The question I have here is, how many people are involved in the decision making process? Is this a Jack Warner show? I mean come on ; this show has been going on for far too long without any sense of accountability. Who does Jack answer to? If there are government and tax payers funds involved, should these decisions be unilateraly be in the hands of a sole individual?
Based on what was reported in the news realease, 'it is one we will adore,' I don't think this is sound qualifications nor justification to replace BSC. I also have not heard of the terms of argreement that should be the conditional on hiring a foreign coach.
If this is not thoughtfully done, we run the risk of being exploited, and abused by a foreign power who continually sees us as minnows.
KND had some very thoughtful analysis in his posting. I was most intrigued by the performances of those teams which have developed essentially locally based players, and who have coaches with a greater affinity and closeness to the players cultural heritage.
The more dissimilar thinking and the more contrasting styles we impose on our team and program, the more likelihood we will face a greater uphill battle. Reason, we have foreign based players who are being entrenched and disciplined in a particular style of play, then we attempt to merge their abilities with locally based players who are coming form a different ethos. We now expect the contrasting styles to merge and be cohesive as a unit in a short space of time to compete at a high level. Meanwhile the other teams are creating a program which features a similar style of play and familiarity among each of the players.
Given we had a local coach one would think that the problem of styles and cultural differences would not be the issue, not so. I would advocate to keep BSC as a liason or person who would seek out talents abroad and work with a more skillful tactician, strategist, coach who could merge the competing tensions of opposing styles into one solid team.
