Black managers...where are they?

[WrongIslander]

I did not say that you said those things either, but you do not need to say those things for a comment to have some derogatory undertones to it. And I agree that black players tend to be fitter, stronger and faster. But that has nothing to do with ability to be a manager.

 

What you have said is that as black players (although it doesn't matter if black or white really, the same could be said about Ronaldo for instance, who is fitter and quicker than most) rely on physical attributes, such as speed, is less likely to be a good manager because they will not have worked on the tactical side. But these attributes have absolutely nothing to do with whether the player works on the mental side of things or not, or how tactically aware they are. Its like me saying, and to use one of the players you mention, that because Alonso reads the game so well and has good technique, that he is less likely to work on the physical side of his game. But there would be no basis for me to make that assumption.

 

By saying "Black players are usually physically fitter, faster and stronger in general than white players and maybe for this reason they over rely on these aspects and don't develop the mental side of their game as much, so maybe this explains why they don't go into or do well in management." you are linking a person's physical abilities with their mental fortitude and intelligence, but there is no link, and by using the generalisation of a black person's physical abilities, you have brought a person's race into it.

 

I've never once said that any black player lacks the fortitude, i've said they don't have to rely on it as much but as usual what I've said doesn't seem to matter when certain people are around (I'm not having a go at you on that score).

 

Regardless of whether you are black, if you are fitter, stronger and have more stamina then you don't need to work as hard at your game and to suggest that it might be a reason why any player in that bracket might not work as hard at their game is fair comment is it not? I mean it might not be right but it's certainly not going to cause the overreaction my comments have.

 

Now if you admit black players are usually physically fitter, faster and stronger IN GENERAL then if the statement in the paragraph above stands alone then it stands to reason that black players would not have to work as hard at their game in those respects. If you look at the sucessful black managers they have come from clubs where every player is treated the same regardless of position, stature, age etc (the way it should be). So I surmise that while these black players (or talented players of any race whose abilities center around physical attributes) are not being taught the right lessons, they then become less suitable for managerial positions. I again qualified this by pointing out.

 

Barcelona and Holland have an education first policy for all their players and will refuse to keep a player around just for his physical attributes as some clubs do, these two footballing powers have been responsible for three of the finest finest world class players who have gone on to prove themselves at managerial level. Cruyff, Rijkaard and Pep and the fact that Cruyff, Rijkaard was given the job or sacked from it had nothing to do with the colour of his skin.

 

If you want to become a quality manager in this game (if you want to take into account the rebbeca theory) then get yourself to Ajax or Barca, learn the game from the greatest teachers day in and day out (like Mourinho did) and then tell people you've done that.

 

Maybe I'm naive but I can't believe the reason Kenny Dalglish has had two shots at the Liverpool job is because Barnes is black.

 

As for the lower levels? Well I don't know how you get a shot at those jobs other than to do what Owen Coyle did for example and just win games you shouldn't be until a bigger side notices you or you promote your way to the prem.

[silverlining]

 

You can't jump from racism to 'any discrimination', it's not the same argument.

 

 

"There's no, or very very very little, racist or discriminatory reason for things being the way they are these days, there's no revolution not being televised"

 

So why bring up the same two words in the same sentence in the same argument?

[The Woolster]

I've never once said that any black player lacks the fortitude, i've said they don't have to rely on it as much but as usual what I've said doesn't seem to matter when certain people are around (I'm not having a go at you on that score).

 

Regardless of whether you are black, if you are fitter, stronger and have more stamina then you don't need to work as hard at your game and to suggest that it might be a reason why any player in that bracket might not work as hard at their game is fair comment is it not? I mean it might not be right but it's certainly not going to cause the overreaction my comments have.

