the point. His willingness to be criticized in order to do what is possible in order to get the silverware is more of the point.

One thing he has that is important is the clout to sign key players who would love to play for him and who would "drink his kool aid". Chelsea was not willing to spend the money. Manchester City would be willing to spend the money and that would be interesting to see. I think he would be successful in the long run.

 

[Mills-Mcfc]

Short term yes, long term I would have my doubts, but a huge step forward.

 

[avoidconfusion]

Scolari showed that he can't cut it at Chelsea, how on earth do some people expect him to cut it at City then?