Where there's smoke....

[TheWestwayWonder]

....there's an overweight, dour looking Dutch football genius!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 358855.stm

Hiddink link to Chelsea dismissed

By Simon Austin

Guus Hiddink's agent has ruled out any possibility of the Dutchman taking over as manager of Chelsea.

A weekend newspaper report claimed the Russia coach was being lined up to take over from Avram Grant at Chelsea.

But his agent Cees van Nieuwenhuizen told BBC Sport: "There is no chance of Guus going to Chelsea. He wants to end his career in international management.

"He signed a new deal in March that runs up to the 2010 World Cup and always honours his contracts."

Grant's position as Chelsea boss has been under scrutiny ever since the surprise defeat by Tottenham in the Carling Cup final in February.

This could be a make-or-break week for the Israeli, with Chelsea playing Liverpool in the first leg of their Champions League semi-final on Tuesday and then Manchester United in the Premier League on Saturday.

Hiddink, who took over as Russia boss in the summer of 2006 and guided the nation to Euro 2008, has been frequently linked with Chelsea.

Van Nieuwenhuizen said: "I don't know where these stories about Guus come from and I want to put an end to them once and for all.

"It isn't about money for Guus. It's about him having signed a contract and wanting to get on with his job with Russia."

The 61-year-old's initial contract with Russia had been set to finish in July but, after protracted negotiations, he signed an extension in March.

I know the key word there is 'dismissed' but there is the first positive link i've seen with Hiddink and Chelsea in months now. This is, in my opinion, the guy that needs to replace him and Grant. Working relationship with Arnesen, Dutch like Ten Cate, and, above all, a great footballing mind who gets the most from his players.

His record in international play speaks for itself, he was nearly dominant in the Dutch league, and has won the Champions League with PSV and got close a second time (lasting success in different eras). Above all, his teams are perreneal overachievers who didnt have to have talent to be up against the opposition they faced, but still won.

Have I managed to convince any of you yet???

[Maksimov]

No need to convince me...I'd love to see Hiddink at Chelsea, but I don't think it's gonna happen.

[Guest]

As an Australian who watched my team at the last world cup (and the lead up matches), I also need no convincing.

[just]

OK. First let me adjust the chin strap on my tin-helmet.

Incoming fire.

As an Englishman who watched Australia in the last World Cup, I do need convincing. I keep hearing his name, but to be honest, Hiddink's management and Australia's performances, didn't set my TV on fire.

I'm not convinced Hiddink would be the man for us.

But I remain open to persuasion.

I hope our Aussie contingent can sway me with their reasoned opinions on why he should he get the job.

[Maksimov]

I hope our Aussie contingent can sway me with their reasoned opinions on why he should he get the job.

And if there are people from South Korea, Netherlands or Russia, feel free to give some input as well.

[just]

And Italians

[g3.7]

he took lucas neill into the knock outs of the world cup.

[youlots]

There's no doubt that he did the business in getting us there (albeit after a penalties in the final game) and probably got the best out of our squad at the WC in much the same way that he did with South Korea (and remarkably) in 2002. And he's obviously got the best out of PSV when he's managed there. Like just though, I have a doubt about whether Gus would be the best option for us and one of the more pertinent issues when considering him is whether you think his undoubted abilities are more suited to getting the best out of average to good players (which is beyond dispute) as opposed to a team comprised mostly of top drawer players (like us). Maybe that way of thinking is spurious and if he were available obviously he'd be in the top 3 possibles to take over the helm. However, Hiddink does have a record of honouring his contracts and if we're about to have wholesale changes to our squad (which looks probable regardless of what happens over the next few weeks) then the close season will be really hectic and will require maximum time and input I would have thought from, among others, our manager. Then again, if the Panda is given more time (%!*&$%!!!) maybe all of this is academic

[Guest]

OK. First let me adjust the chin strap on my tin-helmet.

Incoming fire.

As an Englishman who watched Australia in the last World Cup, I do need convincing. I keep hearing his name, but to be honest, Hiddink's management and Australia's performances, didn't set my TV on fire.