 

Now if you admit black players are usually physically fitter, faster and stronger IN GENERAL then if the statement in the paragraph above stands alone then it stands to reason that black players would not have to work as hard at their game in those respects. If you look at the sucessful black managers they have come from clubs where every player is treated the same regardless of position, stature, age etc (the way it should be). So I surmise that while these black players (or talented players of any race whose abilities center around physical attributes) are not being taught the right lessons, they then become less suitable for managerial positions. I again qualified this by pointing out.

 

Barcelona and Holland have an education first policy for all their players and will refuse to keep a player around just for his physical attributes as some clubs do, these two footballing powers have been responsible for three of the finest finest world class players who have gone on to prove themselves at managerial level. Cruyff, Rijkaard and Pep and the fact that Cruyff, Rijkaard was given the job or sacked from it had nothing to do with the colour of his skin.

 

If you want to become a quality manager in this game (if you want to take into account the rebbeca theory) then get yourself to Ajax or Barca, learn the game from the greatest teachers day in and day out (like Mourinho did) and then tell people you've done that.

 

Maybe I'm naive but I can't believe the reason Kenny Dalglish has had two shots at the Liverpool job is because Barnes is black.

 

As for the lower levels? Well I don't know how you get a shot at those jobs other than to do what Owen Coyle did for example and just win games you shouldn't be until a bigger side notices you or you promote your way to the prem.

 

If I was a professional sportsman, I would hope that I would work at my weaker aspects, and I think many top athletes would be the same, it could be what differentiates the best from the average.

 

So I think it is wrong to presume that because someone is fitter, they are less likely to work on their reading of the game, I would say there is a good chance of the opposite. But a person's race should not come into it whether you think one way or another, as it is neither here nor there.

[VladimirIlyich]

You can't jump from racism to 'any discrimination', it's not the same argument.

Not a lot of disabled managers in the league is there? Not a lot of women, gays, asian managers either, or managers under 30 years old.

I don't think racism, in the context of us talking about black managers, exists in the same way that some failed black managers would like to believe there is. It's too costly to play the racist game, if you get found out then you're fucked, it's just too risky for people to let their racism come into play when assessing or appointing staff at any level.

 

All I hear is Luther Blissett constantly whining about how he hasn't been given a chance despite having his A license. How many other white people have an A license and don't get a chance? But no, because Luther is black he expects to go to the front of the queue.

Les Ferdinand said it himself in a recent interview about his own quest to become a coach, "you don't see black faces on the courses".

 

Got a white mate with an A License and he cant get a job so thats a fair point and as I said originally I thought to be a manager it was the pro License,the next step up which was needed to be a manager?

[WrongIslander]

If I was a professional sportsman, I would hope that I would work at my weaker aspects, and I think many top athletes would be the same, it could be what differentiates the best from the average.

 

So I think it is wrong to presume that because someone is fitter, they are less likely to work on their reading of the game, I would say there is a good chance of the opposite. But a person's race should not come into it whether you think one way or another, as it is neither here nor there.

 

You don't just work on it though at that level, the coaches that train you tell you what to work on and while you might think that they would automatically think that way, the fact of the matter is, they don't.

 

If you're fast as fuck and you're told to run down the wings all day and that's all you're told to do then you're not working on rounding your game off are you. Do you think Tony Pulis is teaching the finer points of tiki taka to his side? Of course he isn't.

 

Of course race comes into it when the discussion is "BLACK MANAGERS.... WHERE ARE THEY". If this was a discussion about football in general then no race shouldn't enter into it but when the context is race in footaball it's kind of a pre requisite don't you think?

 

The fact of the matter is that you've just agreed with me that black players are more likely to be physically fitter, faster and stronger in general, there is scientific fact that backs up not only the proof of this but the factual genetic reasons as to why and yet you still have a problem with it?

 

If we didn't acknowledge that people of different race are genetically different, well, let's hope your doctor isn't "racist" if you're black and need to receive treatment .

Edited March 8, 2011 by WrongIslander

[VladimirIlyich]

You don't just work on it though at that level, the coaches that train you tell you what to work on and while you might think that they would automatically think that way, the fact of the matter is, they don't.

