The productivity profile of a coach didn't include a very important issue: change. A coach is a manager of a team and responsible for the performance of the team. When a team is under-performing for some period of time, like was the case with Valencia, than the (new) coach is not only a coach but also a change manager.

This requires additional competences of the coach.

In case of Valencia, Ronald Koeman was not able to change the performance of the team. So the question is, why not? He is a competent Coach, but was he aware of the risks of change-management?

In November 2007 he was warmly welcomed by the management of the club and by the supporters of Valencia. "According to his own words he would find a balance between a new approach focused on performance and entertainment of the supports.." (1 - Koeman already triumphing in Valencia)

But he made quite some changes to the team. One of his first actions was to replace three key players of Valencia. In doing that he showed leadership (although the rumor goes that he was asked to change thee players as part of his new assignment), but also took a risk of possible resistance with the team against his proposed change.

Another change was the alteration of the historical strategy of the club (4-4-2) to "his preference" 4-3-3. This was critisized by the team in public. A change that received and increased the resistance.

Valencia recently won the "Copa del Rey" the Spanish championship of leagues, but lost about twelve matches in the league and put the team nearly in state of degradation.

What really went wrong started probably by the decision to change the former coach (Quique Flores) by Koeman. The owner of the club Valencia (Soler) knew that Koeman was a supporter of - Total Football. At time of Koeman's start as the new coach Valencia was forth in the league and only four points behind Real Madrid. The Leader. But the supporters of the club didn't "like" the (defensive) style of team (2). Apparently in an impulsive moment the owner took the decision the change the coach.

What we can learn from this is that a new manager -- either in business or in football -- is not always able to change the style of the team by imposing his vision. Then, a change that is too dramatic will call resistance. In this case, if the rumor is true, there is another problem of authority. The team probably had sensed that the decision of Koeman to replace prominent players was not his own will, but that of higher management. And such a feeling will increase the resistance and diminish the authority of the coach.

But the most important lesson of change is that there must be a real problem in order to have people accept a change.

NOW, Valencia has indeed reached this situation. The new coach will have a lot easier job, because no player wants to exit the premier league. But when Koeman arrived the team was only fourth in the league. That is not what justifies just a mayor change.

For who is a supporter of Valencia should think twice of their supportive role in this process. Maybe in the future they should support a team better, rather than demanding a "nicer style."

(1) - http://www.sport.es/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=44&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=455440&idseccio_PK=805)

(2) - http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/Valencia/le/vale/ahora/delegado/elpepudep/20080422elpepidep_2/Tes

Hans Bool