I'm not convinced Hiddink would be the man for us.

But I remain open to persuasion.

I hope our Aussie contingent can sway me with their reasoned opinions on why he should he get the job.

I will attempt to describe Hiddink and let you make up your own mind.

Firstly, the guys a fitness freak. He strongly has the philosophy that if you keep your players in absolute tip top shape they will close out games far better and generally play closer to their potential. In this sense his a bit like Ramos at Tottenham. I know why he does this, it's because at a world cup your side has to play many matches in a short period of time and having a fitness edge over your opponent is often more important than sheer talent in such a situation (as Hiddink proved with various sides over the years). Would he do this at Chelsea?, probably. Being a different competition from the world cup, perhaps the same need to go out of your way to train up player's fitness levels isn't there as most clubs allready have fitness regimes and the gap between matches is generally larger, however we are talking about the Premiership.

Secondly, the guy really is about Dutch football. You don't allways see the one-touch stuff, in fact often you don't but theres differently that Dutch football phenomenom of playing fairly narrow and getting players to link up and provide options for each other on the pitch. If you want to see us trying to link up the way Arsenal seem to, his a better choice than most. Another thing you'll notice style wise (and this is similar in many regards to Mourinho), his allways trying to control the game. If he can do it, he will often play 5 in midfield.

Speaking of formations, originally with Australia it was basically man on man across the park but with a spare central defender and a lone front man but he ended up with a 4-2-3-1 formation. Hiddink generally plays quite attacking with his full backs (even when part of a 4 man defence) but his actually not that attacking of a manager. Traditionally dispite the fact the side trys to play passing link-up football, it's still a fairly defensive side that doesn't conceed alot of goals. He does play 1 up front formations generally however, that player generally receives good support from midfield and is given plenty of options to offload the ball to.

Player wise, Hiddink loves versatile footballers. To give an example, he was basically the one who "discovered" Park at Man Utd and has a big wrap for Jason Cullina. If he was to take over at Chelsea, I can imagine him taking well to Essien in particular.

If you want to beat a Hiddink lead side, often the best way is to play 2 strikers. As I said before, Hiddink generally likes to have 5 in midfield but by the same token allways wants a spare defender at the back. If you play 2 up top, you force his hand into playing a back 3 (+wingbacks) and he can no longer line up 5 midfielders in the centre of the park (note, they don't play flat).

Overall, his philosophies are fairly simple. Pass and move football with plenty of link-up, versatile players capable of filing multiple roles, man on man at the back but with a spare defender and attacking wingbacks/full backs which provide alot of the side's width.

I think he'd be pretty well suited to the Premiership and would be a hit here.

[Guest]

I have a doubt about whether Gus would be the best option for us and one of the more pertinent issues when considering him is whether you think his undoubted abilities are more suited to getting the best out of average to good players (which is beyond dispute) as opposed to a team comprised mostly of top drawer players (like us).

Hiddink from my experience is a coach who gets a player fit and gives them plenty of options to pass to when on the ball. I don't see any real reason why he couldn't be successfull with top drawer players. Dispite the fact I said his not as attacking as the general consus of people would have you beleive, his not a defensive manager who gets good results with poor teams by defending deep and often before hittind a side on the counter attack.

If you were to say some like say Sam Alladyce is good at getting average players to perform but not great ones i'd understand where your comming from and be more likely to agree, but Hiddink isn't that type of coach and doesn't play those kind of tactics.

[youlots]

Good summation of the man Qaz.

[TomP]

I hope our Aussie contingent can sway me with their reasoned opinions on why he should he get the job.

Well, in short, he did to the Australian national team what Mourinho did to Chelsea.

He came in, threw out everything we knew about how to play footaball, installed his own way of doing things at every level, and was successful at every stage.

He brought together a squad made up of 4 or 5 mid-table premiership-class players, a whole lot of championship/division 1 level players and get them playing positive, attractive, attacking football, that was also defensively very sound.