 

If you're fast as fuck and you're told to run down the wings all day and that's all you're told to do then you're not working on rounding your game off are you. Do you think Tony Pulis is teaching the finer points of tiki taka to his side? Of course he isn't.

 

Of course race comes into it when the discussion is "BLACK MANAGERS.... WHERE ARE THEY". If this was a discussion about football in general then no race shouldn't enter into it but when the context is race in footaball it's kind of a pre requisite don't you think?

 

The fact of the matter is that you've just agreed with me that black players are more likely to be physically fitter, faster and stronger in general, there is scientific fact that backs up not only the proof of this but the factual genetic reasons as to why and yet you still have a problem with it?

 

If we didn't acknowledge that people of different race are genetically different, well, let's hope your doctor isn't "racist" if you are black and decide to give or need to receive blood.

 

Link?

[WrongIslander]

Link?

 

Seriously? And you want to argue with me on this subject when you need a link to know there are proven differences?

 

How about you look up what the term race actually means, you might be astounded to find that it is defined by the DIFFERENCES in a group of people including the dreaded physical characteristics. Apparently everytime you allude to a race you're racist if indeed you believe the ridiculous diluted definition of racism today.

[Eljeficito]

I hear on average the black mans penis is around an inch larger than the white mans...

[The Woolster]

You don't just work on it though at that level, the coaches that train you tell you what to work on and while you might think that they would automatically think that way, the fact of the matter is, they don't.

 

If you're fast as fuck and you're told to run down the wings all day and that's all you're told to do then you're not working on rounding your game off are you. Do you think Tony Pulis is teaching the finer points of tiki taka to his side? Of course he isn't.

 

Of course race comes into it when the discussion is "BLACK MANAGERS.... WHERE ARE THEY". If this was a discussion about football in general then no race shouldn't enter into it but when the context is race in footaball it's kind of a pre requisite don't you think?

 

The fact of the matter is that you've just agreed with me that black players are more likely to be physically fitter, faster and stronger in general, there is scientific fact that backs up not only the proof of this but the factual genetic reasons as to why and yet you still have a problem with it?

 

If we didn't acknowledge that people of different race are genetically different, well, let's hope your doctor isn't "racist" if you're black and need to receive treatment .

 

Is Pulis a bad manager because he plays direct football? No.

Does playing for Pulis mean that you won't be a good manager because you have not played Tika-taka football? No.

 

Being fast and told to run up and down the wing all day has nothing to do with whether you think about the tactical side of the game or not, whether you listen to what the coaches are saying, in general or to other members of the squad, or whether you ask the coaches why the team is doing things in a certain way, whether you watch as much football as possible to see how other teams play, and it has nothing to do with whether you would be a good manager or not.

 

Being a Paul Scholes type player, who controls the pace of the game, who thinks about the position of team mates and what the best pass would be, who links defence and attack, and who has fantastic technique equally doesn't mean they would be a good manager. I think Scholes would be a shit manager actually.

 

It is not the physical qualities, nor the style of player, nor the style of the teams they have played for which determines if someone would be a good manager, it is the personal/mental qualities. That has nothing to do with their colour.

[dirk grout]

Is Pulis a bad manager because he plays direct football? No.

Does playing for Pulis mean that you won't be a good manager because you have not played Tika-taka football? No.

 

Being fast and told to run up and down the wing all day has nothing to do with whether you think about the tactical side of the game or not, whether you listen to what the coaches are saying, in general or to other members of the squad, or whether you ask the coaches why the team is doing things in a certain way, whether you watch as much football as possible to see how other teams play, and it has nothing to do with whether you would be a good manager or not.

 

Being a Paul Scholes type player, who controls the pace of the game, who thinks about the position of team mates and what the best pass would be, who links defence and attack, and who has fantastic technique equally doesn't mean they would be a good manager. I think Scholes would be a shit manager actually.

