There is a very good reason why titles such as ‘Ambassador’ exist in football. It is so that the achievements of former great players – many of whom are too thick, and too much of a liability, to actually do anything serious – can be acknowledged without having to actually give them any responsibility.
Cue the news this month that Diego Armando Maradona – the proclaimed ‘son’ of Argentina and the contemporary symbol of Argentinean football – is to be named the new manager of the Argentina national team.
The thought process behind the decision is simple: Maradona is a hero in Argentina – loved and respected by fans and players alike – so, with Argentina struggling as they are in the World Cup Qualifiers, such an appointment will inject hope and excitement across the national spectrum, motivate the players and, in turn, increase popularity of the AFA (Argentina Football Association).
In this sense, the idea is – at least in principle – understandable but, in reality, I fear it is a highly flawed and populist decision.
For starters, Maradona’s track-record in management is less than illustrious. His only experience exists in two short spells in the 1990s – with Argentine clubs Deportivo Mandiyu and Racing Club – both of which resulted in limited success.
Secondly, Maradona’s appointment represents a significant snub to the likes of Carlos Bianchi and Sergio Batista; both of whom were initially earmarked for the job. Add to that the only other notable contender, River Plate’s Diego Simeone – although his lack of success at River suggests his appointment would have been undeserved.
Of the three, it is the failure to appoint Sergio Batista – who led Argentina’s Under-23 side to Olympic Gold this summer – that looks the most surprising oversight. Having publicly declared himself ‘ready’ to take the job, Batista looked like the outstanding candidate prior to the emergence (and, dare I say, propaganda in favour of) Maradona. Batista has, instead, been given the job of Argentina Under-20 national team manager – a step-down in light of his success at the Olympics (Argentina even recorded a comprehensive win over rivals Brazil on the way).
Finally – and certainly most significantly – is the controversy surrounding Maradona’s character, in relation to a history of off-the-field and personal problems.
The myth that Maradona is revered as somewhat of a deity in Argentina is an exaggeration. In reality, he is a cult icon who provokes division and, whilst there are a lot of people that do love him, there are also many that don’t. For all the adulation, there is also a large amount of disdain, and it is worth considering that Maradona is regarded by many as a loudmouth, a troublemaker and a cheat. His infamous ‘Hand of God’ goal against England in the 1986 World Cup was later followed by two separate counts of failed drugs tests: Maradona was suspended for 15 months in 1991 after testing positive for cocaine, and then again for ephedrine during the 1994 World Cup in USA.
Cue the news this month that Diego Armando Maradona – the proclaimed ‘son’ of Argentina and the contemporary symbol of Argentinean football – is to be named the new manager of the Argentina national team.
The thought process behind the decision is simple: Maradona is a hero in Argentina – loved and respected by fans and players alike – so, with Argentina struggling as they are in the World Cup Qualifiers, such an appointment will inject hope and excitement across the national spectrum, motivate the players and, in turn, increase popularity of the AFA (Argentina Football Association).
In this sense, the idea is – at least in principle – understandable but, in reality, I fear it is a highly flawed and populist decision.
For starters, Maradona’s track-record in management is less than illustrious. His only experience exists in two short spells in the 1990s – with Argentine clubs Deportivo Mandiyu and Racing Club – both of which resulted in limited success.
Secondly, Maradona’s appointment represents a significant snub to the likes of Carlos Bianchi and Sergio Batista; both of whom were initially earmarked for the job. Add to that the only other notable contender, River Plate’s Diego Simeone – although his lack of success at River suggests his appointment would have been undeserved.
Of the three, it is the failure to appoint Sergio Batista – who led Argentina’s Under-23 side to Olympic Gold this summer – that looks the most surprising oversight. Having publicly declared himself ‘ready’ to take the job, Batista looked like the outstanding candidate prior to the emergence (and, dare I say, propaganda in favour of) Maradona. Batista has, instead, been given the job of Argentina Under-20 national team manager – a step-down in light of his success at the Olympics (Argentina even recorded a comprehensive win over rivals Brazil on the way).
Finally – and certainly most significantly – is the controversy surrounding Maradona’s character, in relation to a history of off-the-field and personal problems.
