Coaches’ demands on traditional players are simply ridiculous

Hail the Kings of football, the all-rounder footballers the likes of the much impressive Belgian, Eden Hazard. A player glorified by many coaches, the one who can be a notable defensive player and a remarkable attacking midfielder. It’s every coach’s dream to have a player like that in their teams. One would expect one Hazard-like player in each team to lead it to the greater heights of the competitive world of football.

Well, this outlook/expectation is quite a fuzzy one in modern football where coaches are looking for Hazard in the 11 men of the squad. Philosophies suggest that the new trivialises the old. And that has been the case of modern football, it has seemingly killed the careers of the traditionally trained footballers.

Coaches are looking for Messi and Piqué in one person, the best defender and attacking player in one. They want Billiat, Tau and Mathoho in one person and any player that sticks to the traditional way of expertise of having to specialise in one skill will surely never see the sun in the PSL.

It’s the millennium age and football has become a fast-paced sport and more calculative by the day. The sport demands players that will be able to adapt to any position and be the Messi of that position. The world of football is known for having the ability to destroy careers. We’ve seen many young men come and go, some go before they could even shine. I oddly find myself asking where Lucky Khune disappeared to.

The story of Siphelele Ntshangase, one may say that it demonstrates the failure of a player to adapt to modern football. “Champaign pass” man, he is one skilled young man known for connecting the midfield to the striker – a key player in any squad in traditional football.

However, his skills’ value has proven to be somewhat different in modern football. Coaches demand him to widen his pool of expertise. The 25-year-old footballer has been criticised by many coaches for being stubborn and failing to adapt to the new type of play of being an all-rounder.

Maybe the underlining factor coaches are missing is that: One’s skill is tailored to their identity. What is being asked of Ntshangase is not little, it is far beyond that just a skill but identity. Surely asking for one to offer different expertise than speciality is indirectly questioning their identity.

It’s like asking Bobby Motaung to be a player while he specialises in being a manager. Maybe the example is far fetched but the moral of the story is that sports discrimination against traditional players is no different than societal discrimination. For any exclusion based on things that one is not in control of leaves an emotional dent.

Middendorp’s public portrayal of displeasure in Ntshangase’s type of play was surely the gist of what he goes through every training. Let that sink and tell me how can one ever be motivated under those circumstances?

A lot of coaches can learn from the much respected Clive Baker. He was the kind of a coach that could prune the good in a player. And many South African players gave the best of what they could “playing for the coach”. Players and just mere human beings are cut from different cloths and coaches cannot expect Gould to be Ekstein.

The fact of the matter is that we need coaches to find a middle ground for traditional and modern footballers.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.