ブログRSS

アンテナサイトRSS

五輪代表の森保新監督がコメント発表「世界に日本サッカーの名を轟かせたい」 初戦は12月の「M-150 CUP」北朝鮮代表戦か

きのう東京五輪男子サッカー代表の監督就任が正式発表された元サンフレッチェ広島監督の森保一氏。
日本サッカー協会のサイトに森保氏の就任コメントが掲載されていたのでご紹介します。



第32回オリンピック競技大会(2020/東京)サッカー男子 日本代表監督に森保一氏が就任
http://www.jfa.jp/news/00015280/
公益財団法人 日本サッカー協会は10月12日(木)、第32回オリンピック競技大会(2020/東京)を目指すサッカー男子日本代表チームの監督に森保一氏が就任することを発表しました。

氏名 森保 一(もりやす はじめ)
生年月日 1968年8月23日(49歳)
出身地 長崎県長崎市
最終学歴 長崎日本大学高等学校卒(1987年3月)
サッカー歴・指導暦 (省略)
資格 2004年 日本サッカー協会公認 S級ライセンス
任期 2020年7月開催の第32回オリンピック競技大会(2020/東京)まで

森保一監督コメント
このたび、東京2020オリンピックに出場する代表チームの監督に選出されましたことを大変光栄に思います。2020年は地元開催ということから、重責を感じるとともに身の引き締まる思いでおります。監督としてタスクは大きく二つあります。一つはもちろん成績です。日本サッカーが長足の進歩を遂げた今、オリンピックもワールドカップも出場することが目標の大会でなく、そこでトップに食い込むことが使命になっています。ですから、目指すところは当然、メダル獲得です。「日本サッカーの父」と言われたクラマーさんの教えの通り、「大和魂」を胸に最高峰の舞台に臨み、世界に「日本サッカー」の名を轟かせたいと考えています。また、歴代監督と同様、この2020東京を経て、2022年のワールドカップカタール大会に多くの代表選手を送り込むことも重要な任務だと考えています。 JFA、47都道府県サッカー協会をはじめ、多くの選手を育ててきた全国の指導者の皆さん、チーム関係者の皆さんのご努力に報いるため、また、ファン・サポーター、ご支援いただいている企業・団体など全ての皆さんの応援に応えるために、全身全霊をかけて戦いに挑みたいと考えております。これからも熱い応援をよろしくお願いします。




5951f2e4-0460-4dde-aa5e-77d70aa880c6



また、同日行われた西野技術委員長の会見によると、五輪代表は今年12月にアジア6カ国が参加する「M-150 CUP」(タイ開催)に出場する方針で、森保ジャパンの初戦は初戦で対戦する北朝鮮代表戦となりそうです。

[デイリー]森保JAPAN初陣は北朝鮮?西野技術委員長「DPRになるのでは」
https://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20171013-00000025-dal-socc
(一部抜粋) 日本協会の田嶋会長は「中国に何の準備もなく行くのではなく、タイの大会に参加してもらいたい」と説明した。同杯で日本は北朝鮮、ウズベキスタンと同じ予選A組。西野技術委員長は「1試合目はDPR(北朝鮮)になるのではないか」と初陣は北朝鮮戦になる見通しを語った。




DLBUn1AV4AATLpT

img 3


関連記事:
日本サッカー協会、東京五輪代表監督に森保一氏の就任決定を正式発表 サンフレッチェ広島で3度のリーグ優勝
http://blog.domesoccer.jp/archives/60087928.html



ツイッターの反応

























49 コメント

  1. M150カップって何かと思ったら東アジアカップが変わったやつか

  2. どうでも良いけどA組とB組の実力差が有りすぎでは?
    地域割りっぽいからしょうがないけど。

  3. クラマーさんの偉大さを改めて思い知らされます。 森保さん、応援してますよ。

  4. ** 削除されました **

  5. がんばれもりぽー ^o^
    韓国とチャイナでてないんか!? 知らなかった。 ウズベクは東アジアかのぅ。。

  6. あ、ごめんコメントに引っ張られた。 E-1カップとは別なのか。混乱失礼。

  7. 若手のこれからの成長が純粋に楽しみだ
    どんなチームになるかな

  8. 画像の「M-150」が「M-ISO」に見えてミソカップってなんだよと思った

  9. 性格的にも敵を作るタイプではないので成功するといいな

  10. おすすめ記事がフォーカード♪

  11. 東京五輪くらい外国人監督を選んでほしかった

  12. Mカップで150センチって・・・アンダーじゃなくてトップだよね

  13. ** 削除されました **

  14. フォレストキープ・ワン!