 

It is not the physical qualities, nor the style of player, nor the style of the teams they have played for which determines if someone would be a good manager, it is the personal/mental qualities. That has nothing to do with their colour.

 

I must commend you for your articulate and well thought out responses but I do feel that you are wasting your time somewhat. I wasted a good hour of my life recently trying to convince the same person that john barnes was not a striker. He (obviously) proved me wrong on that one and explained to me how barnes 'certainly finished his career playing up front' not in central midfield as the rest of us were led to believe. Said poster seems to continually spout nonsense then when people pull him up on it he accuses them of some form of internet bullying.

[Stu Monty]

There's a lot of dribble on chins in here. Outside of, at best, the hugely clumsy attempts at analysis of race we have on show why are we saying that thinking about the game is a pre-requisite for management or coaching? A fair slice of managers in this country see management as just a load of shouting, that's hardly having some worldly view on the game.

 

The idea that racism isn't a barrier to minorities, in any walk of life, is naive, bordering on the delusional. Racism is not something a small minority partake in, it's a majority sport. It's actually a genetic urge that the more enlightened humans actively try and counter. We are driven to form groups and people who look most similar to us are more likely to share genetic material with us, hence we'll group with them. As crude as it may sound there's a reason why someone will take a bullet for their child and the logic works exactly the same for why nationalism and racism exist, if severely diluted; the genetic drive to protect similar genes.

 

Putting your fingers in your ears won't make it less so. Confronting the reality and trying to work round it will.

[VladimirIlyich]

Seriously? And you want to argue with me on this subject when you need a link to know there are proven differences?

 

How about you look up what the term race actually means, you might be astounded to find that it is defined by the DIFFERENCES in a group of people including the dreaded physical characteristics. Apparently everytime you allude to a race you're racist if indeed you believe the ridiculous diluted definition of racism today.

 

Yes,I would like to see your proof of the Factual differences that mean black people or footballers are faster and less intelligent than white ones.

 

You again seem to be confusing fact and opinion

 

 

 

fact

   /fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt] Show IPA

–noun

1.

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

 

opinion

 

   /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled[uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA

–noun

1.

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. [/b]

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

There's a lot of dribble on chins in here. Outside of, at best, the hugely clumsy attempts at analysis of race we have on show why are we saying that thinking about the game is a pre-requisite for management or coaching? A fair slice of managers in this country see management as just a load of shouting, that's hardly having some worldly view on the game.

 

The idea that racism isn't a barrier to minorities, in any walk of life, is naive, bordering on the delusional. Racism is not something a small minority partake in, it's a majority sport. It's actually a genetic urge that the more enlightened humans actively try and counter. We are driven to form groups and people who look most similar to us are more likely to share genetic material with us, hence we'll group with them. As crude as it may sound there's a reason why someone will take a bullet for their child and the logic works exactly the same for why nationalism and racism exist, if severely diluted; the genetic drive to protect similar genes.

 

Putting your fingers in your ears won't make it less so. Confronting the reality and trying to work round it will.

 

Ah but it's not racism is it, it's discrimination, you and I both know this doesn't work just on the colour of our skin, but all factors that either link or separate us.

[WrongIslander]

I must commend you for your articulate and well thought out responses but I do feel that you are wasting your time somewhat. I wasted a good hour of my life recently trying to convince the same person that john barnes was not a striker. He (obviously) proved me wrong on that one and explained to me how barnes 'certainly finished his career playing up front' not in central midfield as the rest of us were led to believe. Said poster seems to continually spout nonsense then when people pull him up on it he accuses them of some form of internet bullying.

 

Other than I didn't say he finished his career as a striker you might have a point. Lets not let facts get in the way though.

[RED.DUB]

Fair enough, I've always cosniddred the forum a place to air your views and debate them but if you don't wnat to that's up to you.

