Hiddink's Anzhi choice says it all

They say you should never meet your heroes.

Or see them sign for Anzhi Makhachkala.

When Guus Hiddink last week signed on to manage the pseudo-Dagestan-based club, it opened the eyes of several admirers to the single greatest driving factor behind his choice of clubs.

Hiddink is held in lofty esteem across most of Australia, the greater part of Holland, significant chunks of Russia, the entirety of South Korea and certain isolated boroughs in West London.  His reputation stretches far further.  He tolerates lesser esteem in Madrid and Turkey.

Since a late-career-defining spell in charge of home nation South Korea at the 2002 World Cup, there have been certain threads which have emerged from his plethora of management appointments.  At his success stories, his charges have been unified and played fluid football true to his football education where his professors were Johans Cruyff and Neeskens.

His managerial stock-in-trade is simple, yet effective: empowerment without toadying.  This took a spirited Australia within minutes of the quarter-finals at Germany 2006 and empowered a fractious Russia unit at Euro 2008.  At club level, his mid-decade PSV Eindhoven units were an Eredivisie power while he’s the only manager this side of Mourinho to coax consistency from the Chelsea cabal.

But with his last half-dozen assignments, the most striking aspect has not been the customary “Hiddink effect” – though that has been there.  What’s most conspicuous is how devoted Guus Hiddink has been to obeying Deep Throat.

Hiddink, like no other manager of the past decade, has been utterly beguiled by cash.  His continued “close” association with Abramovich – and now Suleyman Kerimov – has once and for all exemplified Guus’ priorities beyond the doubts of even his most ardent supporters.  His choice of clubs isn’t predicated upon the “project”, challenge, lifestyle or ambition but purely money.  A reported 12 million pounds can assuage a lot of doubts.

Where others, like Sven-Goran Eriksson, may be opportunistic, dating back to his lucrative Australia deal, Hiddink has specifically chosen positions which offer the highest remuneration.  Especially given his stoush with the Dutch tax agency, he is well within his rights to do so, but such a decision shears away some of the charm that’s made him loved in so many countries. 

A player, coach or administrator is robbed of much of their appeal by a mercenary nature; and despite the patently vast/unresistable/ridiculous sums of money involved in this deal the same is true with Hiddink – a man whose easygoing manner has seen him generally avoid any muck slung his direction.

Accepting the position in charge of Anzhi doesn’t discredit his redoubtable coaching skills, tactical ingenuity or personal integrity.  It just throws his decision-making process into the public eye and lays bare latent reasons that romantic sports fans would prefer remained obscure.  He will be lauded in Australia – also in South Korea, Russia, Chelsea and Holland – but his walk-on-water act has been proven not as the works of the apostle Paul but of Paul Daniels.

In fact, while many or most will wish him well in Dagestan – or Moscow, as the case may be – there is only likely to be one person actively excited for him in his new job.  That’s the man whose own job security was inherently tied to Hiddink’s availability, Chelsea boss and former Abramovich paramour, Andre Villas-Boas.  Villas-Boas, who now displays the same clear thinking that marked Phil Brown’s period as part-time Samaritan.

Since his adroit patch-up job in 2008, Hiddink has been the nominal successor to any floundering Chelsea boss.  Only purest naievete would suggest his acceptance of Dagestani employment was an act of altruism aimed at shoring up Villas-Boas' faltering reign - Guus Hiddink may be many things, but tends to pragmatism, not philanthropy.

To the outsider, there is something unsavoury about the close relationships he enjoys with Russian billionaires.  If clubs such as Chelsea and Anzhi are often seen as playthings, Guus Hiddink becomes by association nothing more than a well-paid Ken doll brought in to complete Kerimov’s brand-new Barbie set.  One can only hope he is content in such a role.

Guus Hiddink leaves Turkey: He's just not that into you

Guus Hiddink's reign as manager of Turkey has ended with nary a whimper. His tenure faded ignominiously into the Black and Aegean Seas: Turkey received 3-0 losses in both legs of the Euro 2012 qualification playoffs from a journeyman Croatia side. He's now a free agent and joins Carlo Ancelotti as the biggest - and most marketable - free agent in his profession.

It would surprise no-one were he to return to Chelsea in a Director's role, creating with Andre Villas-Boas a management "Dream Team". Rumours of him taking over as manager, however, are greatly overstated.

It was always likely Hiddink would depart the Bosphorus nation should Turkey fail to qualify. This is in part due to his meandering nature and wandering eye; also because it became apparent nearly from the start that this partnership wasn't nearly as affectionate as past flings with Russia, Chelsea, PSV, Australia and South Korea. Fittingly, in his last home match, he was booed by Turkish crowds.

For the first time in the decade since he ascended from "coach" to "miracle worker", he's criticised his former employers on departure, saying Turkish youth development pathways weren't of sufficient standard for consistent performance at international level.

It marked the second time that Hiddink leaves Turkey without adding to his reputation: in 1991 he was dismissed from Fenerbahçe with a win rate of only 40%. In seventeen games with the Ay Yıldızlılar, he compiled an patchy seven wins, five draws and five losses (41.18%). Both numbers stand well below his career win percentage of 56.52.