And he had that x-factor that only the best managers have - to mesh together a bunch of below-standard journeyman players into a team that could match it on the pitch with anyone. "The Winning Mentality"TM

He also had that Jose factor when it came to substitutions - always seemed to know the right player to bring on to change a match, and was never afraid to make a substitution very early in the match if things weren't going right.

When we were drawn in a group with Brazil (holders), Japan (far and away the best team in Asia at the time), and Croatia (who all you England fans should be well aware of their abilities , we were basically given a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere near the knockout stages.

At no stage during the world cup were we outplayed. We dominated Japan, went toe-to-toe with Brazil and Italy (both matches could have easily gone the other way), and showed real character to come back twice against a very good Croatian side.

And he apparently did pretty much the same thing with South Korea before that. And he has been a very successful manager at club level.

Anyway, in short, would be my absolute ideal choice for Chelsea - one of the few managers in the world who would have the balls to completely break away from what we were as a club under Mourinho, and turn us into an entirely new entity. And he would do it with sublime tactics and sexy football.

[aussiegood]

he took lucas neill into the knock outs of the world cup.

That's sold me

[Guest]

In fairness though...

He's not perfect, he does occassionally do some strange things. For example he played Luke Wilkshire on the right flank against Japan. Also club football is different to international, it is really an entirely different level. One only needs to look at England and see how big name players aren't any guarantee of success in international football and how much club managers are advantaged by being there with their players 6 or so days a week compared to international manager who might see their players a few weeks a year and have to throw together some sort of system that allows the team to play reasonably in that short period of time.

I also don't think he has quite the midas touch (in regards to substitutions) that Mourinho does, but then again, who does?...

And with regard to Lucas Neil. He was Australia's and one of the tournament's best players (best judged on performances in the tournament, not talent).

[TomP]

No manager is ever going to be perfect - Mourinho wasn't.

But, there are only ever a handful of about 5 or 6 truely world class managers around at any given time, and Hiddink is one of the few that is currently not tied up at a big club.

So, if the opportunity is there, we should jump at the chance to get it.

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, but one thing in our favour is that money talks with Guus.

The national team jobs of Australia, South Korea and Russia aren't exactly the most prestiguous of postings for a manger of his talent, but the common theme is that they were all offering serious money to get him, which swayed him away from more prestigous club management positions. And, if you are after a big pay packet, then there aren't too many higher payers than Chelsea at the moment.

[Guest]

But, there are only ever a handful of about 5 or 6 truely world class managers around at any given time,

I disagree sorry.

I think there are only ever a handful of about 5 or 6 managers with a reputation of being truely world class around at any given time.

Football is so obsessed with short term success (often at the cost of success in the long term), that I beleive quite often the top managers do not float to the top the way it is assumed by most.

[TomP]

Proven worldclass is probably what I meant to say.

Guys like Hiddink, Cappello, Lippi, Wenger, Mourinho etc have demonstrated world-classness (if that is a word) for years now.

Sure, theres a whole host of the Laudrups/Deschamps/Ramos/Hughes/even Rijkaards of this world who we might well look back in 5 years and see that they have turned into world class managers. But, on the other hand they might not. They might be like Gullit and Vialli have been. Very promising young managers in their first job, but have gone steadily backwards since.

One of these types of guys might well be well worth taking a gamble on (like Mourinho was), but when someone in the next class up (like Hiddink) becomes available, you don't hesitate.

Roman should offer to double the money he his paying him for the Russian job if you ask me.

[just]

One of my problems with him is that match against Italy in the world cup. In particular, how he tactically played the game when Italy went down to 10 men.

His reluctance to make more of the numerical advantage was a missed opportunity IMO.

[TomP]

One of my problems with him is that match against Italy in the world cup. In particular, how he tactically played the game when Italy went down to 10 men.

His reluctance to make more of the numerical advantage was a missed opportunity IMO.

He was criticised somewhat for that over here as well.