BTW not trusting black people enough WTF ???????????

ive always considered it a place to have a chat about football,full on serious debates on internet forum dont interest me tbh.

but saying that,im refusing to debate this because its not a debatable subject,plus all you have to do is google "black managers england" or something similar and you will find loads,from black people talking about their experience.

as for not trusting black people,it just seems some are of the opinion that race is being used by black people as an excuse for them not getting jobs in the football league.

not quite trusting their word.

[WrongIslander]

Is Pulis a bad manager because he plays direct football? No.

Does playing for Pulis mean that you won't be a good manager because you have not played Tika-taka football? No.

 

Being fast and told to run up and down the wing all day has nothing to do with whether you think about the tactical side of the game or not, whether you listen to what the coaches are saying, in general or to other members of the squad, or whether you ask the coaches why the team is doing things in a certain way, whether you watch as much football as possible to see how other teams play, and it has nothing to do with whether you would be a good manager or not.

 

Being a Paul Scholes type player, who controls the pace of the game, who thinks about the position of team mates and what the best pass would be, who links defence and attack, and who has fantastic technique equally doesn't mean they would be a good manager. I think Scholes would be a shit manager actually.

 

It is not the physical qualities, nor the style of player, nor the style of the teams they have played for which determines if someone would be a good manager, it is the personal/mental qualities. That has nothing to do with their colour.

 

Pulis isn't a bad manager but my point from the start was talking about top jobs, if people bothered to read my posts and not just pick out what they wanted to see rather than what was there we wouldn't have this problem.

 

The type of player you are tends to have an impact on the type of manager you are, there are other factors but shit players can make great managers and great players can make great managers, I can't think of any alright players that spring to mind in the modern game that have gone on to make great managers.

 

You've just talked about Scholes and how much he has to think about the game and how much he has to know about it to continue playing at his age especially (:O ageist) and yet you want to suggest that would in no way give him a good footing in management? Of course it would, he'd have more to do obviously than just know what he knew as a player but it's a great starting point, same reason I think Carragher would make a great manager and Xavi for that matter.

 

Oh and silverlining, why bother posting about how you're "done with me" if you're going to start negging my posts you cock. Are you unable to just leave me the fuck alone. When you think about me do you touch yourself?

[WrongIslander]

Yes,I would like to see your proof of the Factual differences that mean black people or footballers are faster and less intelligent than white ones.

 

You again seem to be confusing fact and opinion

 

 

 

fact

? ?/fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt] Show IPA

–noun

1.

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

 

opinion

 

? ?/??p?ny?n/ Show Spelled[uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA

–noun

1.

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. [/b]

 

Ah sorry, my mistake, I thought you were in with silverlinings witchhunt but I can clearly see I've given you far too much credit.

 

If you want to prove what I've said wrong then go right ahead, but don't prove something that I didn't say like some racist bullshit that black footballers are less intelligent than white footballers, something I never said.

 

Seriously if what I said was so bad, why do people need to embelish or in this case downright lie about it to attack me?

[The Woolster]

I must commend you for your articulate and well thought out responses but I do feel that you are wasting your time somewhat. I wasted a good hour of my life recently trying to convince the same person that john barnes was not a striker. He (obviously) proved me wrong on that one and explained to me how barnes 'certainly finished his career playing up front' not in central midfield as the rest of us were led to believe. Said poster seems to continually spout nonsense then when people pull him up on it he accuses them of some form of internet bullying.

 

I realised that, but it was a slow day at work.

 

He reminds me of that Kenny's Spell is a Bell or whatever his name is, are they infact the same?

[VladimirIlyich]

Ah sorry, my mistake, I thought you were in with silverlinings witchhunt but I can clearly see I've given you far too much credit.

 

If you want to prove what I've said wrong then go right ahead, but don't prove something that I didn't say like some racist bullshit that black footballers are less intelligent than white footballers, something I never said.

 

Seriously if what I said was so bad, why do people need to embelish or in this case downright lie about it to attack me?

