The work of the coach is a difficult job, is always a new challenge, with continue evolution and i think the debate for how interpretate it is a an argument which can be discussed for hours and hours. Better the elastic coach, the one can adapt his ideas to the players he has or the fundametalist, the one can consider the tactic and his philosophy more important than the abilities of the players in the roster?    

I have always preferred the second type, the coach that bring his philosophy and indeas independently on the qualities of players, elasticity has never been my better quality. For this reason in football i have always sympatized for coaches like Guardiola, Sarri, Sacchi, Zeman and Klopp, coaches who can leave a clear mark, a clear identity of playing to the team who the train. In futsal these coaches can be Velasco, even in Intermovistar came back to use the pivot, or Zego, Padu or for the extreme use of powerplayer, Cacau. Belonging to this integralist group, i had a great debate on myself once arrived in China, because due to the difficult working condition, and the lack of players, i had to adapt my style, to the 'materials' i had. I felt i betrayed my ideals, my way to interpretate the work of the coach, and has been an inner game, where in many occasion i felt uncomfortable, but i thought and ims till thinking that this is the only way we have to compete at certain level....let's wait Asian cup to see if in term of result the choice would have been right.  

 

What do you think? Better integralism or elastic??