Questions are now being asked if the Dutchman's magic has worn thin. His last two jobs have finished unsatisfactorily with Russia and Turkey enduring qualification playoff defeats. Even understanding the "Fool me once, fool me twice" mindset, this analysis is premature and, at worst, a little mean-spirited. As in most break-ups, both parties eventually realised they were just wrong for each other in the first place.

Looking at his greatest achievements (with the exception of his first stint at PSV), Hiddink and his teams have performed best when unfancied and under little pressure. It should be the first rule of football - never bet against a Guus Hiddink team.

Over the last decade, he coaxed a Euro 2008 semi-final berth out of Russia when outsiders didn't know what to expect. When expectations rose after players like Arshavin and Pavlyuchenko got moves to high-profile clubs, the squad underperformed and went down to Slovenia in a winner-takes-all bout over two legs for a place at the 2010 World Cup.

At Chelsea, he was recruited to salvage the season after Luis Felipe Scolari's dismissal. With minimal pressure - it was a temporary appointment and everyone was aware the title had long gone - he once again attained maximal results.

His quotes on masterminding a gritty, but not overly talented Australia to the second round of the 2006 Cup could define his coaching career: "Our goal is the second round. Why not?" Fourth place in 2002 with then-tiny South Korea was nigh-on miraculous. By fostering belief in his players, Guus Hiddink has spent the past decade getting the best out of underdogs with reasonable expectations.

After a stupendous Euro 2008, both Turkey and Russia had reason to be ambitious in expectation. However, this was followed by failure to qualify for South Africa despite quality players and enviable home-field advantages. It should have worked - but didn't. No-one manages expectation like Hiddink - so when it becomes rampant, his work becomes more difficult and less masterly in its execution.

We'll see Guus Hiddink again soon. Rumours persist of a 22 million pound offer to manage Anzhi Makhachkala. If he cares to protect his Lama-like coaching reputation, he won't take that job. It's too glitzy, too dangerous and just not his type.

Remembering Unthanked Socceroo heroes

November 15, 2005.

Six years ago Australian football changed forever. It was on that night that Guus Hiddink's Socceroos upset Uruguay to claim their first World Cup berth since 1974.

The team featured the best collection of footballing talent Australia had produced to that point, led by Mark Viduka and the genius Dutchman who inspired almost single-handedly an antipodean worship of the principles of Total Football. Many still speak in hushed tones of Hiddink's regard for Australia and his "constant contact" with the Socceroos he befriended during their star-cross'd '06 campaign.

SBS commentator Craig Foster tweeted about the that incredible evening yesterday, reminding us that the national anthem was booed, of Mark Bresciano's levelling goal, how much we feared Alvaro Recoba and finally, Mark Schwarzer's saves and John Aloisi's incredible penalty. It ranks as one of my top three sporting memories of all time - I can remember the friends I watched it with, how many beers I drank and ever half-cut scream of delight at Schwarzer's heroics.

Source: Twitter.com

 That wonderful night - friends and I ran down the main street of our town in our underwear, so happy were we - was one of the highest points in Australian football, rivalled by the 1997 Confederations Cup and matches against Japan, Brazil, Croatia and Italy at the 2006 Big Dance.

Though that evening at the Sydney Olympic Stadium was wonderful, the administration that went into November 15, 2005 was perhaps more surprising that a Socceroo upset victory. For so long split by infighting, the FFA had reached a turning point in the years prior. If Cahill, Kewell, Viduka and Moore was our "Golden Generation", then Australian football's dream management team backed that talent.

They may even rival Aloisi and Schwarzer as the real heroes of that night.

Chairman Frank Lowy and CEO John O'Neill were installed in the years before and it was Lowy's hefty billfold that funded the temporary acquisition of Hiddink, who was then managing PSV Eindhoven. Though he brought a World Cup to Australian Rugby Union, O'Neill has never administrated more masterfully than over that World Cup campaign. As any business entity goes, let alone the a race-torn and struggling sports administration, it worked superbly: Lowy provided the gift of vision, O'Neill got things done. This all allowed Hiddink to do what he was paid for: get the most out of his men.

After Lowy and O'Neill took office, they began by disbanding the ailing, nationalistic NSL and replaced it with the A-League. A complete re-boot was needed and the domestic game - while hardly thriving - is in much calmer (and less violent, except when Kevin Muscat and John Kosmina are involved) waters than ever before. The model ascended to such prominence in the next two years that the National Basketball League has recently followed suit in attempting to re-brand.

courtesy: free-football.tv

The pair also spearheaded Australia's move into the Asian Football Confederation. This was aimed at giving Australian domestic competition the chance to thrive in a stronger, more well-funded sphere of influence. Qualification wouldn't ride on a head-to-head versus New Zealand and then playing the fifth-placed Asian or South American team. As in business and politics, Australia now looks towards their nearest - rather than most phenotypically similar - relations.

This move brought about Adelaide FC's march to the 2008 Asian Champions' League final and empowered several fringe Socceroos to move to Qatar, China, Japan or South Korea for better remuneration than the nascent A-League could afford. Qualification for the World Cup is desirable; actually having a strong football fraternity is actually more crucial.

While we remember that wonderful night, it's also time to pay tribute to the visionaries behind it. If Hiddink is thought alongside Rale Rasic as as Australia's greatest coach, then O'Neill and Lowy deserve to be thought of with similar fondness.