The myth that Maradona is revered as somewhat of a deity in Argentina is an exaggeration. In reality, he is a cult icon who provokes division and, whilst there are a lot of people that do love him, there are also many that don’t. For all the adulation, there is also a large amount of disdain, and it is worth considering that Maradona is regarded by many as a loudmouth, a troublemaker and a cheat. His infamous ‘Hand of God’ goal against England in the 1986 World Cup was later followed by two separate counts of failed drugs tests: Maradona was suspended for 15 months in 1991 after testing positive for cocaine, and then again for ephedrine during the 1994 World Cup in USA.
Maradona has also been the subject of suspicion surrounding an alleged involvement with the Camorra (a Napoli-based Mafia-like organisation). The Argentine was accused of accepting bribes at the height of a match-fixing scandal which saw Napoli apparently throw away games at the end of the 1988 season. Unrelated, Maradona escaped a jail sentence for firing an airgun at a journalist outside his home in 1994.
Furthermore, Maradona’s health – both physical and mental – has been far from stable in recent years. His demise was compounded in 2004 by the release of a series of altogether rather tragic images, revealing an extremely large-looking ‘Little Master’ – the cumulative effects of a drink and drugs addiction, amongst other things – forcing him to undergo gastric bypass surgery.
Indeed, Maradona has a history of cocaine addiction which dates back to 1983 where, at Barcelona, he was apparently first introduced to the drug. In 2004, Maradona suffered a major heart attack following a cocaine overdose; he was admitted to intensive care in Buenos Aires hospital and very nearly died. Such was his state, that a number of newspapers reported him dead and even published obituaries – (how someone can get away with reporting such news inaccurately is another matter altogether).
In fairness, Maradona has since recovered and is in noticeably better shape than four years ago. Nevertheless, he is a proven liability, and is seemingly unfit to take on such an important and highly-pressurised job. Moreover, Maradona arguably lacks the maturity and mental characteristics to take on a serious full-time job such as this one. Managing a nation’s national team requires a lot of work and an intricacy that invalidates the assumption that one can do the job fuelled on passion alone.
Those who support the appointment of Maradona do so with twisted logic. They argue that the appointment of a strong management team around him – it has recently been confirmed that Maradona will be supported by 1986 World Cup winning coach Carlos Bilardo – ensures the risks are minimised. This I do not doubt, but I think it misses the point and I would argue that the same logic could, to an extent, be applied to anything; such as justifying the call for someone like, say, Michael Parkinson to become Prime Minister (this is presumably the same logic which saw Arnold Schwarzenegger take over as Governor of California State…?)
The wider point is that, by saying this, you are effectively trivialising the job and suggesting that anyone could do it. This is not – or at least should not be – the case. Of course I accept that the entire management team is more important than the individual manager, but it demands a strong leader who is more than just a kind face or – more cynically-speaking – more than just a publicity stunt.
In this respect, my proposition would be to do it the other way around and, rather than have Maradona at the helm, have him as a secondary part of the set up instead. A similar system was successfully adopted during this summer's Olympics. Maradona was invited by then manager Sergio Batista – the man Maradona essentially beat to the job, as mentioned earlier – to play an informal role in chatting and encouraging the players. The fact that Argentina went on to win Gold provides some evidence to the cause that the system worked well and that Maradona’s influence and presence amongst the squad is beneficial in a support capacity. But to be a manager is a different story altogether and there is little to suggest Maradona has the capabilities to offer anything more than this.
Maradona should be commended for his bravery and willingness to take on a challenge that may risk his reputation. His passion and love for the game is clearly still high, and this will work in his favour to ensure his appointment will be met with support. But it is the AFA that should be criticised for taking a risk with Maradona, and for overlooking seemingly better candidates in favour of popularity and publicity.
Time will tell if the risk pays off. The omens are, so far, good. Although he is yet to take charge of a game, Maradona has made a positive start, confirming Liverpool’s Javier Mascherano as captain in what is very much a statement of change. The true test of character will, no doubt, come in months and years down the line. It is possible Maradona and his team will prove to be a success – I certainly do not wish failure upon the man - but I am of the belief that Maradona’s footballing genius should be recognised in the form of such things as a book or even a statue, not a job.
No comments:
Post a Comment