03-13-2015, 04:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2015, 04:45 PM by ACMILAN1983.)
There's not huge amounts of activity here lately and I've been thinking about a subject which I'd be curious to see opinions on, the subject being Galliani.
Basically, I've always assumed that when he does finally leave Milan, the general consensus will be that despite his performance in recent years, he's going to be widely regarded as one of the great sporting directors or club leaders in football history. That's the way I've always assumed I'd always look back at him, as someone who caused a lot of damage in his latter years, but his legacy will be dependent on the success of his former years and therefore I'd regard him as a great asset in Milan's history.
However, the more I think about it the more I question about how good he actually is. Back in the 80s when Berlusconi bought Milan and Galliani was placed in the club, the general feeling tends to be that Berlusconi's money and smart moves on the market were the start of major success. This is undeniable, as no one will question the impact of signings like the dutch trio. However, many, including people who were within the club, will argue the Nils Liedholm put the foundations in place for Sacchi's Milan to dominate, which when you consider how many of the pillars that formed that side were already at the club before Berlusconi took over, proves the comment holds some truth.
Even signings that were considered vital, such as Frank Rijkaard or later Marcel Desailly, were often as a result of the demands of the coaches (Sacchi and Capello respectively in these cases) rather than the intuition of the directors. Others, such as Van Basten, Boban and Savicevic were as a result of Berlusconi demanding the best players in the world be bought to the club, money not necessarily being an object.
It was in the mid to late 90's that questions start to come around about the decision making of the directors, specifically Galliani. Not only did Milan struggle to rebuild after a lengthy period of success, but the club entered into a period where midtable finishes weren't uncommon. One of the criticisms aimed towards the leadership, often by people who were in the club at the time, is that too many young players were rushed and forced into the setup, which created an instability and a questionable work ethic in the group where many struggled to cope. It is normally up to directors to build long term projects to keep a club healthy and competitive and this is where the first signs of Galliani's seemingly poor work start to show.
It wasn't too long after in the early 2000's that the dominant Milan under Carlo Ancelotti came to fruition. However, it's as much to the credit of Ancelotti that he was able to make use of the qualities at his disposal and the players in the flexibility and ability to interpret unfamiliar roles to them, as it is to the detriment of the management to build an arguably unbalanced squad where the expectation was that the coach would have to fit four playmakers in the starting eleven. Perhaps this is a harsh assessment of the club's work, where they did develop some quality players known more for their graft than ability, such as Gattuso and Ambrosini, but there was a clear preference for star names going forward.
Towards the end of the Ancelotti era, specifically post Calcipoli, Galliani's work has been poor at best for the most part. Many will cite signings such as Thiago Silva and Ibrahimovic as great work by Galliani, which while true doesn't feel like it should excuse countless poor signings that have had detrimental effects on the club. As resources from Berlusconi's pocket dried up, Galliani failed to adequately manage the club into a new era where more frugal and cautious spending was required.
There are many other questions to raise around Galliani and his work. Most notable is his relationship with players. Those who often have a strong relationship with him will refer to how he's a father figure to the players and a strong aide to the coaches. However, with the positives there are also negatives, such as his fractious relationship with numerous ex-players, most famously Maldini, Pirlo, Cassano and Seedorf.
This all calls into question as to precisely how good Galliani is heading the club. Are his successes on the market a result of his understanding of developing a squad for a long term project or could it be as a result of having resources few in the world can dream of and having people within the club who understood what was needed? Was he really a great man manager as he's often made out to be and are those who have had issues the ones that are the problem? Was he an exceptional negotiator or an opportunist whose cut priced deals had detrimental effects in the long term?
Clearly there is much more to this question than what can be written in a single post, never mind the number of details that were never even publicly known. However, I'd be interested in opinions on whether Galliani was a great leader in Milan, or whether he was simply rather fortunate to be in the right circumstances at the right time with the strong supporting structure around him.
Basically, I've always assumed that when he does finally leave Milan, the general consensus will be that despite his performance in recent years, he's going to be widely regarded as one of the great sporting directors or club leaders in football history. That's the way I've always assumed I'd always look back at him, as someone who caused a lot of damage in his latter years, but his legacy will be dependent on the success of his former years and therefore I'd regard him as a great asset in Milan's history.
However, the more I think about it the more I question about how good he actually is. Back in the 80s when Berlusconi bought Milan and Galliani was placed in the club, the general feeling tends to be that Berlusconi's money and smart moves on the market were the start of major success. This is undeniable, as no one will question the impact of signings like the dutch trio. However, many, including people who were within the club, will argue the Nils Liedholm put the foundations in place for Sacchi's Milan to dominate, which when you consider how many of the pillars that formed that side were already at the club before Berlusconi took over, proves the comment holds some truth.
Even signings that were considered vital, such as Frank Rijkaard or later Marcel Desailly, were often as a result of the demands of the coaches (Sacchi and Capello respectively in these cases) rather than the intuition of the directors. Others, such as Van Basten, Boban and Savicevic were as a result of Berlusconi demanding the best players in the world be bought to the club, money not necessarily being an object.
It was in the mid to late 90's that questions start to come around about the decision making of the directors, specifically Galliani. Not only did Milan struggle to rebuild after a lengthy period of success, but the club entered into a period where midtable finishes weren't uncommon. One of the criticisms aimed towards the leadership, often by people who were in the club at the time, is that too many young players were rushed and forced into the setup, which created an instability and a questionable work ethic in the group where many struggled to cope. It is normally up to directors to build long term projects to keep a club healthy and competitive and this is where the first signs of Galliani's seemingly poor work start to show.
It wasn't too long after in the early 2000's that the dominant Milan under Carlo Ancelotti came to fruition. However, it's as much to the credit of Ancelotti that he was able to make use of the qualities at his disposal and the players in the flexibility and ability to interpret unfamiliar roles to them, as it is to the detriment of the management to build an arguably unbalanced squad where the expectation was that the coach would have to fit four playmakers in the starting eleven. Perhaps this is a harsh assessment of the club's work, where they did develop some quality players known more for their graft than ability, such as Gattuso and Ambrosini, but there was a clear preference for star names going forward.
Towards the end of the Ancelotti era, specifically post Calcipoli, Galliani's work has been poor at best for the most part. Many will cite signings such as Thiago Silva and Ibrahimovic as great work by Galliani, which while true doesn't feel like it should excuse countless poor signings that have had detrimental effects on the club. As resources from Berlusconi's pocket dried up, Galliani failed to adequately manage the club into a new era where more frugal and cautious spending was required.
There are many other questions to raise around Galliani and his work. Most notable is his relationship with players. Those who often have a strong relationship with him will refer to how he's a father figure to the players and a strong aide to the coaches. However, with the positives there are also negatives, such as his fractious relationship with numerous ex-players, most famously Maldini, Pirlo, Cassano and Seedorf.
This all calls into question as to precisely how good Galliani is heading the club. Are his successes on the market a result of his understanding of developing a squad for a long term project or could it be as a result of having resources few in the world can dream of and having people within the club who understood what was needed? Was he really a great man manager as he's often made out to be and are those who have had issues the ones that are the problem? Was he an exceptional negotiator or an opportunist whose cut priced deals had detrimental effects in the long term?
Clearly there is much more to this question than what can be written in a single post, never mind the number of details that were never even publicly known. However, I'd be interested in opinions on whether Galliani was a great leader in Milan, or whether he was simply rather fortunate to be in the right circumstances at the right time with the strong supporting structure around him.