#1 ·
I was thinking about this today while watching some old clips. It feels like every time a massive vacancy opens up in a major national team, there's this huge circus surrounding who is going to take the reins. We always jump to the most cynical conclusions—money, contract length, or "too much travel"—but sometimes I wonder if we overcomplicate it.
In my opinion, there’s a real sense of honor in just staying where you're needed. I look at some of the legendary figures in the game and realize that their greatest decisions weren't about chasing the next big payday or a new challenge, but rather about honoring a previous promise or a sense of duty to a specific group. It’s rare to see someone say, "No thanks, I'm good where I am," without it being a massive negotiation tactic.
Do you think top-tier coaches actually prioritize these kinds of personal commitments, or is everything ultimately just a business calculation?
In my opinion, there’s a real sense of honor in just staying where you're needed. I look at some of the legendary figures in the game and realize that their greatest decisions weren't about chasing the next big payday or a new challenge, but rather about honoring a previous promise or a sense of duty to a specific group. It’s rare to see someone say, "No thanks, I'm good where I am," without it being a massive negotiation tactic.
Do you think top-tier coaches actually prioritize these kinds of personal commitments, or is everything ultimately just a business calculation?