 

I would simply suggest you should press the 'Preview Post' button a lot more times before you press 'Submit Reply.'

[WrongIslander]

I would simply suggest you should press the 'Preview Post' button a lot more times before you press 'Submit Reply.'

 

I'd suggest you learn to comprehend English and when you want to quote someone, quote what they actually said, not what would make your pathetic rebuttle seem coherent.

 

 

The fact of the matter is that you've just agreed with me that black players are more likely to be physically fitter, faster and stronger in general, there is scientific fact that backs up not only the proof of this but the factual genetic reasons as to why and yet you still have a problem with it?

 

That was what you asked for a link for and when I laughed at the idea you needed a link to explain about the physiological differences between black people and white people, you decided to throw intelligence into bargain because you knew you were chatting shit. Where in what you quoted does it say that I have stated black players are less intelligent? Where in fact in anything that I've said in this thread does it say that black players are less intelligent. Intelligence is a capability which is part nature and part nurture, the debate as to the fraction of each still goes on to this day, it has nothing to do with the colour of your skin and at no point did I ever say it did.

Edited March 8, 2011 by WrongIslander

[VladimirIlyich]

Its rebuttal,by the way.

 

Who needs to comprehend English?

[WrongIslander]

Its rebuttal,by the way.

 

Who needs to comprehend English?

 

Still you. Spelling a word wrong does not mean I can not comprehend English, it just means I have trouble remembering how to spell that word. If your comprehension of English was good enough, you'd know that. Comprehension is understanding something, not articulating it or being able to spell the odd word.

[Stu Monty]

...and another thing: you say Peter Reid looks like a chimp and everyone laughs, you say Carlton Palmer looks like a monkey and everyone looks at you like you run a plantation?

 

Life is complicated.

[TheHitman]

It is pretty hard to measure opinions on race, gender etc in purely quantitative terms. I would say exploring qualitative material and exploring narratives would be more beneficial. Although I have no doubt the researchers have the best of intentions once you start defining people by race it often results in polarising opinions.

 

Why do the majority of footballers come from working class background regardless of race?. Why are Canadians so ace at Ice Hockey are they genetically superior?

 

At one stage boxing used to be full of by African Americans now a lot of the top boxers are Latino and Eastern European. There has been a recent surge for women from Russia to excel in Tennis. You could go through many sports and find similar trends.

 

Apparently for a couple of decades in Basketball the sports commentators used to talk about Jewish people excelling at Basketball, here is what they said about this super set of sports people.

 

"In the late 20's. Jews were believed to have a genetic edge, being endowed by nature with superior balance, greater speed and sharper eyes -- not to mention, in the words of one sportswriter, a ''scheming mind'' and ''flashy trickiness.''

[WrongIslander]

It is pretty hard to measure opinions on race, gender etc in purely quantitative terms. I would say exploring qualitative material and exploring narratives would be more beneficial. Although I have no doubt the researchers have the best of intentions once you start defining people by race it often results in polarising opinions.

 

Why do the majority of footballers come from working class background regardless of race?. Why are Canadians so ace at Ice Hockey are they genetically superior?

 

At one stage boxing used to be full of by African Americans now a lot of the top boxers are Latino and Eastern European. There has been a recent surge for women from Russia to excel in Tennis. You could go through many sports and find similar trends.

 

Apparently for a couple of decades in Basketball the sports commentators used to talk about Jewish people excelling at Basketball, here is what they said about this super set of sports people.

 

"In the late 20's. Jews were believed to have a genetic edge, being endowed by nature with superior balance, greater speed and sharper eyes -- not to mention, in the words of one sportswriter, a ''scheming mind'' and ''flashy trickiness.''

 

Crazy to think that the part in bold would have been common place and acceptable in the days of the 1920's.

 

You're right though in everything you say, socio-economic factors are yet another issue to take into consideration.

 

The same debate about working classes or economic background came into question over the whole sickle cell anaemia discoverys, so it's not just related to sport.