The Instigator
Gibby97
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should National Teams be Allowed to Hire Foreign Coaches?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,165 times Debate No: 76550
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Gibby97

Pro

The First Round is simply for Confirmation. The other three rounds will be used to defend your position. I support foreign coaches of National Teams. Best of luck.
Hayd

Con

I accept and I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Gibby97

Pro

First off, let me say I strongly support the United States in all national sporting competitions. With that in mind I highly support foreign coaches leading U.S National Teams. Looking at the two U.S Soccer Programs, both sides have had outstanding success with foreign managers. For the men, German Legend Jurgen Klinsmann inherited a shaky veteran team in 2011 and led his squad into the Knockout Stage of the 2014 World Cup surviving the Group of Death. Since taking over Klinsmann has won 36 of his 64 matches as manager and is set the lead the U.S into the Gold Cup this Summer. The Women's National Team has made remarkable strides under their past three managers, all of whom are foreign. Sweden's Pia Sundhage led the National Team to a World Cup Final in 2011 and English Jill Ellis is currently leading US Women in the 2015 World Cup. Combined the last three managers of the U.S Women have won 132 of their 164 matches in charge. It is safe to say U.S Soccer has made remarkable strides in the past decade, largely due to foreign managers.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Hayd

Con

A1:

National team sporting competition is fundamentally based on the idea of a national identity, every nation competing against the other to see which is best. Therefore each national team should be comprised only of entities purely from each nation. A coach who comes from a different nation defeats the fundamental idea of national sport. A national team is meant to represent the pure culture and life, the paramount resemblance of the country, therefore having a coach from another country dirties the pureness of the team and the national team no longer purely represents their nation.

In short, a foreign coach teaching a national team defeats the entire purpose of national teams.

A2:

The most important part of a team is chemistry. Chemistry is how the players and the coaches get along with each other and relate.

A coach from another country would not be able to relate to the players, and therefore would not be able to coach the team as well as a coach from the same country as the players.

A coach from a different culture than the players damages the team, and limits their ability to compete as a nation. Therefore, to have the teams perform better in competitions; coaches should be from the same country as their players.

Conclusion:

Coaches should be from the same country of their players because; if not, it would defeat the entire purpose of national competition, and coaches and players from the same culture can relate better and therefore perform better.
Debate Round No. 2
Gibby97

Pro

Foreign coaches have another advantage to them, however. Continuing with the success of German manager Jurgen Klinsmann, Klinsmann has brought a new system to the United States. The system of developing players that has allowed the Germans to become a soccer power for the past several decades. Klinsmann should receive some of the credit for the Germans 2014 World Cup Championship, most of the players grew under Klinsmann from his time as German Manager and he served as a mentor to current German Manager Joachim Low. By bringing in a coach with experience in building up young World Cup teams, the United States made the correct move in hiring a German coach.
Foreign managers have also been able to adapt and given National Teams success around the Globe. Brazilian Manager Felipe Scolari took the Portuguese National Team to a World Cup Semifinal in 2006. When the English failed to qualify for the 2008 Euros, they sacked English manager Steve McClaren and hired Italian Fabio Capello. Capello, regarded as one of the top managers in the sport, led the English to the Knockout Stage in the 2010 World Cup, winning 28 of 42 matches as English manager.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://sixthofficial.com...
Hayd

Con

Thank you Gibby97 for providing your argument, I will now do my best to defeat it.



R1:



My opponent’s argument runs along the lines of this.



P1: Both the US National Soccer Teams have foreign coaches.

P2: Both the US National Soccer Teams are performing well.

C1: Therefore National Soccer Teams should have foreign coaches.



There is no attacking Premise 1 since it is pure fact.



As of June 27, (When Jurgen Klinsmann took over) the US Men’s National Team Rank was 24th. (1)



As of July 2015, the US Men’s National Team rank is 27th. (2)



In the years that Jurgen Klinsmann has coached the US Men’s National Team has been moved down, three spots.



Conclusion:



I have defeated my opponent’s argument by demonstrating that Jurgen Klinsmann (a foreign coach) has not been successful by giving evidence from world rankings.



My opponent still has not addressed, or defeated any of my arguments, while I have defeated all of his. I hope he shall do so soon.

(2) www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-table/men/

Debate Round No. 3
Gibby97

Pro

First off I would like to correct my opponent. Jurgen Klinsmann was hired as the American manager in July of 2011, a time in which the USA was ranked 34th in the World. Which means their current ranking, 27th in June 2015, would be a seven place improvement from his hiring nearly four years ago. During Fabio Capello's revival of England in the late 2000's, he only had one Englishmen on his coaching staff. Capello, an Italian, was able to take his foreign principles and staff, and lead England as they went from Euro 2006 no show, to a Knockout Round in the 2010 World Cup.
As a result of foreign coaches, many National teams have improved dramatically. Both U.S. Soccer Programs and the English Men's Team are examples of how foreign coaches brought their ideas and customs to their new clubs and made substantial improvements. Foreign coaches are constantly around us. In the 2014 FIFA World Cup 14 out of the 32 Managers were foreigners leading National Teams. In order to be able to compete on an international level, foreign coaches must be hired, in order to not only improve the game, but also to expand it.

http://www.fifa.com...
http://sixthofficial.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Hayd

Con


Jurgen Klinsmann took over July 2011. As of the 27th of June, 2011, the Men’s National Team was 24th, not 34th as my opponent says.


Evidence: http://www.fifa.com...


In the evidence link you will see that the US team was ranked 24th, just as I said.


My opponent still hasn’t even attempted to refute any of my arguments, while I have defeated all of his. Thank you for the debate.


Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jcostello14 2 years ago
jcostello14
Gibby97HaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's examples of successful foreign coaches (Capello, etc.) showed that a team may not need to share a national identity with its coach to win. Both users were respectful and it was an enjoyable debate. Pro also used a bigger variety of sources in their argument.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Gibby97HaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate S&G throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro starts by arguing that US soccer teams have improved thanks largely to foreign managers. Con then argues that having foreign managers defeats the purpose of national teams, and then that the chemistry of teams might be negatively impacted by foreign managers. Pro never provides rebuttals to these points, which tip the scale slightly in favor of Con since Pro needs to overcome each challenge presented. Following this, Con then defeats Pro's argument by providing proof that US teams have actually dropped in rankings in the last several years which completely negates Pro's contention. Pro then finishes by sharing faulty information which Con quickly disproves once more in his own final round. Since Con was able to defeat Pro's contention, while Con's own went unchallenged, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. Pro relied heavily on Wikipedia and faulty sources, Con didn't.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Gibby97HaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments go unaddressed, though they both have relatively vague impacts, targeting things inherent to how teams function and what they represent. The drops damage Pro's case, to be sure, but Con doesn't give me enough on them to win outright against win records. Con's second contention addresses a basic reason why hiring foreign coaches COULD be damaging, but that only functions if I don't see a reason to believe that empirics show a different result. Pro gives me two examples to that effect. However, one of those is shown to be false. So what I have is a mixed bag with empirics, which means I prefer the logic Con's giving me as to why the majority of instances will lead to disconnects between coaches and players. That, coupled with the argument that it defeats the purpose of these teams, are the only points left as clear and certain by the end of the debate, so that's where I vote.