Of Machiavelli And Sports Scouting

I have a question and it's pointed to President Obama:

Is it better to be loved than feared?

I ask because if people are hoping for meaningful change in the Mid-East keep dreaming. Obama has opted for the former and he's barely getting that in the region. In a place where force and fear is marks of respect, Obama is completely off the radar.

***

The question is a transferable one. Let me explain. I notice in world soccer there's a wicked "group think" tendency among clubs. Ever notice how a player does well in a major tournament everyone jumps on them? So much for pro scouting and visionaries. To me, those players rarely pan out. It's like chasing sexy stocks. By the time you get in, it's too late.

Too many teams are run by people with misguided principles or even incompetence. Worse, some "think" they have a plan in place and in reality it was a paper tiger. Think Montreal Canadiens. They don't build from within or build from without. They just exist. Worse, they limit their talent pool of executives so the introduction of new ideas remains on the periphery within that organization - politics prevails over excellence. They make it look like their committed to excellence (with all the pompous pageantry to a glorious past long since gone - remember how Mussolini tried to restore Rome to Italy?) but all they are is a competitive, mediocre club cashing in on the loyalty of fans. Yes, some teams would kill for such consistency but for a team of Montreal's stature, is it enough?

I don't think so because Montrealers believe their club to have the same magnetic resonance as the Yankees, Celtics and Ferrari.

Soccer teams, for their part, think by going after the trendy players from trendy places it will bring them victory. Yes, importing Brazilian, Dutch, Argentinian, Italian, German, Spanish and French players and coaches is good but there's a point to which it ceases being worthwhile. Let me refrain it this way: Is it better to have the shittiest Brazilian player or the best Czech or Mexican player? Of course, it all depends which clubs and countries we're talking about. If you're in Russia or Japan, importing know-how from Western Europe (where the best soccer minds live and operate), it may be the only option to keep going after the "names." But if you're in Western Europe (England needs to import too), you can afford to be enlightened and explore.

I know what I'd do. Mexican players, for instance, are so low on the totem pole on manager's list (outside the MLS) it leaves me wondering why. Mexican players are nifty, agile, adaptable and tough as nails. Instead, clubs are lured by the weakest Dutch player because of the "brand name."

Board Meeting:

James Scout: I say we go after Leonardo Brazil
The Commentator: Why?
Scout: Because.
TC: Why not Tunisian Timmy?
Scout: B-b-b but, he's Brazilian!

I missed my calling. I'm convinced of that. I should have been a scout or something. I say that because I don't lend myself to all the nonsensical cliches that prevail in sports culture. If a kid is small and looks like a Boxer (the dog), I don't care. If he can out-pitch sexy Johnny Rockhead, 'cuz you know he's the darling, you betcha I'm looking at him. In hockey, a Swiss player doesn't command the same power of a Swede. But again, better to have the best Swiss or cheapest Swede? I'm pretty sure this kind of benign prejudice (they'll tell you it's 'fact" but I'm not buying it), happens all the time.

In investing, it's called searching for "value." 

Nor do I follow all this "pedigree" stuff. By setting yourself up with "blue prints" you sometimes lose site that players evolve and the concept of merit can be a casualty to an "elitist" position.

Keep part of your mind an empty, blank slate to complement the knowledgeable side. That way you're always processing new information and will never get caught in the "sheep" rut.