Solace Chukwu makes a compelling argument for why Nigeria should be looking to hire a foreign national team manager. For me, the most convincing point of his position is that of a thin field of Nigerians with the required credentials and experience to take over from the current incumbent, Stephen Keshi. Apart from the tried and tested (and found wanting?) - like Austin Eguavoen and Samson Siasia - the other options, like Sunday Oliseh, are at the other end of the spectrum; untested and inexperienced.
However, I am less convinced by Mr Chukwu's evaluation of Keshi's three-year tenure in charge of the Super Eagles. And, to be clear, this has nothing to do with being nationalistic or patriotic, nor does it have to do with any jingoistic tendencies. To quote Mr Chukwu, "when it comes to quality, nationality should not matter". Indeed, I do believe there's a strong case to be made for for putting a foreign coach - as long as it's a qualified one - in charge of the Super Eagles, and that is solely because "we" - the fans, the media, the federation, perhaps even the players - seem to hold the "Oyinbo" coach in higher regard, so it's easier to get the required cooperation and support for the job at hand.
Now, with regards to Keshi, it's hard to argue that one win in eleven matches is any basis to keep him on the job, but as with most stats - and big picture views - it's often useful to take a closer look beyond the numbers. For instance, another big picture view of Keshi's stewardship could quite easily point to a Nations Cup win and reaching the second round of the World Cup as clear signs of a successful tenure. Yet, a closer look would reveal less-than-stellar performances in World Cup qualifying - all those late goals, slender wins, an almost-home-loss to Kenya - as well as at the finals itself, especially against Iran.
It's worth noting then, that of those 11 matches, 6 were friendly matches (5 draws, 1 defeat) in which the result was frankly far less important than the opportunity to try out new faces or build fitness and team cohesion. It's better to have won, obviously, but that's not the primary purpose of friendlies and I wouldn't judge a coach primarily on that basis. I know that still leaves 5 competitive matches, and one win from five is still no ringing endorsement of Keshi's abilities - losing at home to Congo certainly does him no favours.
As for the World Cup finals, where the Super Eagles lost two of their four matches, the fact that their primary objective - reaching the second round - was achieved, must count for something, especially in a World Cup that saw the likes of Spain, Uruguay and England drop out at the first hurdle. Besides, regardless of how much a soccer power we think we are, there's no disgrace in losing close games to Argentina and France.
Beyond the results, the second point raised concerns Mr Keshi's tactical acumen and the assertion that he has only ever influenced a game with a tactical substitution on the one occasion. That may well be - I'm no expert - but there's something to be said for having the right tactical approach from the start of the match too, as, I would argue he did in the last three matches of that successful Nations Cup run.
The Eagles certainly had the number of Ivory Coast in a quarter final clash few people expected them to win. I also recall a very well organized, counter attacking display against Mexico in a Pre-World Cup friendly and even in Brazil, the Eagles more than matched France for the first 25 minutes in the second half of their round of 16 clash. Keshi's unexpected use of Michael Babatunde in that central midfield position against Bosnia is certainly worth a mention as well, and one can only imagine what might have been had he been fit to face France.,
I'm certainly not suggesting that Keshi is a tactical equal of, say, Louis Van Gaal or Joachim Low - of course, Nigeria's football administration and planning is no where near that of Holland and Germany either - but, on the evidence of his World Cup showing, he hasn't fared any worse than reputed Europeans like Fabio Capello, Cesare Prandelli or Paulo Bento.
There's always that argument about whether the team could have done better under a different manager, or with different players. It's a moot one though because we'll never know; it's simply a comparison with some hypothetical, untestable, unprovable "on-paper" scenario - unlike the real thing, where the players actually get on the field and play.
Besides, were it up to popular opinion the likes of Kenneth Omeruo, Ogenyi Onazi and Sunday Mba would never have usurped incumbents to play key roles in the Nations Cup winning team, nor would the much derided Babatunde have had a chance to shine at the World Cup.
That's not to say Keshi is infallible, or beyond criticism. Like everyone else, he will make his mistakes. The question is whether we are willing to give him a chance to show he can learn from those mistakes.
Beyond everything though, football is a results business, and if winning a Nations Cup and reaching the last 16 of the World Cup isn't enough to earn a coach more time, I'm not sure what would. What will the next guy be judged on?
In the same vein, failure to qualify for next year's Nations Cup finals would definitely cost Keshi his job - heck, despite winning it many want him gone!
After winning just one point from the first two games, that makes this weekend's game in Sudan even more crucial for Keshi and the Super Eagles.
We'll all be watching.