However, you could see his thinking. The Aussies were a lot fitter than the Italians, and the longer the match went on, the more they were running them ragged.

I think that Hiddink was quite happy for the match to go into extra time, as we were the more likely to get a goal due to tired Italian legs. I really think he was saving his big tactical moves for extra time. That, and for all his faults, Schwartzer is very good at saving a penalty (he saved another one for Australia in a world cup qualifier against China recently), so I dare say that he would have been very confident going into a penalty shootout.

I think Hiddink would have had a whole lot more egg on his face if he threw on another forward going for the win, and got hit by the Italians on a counter attack (which they were threatening to do the whole match).

And, at the end of the day, as a manger there is nothing that you could do to stop the goal that the Italians scored. Lucas Neill, being Lucas Neill, was never NOT going to challange Grosso, and Grosso being Grosso, was never NOT going to go down like he had been shot regardless of whether there was any contact or not. Ref got the decision very wrong in my books, but that is the way it goes.

The point is that the reason that a team of mid-table premiership/championship level players were matching it with the cream of Seira A (and the eventual world champions) was Hiddink, and Hiddink alone.

If the current Australian team under Verbeek played a full-strength Italy today, I would be surprised if the scoreline was any less than 3-0 to the Italians, with Australia completely outplayed. That's the difference Hiddink makes.

[blizeH]

Some great info in here, cheers guys, and personally I'm sold from what I've heard so far.

Just curious though, who are the alternatives?

[Chelsea FC Champions]

Some great info in here, cheers guys, and personally I'm sold from what I've heard so far.

Just curious though, who are the alternatives?

Frank Rijkaard,Laudrop,Mancini

[Maksimov]

Just curious though, who are the alternatives?

Frank Rijkaard,Laudrop,Mancini

And in case someone wonders, it's Michael Laudrup, not Brian.

[TheWestwayWonder]

Qaz, Tom, and anyone else that gave big input on Hiddink, thank you very much I learned alot about the man from what you guys wrote, as I knew he was a success everywhere, but didnt know the details behind his managerial style at all. So thank you for that.

And I certainly hope my writing "I hope ive convinced you all" wasnt taken as disrespect by anyone here. I didnt know so many of you were stumping for the man, too, but in reading that article and seeing a connection, I got a bit excited. I would certainly prefer him over virtually any unemployed manager (and Rijkaard!) out there, barring the return of God (Mourinho) himself

Anyway, in regards to him being practiced with average players and this team being composed of world class ones, my counter to that argument is that at the moment we are a team in great flux, and even our world class players are not up to potential most days. Looking at it from that angle, I would have no opposition to a blue collar manager like that reshaping our team. Mostly because I know certain players would be gone, and certain players would rise to the challenge presented to them.

In my opinion, a club philosophy should be determined by the manager and not the players. If a guy like Hiddink is brought into the club, and players wont respond or are opposed to his training methods, they shouldnt have a future here, because they are here to serve Chelsea Football Club's best interests. In my opinion, a guy like this will get the best out of players like JT, Lamps, SWP, Kalou, Malouda, etc, all of whom have been underachieving as of late, and all of whom have a reputation as hard workers when pushed the right way.

Really, if players like Sheva or Drogba are too "superstar" to want to get their noses dirty or work for their spots, then they should be gone. And if he wants to bring in "average joes" to get the job done, I have no opposition. Arsenal have a big historical support, but the reason they are world famous today is because of marketable guys like Henry playing scintillating football. And diamonds in the rough like that can be found and polished by a manager like this.

Im getting way ahead of myself, but the vision of this guy getting welcomed as manager and standing alongside Huntelar as his first signing is just too irrestable. Cmon Roman. Dump the chump and start pulling those Russian strings like a Balilaika!

[g3.7]

I've seen huntelaar very few times. he looks a brilliant finisher, great range and technique in that respect, but other than that I can't say he excites me much at all to be honest.

as ever, I prefer all round players to those with just one amazing attribute (and therefore prefer benzema).

[Maksimov]

I prefer strikers who score loads of goals.