Choices and the Usual

Choices and consequences are consistently highlighted yet the message - on many levels - often struggles to get through. Recently, athletes have showcased self-evident and senseless decision-making during championship competition.

During the Champions League final, Didier Drogba, one of Chelsea’s most skilled strikers, slapped Manchester’s Nemanja Vidić with minutes remaining in added time and metres in front of the referee and received a well-deserved red card. Drogba knew that penalties were imminent but he still chose to strike his opponent rather than the ball. Minus one of their top penalty takers, the Blues lost to United in sudden-death penalties. In fact, Chelsea had a chance to win during the first five kicks and perhaps Drogba would have converted when John Terry slipped.

During Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals, Pittsburgh forward Ryan Malone was assessed two goaltender interference penalties. Penguin coach Michel Therrien complained that Red Wing goalie Chris Osgood dove to draw the penalties but his pleas fell on deaf ears. Both teams knew that protecting goaltenders was a point of emphasis and but Malone still chose to enter the crease. Two minor penalties leading to a 3-0 Detroit victory were dominos likely to fall.

During Tuesday’s critical Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals, San Antonio desperately needed a score. It appeared that Gregg Popovich diagramed a three-point shot for Brent Barry, an accomplished outside shooter who is known for inconsistent performances during clutch situations and a lack of aggression. Until that point - when the Spurs were down 93-91 to the Lakers with seconds left - Barry’s fundamentals and critical thinking had earned him 23 points.

Under pressure, the San Antonio guard got open, faked a shot and dribbled to the right. Then Los Angeles point guard Derrick Fisher landed on his check, altering the shot without drawing a foul. Had Barry gone straight up without a dribble or had the Spurs gone inside to Tim Duncan, the officials likely would have rewarded the aggression with a trip to the line and the 2007 Champions would still be playing but the team chose to take a twenty-five foot shot.

Don’t tempt fate. In school, work, life, or sport, it’s often easy to foresee outcomes and avoid them with diligence, planning, and thinking. Challenging the officials is a lose-lose proposition. Refs have to call the points of emphasis, especially when the action happens in front of them. Association refs have always rewarded superstars and aggressive play; they are liable to pass otherwise. People know this and have control over their choices, and their consequences.

The Special One

José Mourinho quit his position as manager of the Chelsea Football Club last week. Or Roman Abramovich fired him. The parting of ways was described as mutual but I tend to doubt that. Whether Abramovich actively sacked Mourinho or gradually created an unsuitable working environment, the owner meant to dismiss the manager. Irrespective of the reason why, I was fairly certain that “the Special One” was finished with the club after a listless 1-1 draw at home to Rosenborg in the Champions League.

From afar, it appears that Abramovich erred, becoming involved with Chelsea personnel and tactical decisions one time too many. Whilst the owner - or any president, general manager, or athletic director - is entitled to some degree of control over their club, the coach or manager is entitled to do their job and apply their expertise. Administrators build organizations, coaches build teams. Jerry Krause did not win six titles for the Chicago Bulls, a team comprised of Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and many others, coached by Phil Jackson, did.

Captain Jean-Luc Picard was a model of leadership, commanding an outstanding crew, yet whenever Starfleet indiscreetly interfered with the operations of the Enterpise, the result was much consternation, near insurrection, and abandonment of the Prime Directive. An owner who acquires a player who doesn’t fit the system and demands that he get burn might elicit similar emotion reactions within the manager.

Like the National Football League, the window for success in soccer is brief. Although Mourinho had won two Premiership titles at Chelsea and held a 4-1-3 record against rival Manchester United. However, he had fallen short on the grandest stage, the Champions League, and Abramovich had lost faith in him.

I don’t think that Chelsea’s window of opportunity had closed but changing managers will be disruptive. First of all, Mourinho’s replacement Avram Grant was practically hired in July. Since Grant took over, the team has already lost to United and F.A. Cup and Champions League chances could be further sabotaged if he does not stabilize the situation promptly.

Teams that succeed over the long-term usually feature stable leadership and a consistent philosophy. Alex Ferguson at United, Jerry Sloan and the Utah Jazz, Bill Cowher and the Pittsburgh Steelers are all examples of master coaches who have won, developed excellent players, and instilled a strong philosophy. Athletes who buy into these philosophies become intrinsically motivated; they aren’t fired up because of the intensity of a particular coach but because they believe in themselves, their teammates, and the team.

José Mourinho was a similar master coach, winning the Champions League Cup (the hardest trophy in the world to capture) at F.C. Porto and respected by both players and peers. He - and countless other coaches - should have been given the opportunity to succeed. When those higher up the organizational ladder think they know best, the team’s fortunes become collateral damage to the inherent conflct. Contrast the low-key, professional approach that Joe Torre applied with the New York Yankees in the late 1990s to the team today when George Steinbrenner pressures the front office to acquire (and latter dispose of) player after player.

Let coaches coach and let players play. Micro-management will chagrin those affected to no end.