  15. 検索したらクラマーさんってホントすごかったんだな
    森安さんも熱い人だから向いてると思う

  16. ※12

    ……オッパイ星人でもご勘弁願いたい。

  17. M-150か
    ロゴがMISOカップに見えた

  18. ** 削除されました **

  19. MカップよりもWカップがすごいぞ!(おっぱい感)

  20. トップが決まり貴重な2年間が始まって楽しみ
    半世紀以上も昔のたった一度の功績なんだからメダルうんぬんはさておき
    20歳前後の子らに遠征積ませてしぶとさを身につけてもらいたい
    (女子含めた下のカテゴリー強化費のために意味のない親善試合なんてないぞとグチ)

  21. いきなりあそことかよ、勘弁してくれ

  22. みそカップ!って言おうとしたらもう散々出てた

  23. ※11
    男子サッカーの五輪位置づけはA代表強化へ繋げる意味合いが強いしね。
    自国開催の東京大会だから外国の名のある指導者を招いてその後五輪が終われば契約終了サヨナラじゃあほらしい。

  24. ※18
    日本は国連の敵国条項から外されていないから下手にアクション取るよりはマシって考え方かもね

  25. 森保JAPANより
    ポイチJAPANの方がすき

  26. ※4
    ACL出場1回GL突破0回の手倉森とACL出場3回GL突破1回の森保
    その理屈だと少なくとも手倉森と同程度には期待できるのでは?

  27. M-150はタイのスポドリの名前

  28. ※18
    ヤフコメに帰れ

  29. どういうシステムで戦うのか興味はある

  30. 前評判が低い時に結果ール出すんだよな。
    期待が大きい時には…

  31. 森保監督には是非とも頑張って良い結果を出して欲しいと思っているけども、
    フル代表の監督と年代別代表の監督とで標榜するサッカーが逆なのはどうかと思う。

  32. 今はともかく直前になれば久保を使え久保を使えと外野が煩くなるんだろうなあ

  33. 森保監督が、サンフレッチェ広島を三度目の降格へと導いた監督だという事に、世間が最後まで気づかないで東京五輪を良い結果で終われますように願っていますね。
    もちろん我々が、三度目の降格に導いた迷将であることを忘れる事はないけど。

  34. 監督の得意なフォーメーションでやってほしいな
    来年のW杯以降やるかわからないA代表のフォーメーションは未来がないと思う
    それに自国開催オリンピックはプレッシャーもあるから自分のやりやすい方法で頑張って欲しい

    がんばれ、ホイチ監督

  35. ※18
    政治とスポーツは切り離して考えろよ
    こういう思考の奴は五輪で竹島云々の旗掲げた奴とまったくおんなじ。うんざりする

  36. ※33
    まあ監督業は綺麗にお別れするなんて夢物語だよな
    遠く行ってしまって寂しいかもしれんが日の丸背負って戦う姿は誇らしいし成功を願いたい

  37. ** 削除されました **

  38. 一回くらい森Japanって報道されないかな

  39. フル代表と五輪代表って他の世代代表と同様にコンセプト真逆なんだろうな。むしろ真逆で大歓迎だけど。

  40. 相手が北朝鮮だと冠名のM-150ってミサイルの型番かと思ったぜ
    こんな大会あったのね

  41. ** 削除されました **

  42. マジやりたくない相手だけど
    軍事的問題を抱えたままサッカーするのは日本と北朝鮮だけのケースじゃない
    アテネ五輪ではイラク戦争収拾できてない悲惨な状態でイラク代表vs西側の試合が行われたり
    今年から断交始まったカタールとサウジUAEも最終予選POで当たる可能性とか

  43. ※41
    本当にウンザリだな
    北朝鮮政府のやった事と北朝鮮のスポーツチームを一緒くたに考えてる事に文句言ってんだよ
    スポーツの場、平和の象徴とすべき場所で政治的な立ち位置や国家間の関係で攻撃する事が正しいとでも思ってんのか?
    だから竹島の話持ち出した韓国の話をしてんだろ。いちいち言わなきゃ分からないか?
    そもそも北朝鮮だけが問題抱えてサッカーひいては国際スポーツに挑んでるとでも思ってんの?シリアやサウジやカタールは見て見ぬふりか?ISがテロ起こして潜んでるからサッカーには参加させるなと一度でも言ったんか?
    ウクライナやトルコもか?ロシアも欧州に緊張走らせた国際社会に仇名す敵だからW杯は中止しましょうか?
    中東問題に油注いで原油利権の為に金出して支援する欧州諸国や今日のテロリズムの勃興を招いたアメリカはどうなんだ?中国も南シナ海やチベットに対して強硬的な軍事的圧力で問題起こしてるけどあいつらは何の問題もなしか?
    問題の北朝鮮を支援しているのもロシアや中国だが。ああついでに北朝鮮に金を流してるアフリカ諸国も追い出す事にするか?
    上げればキリがないが。
    それをスポーツに持ち込むなつってんだ

  44. 森ポーカーフォーカードだ

  45. 何にでも政治問題を絡めて突っかかって来る奴って何なんだろうな

    森保頑張れよ!期待してるよ

  46. 雉でここに政治ネタ書き込むひとほんと自重してほしい
    別のとこでやってって感じだし、やるにせよ雉のエンブレム使わないで

  47. ** 削除されました **

  48. ぽ1が五輪代表監督になるため広島を犠牲にしたと言われないように頑張ってほしい。

  49. First, let’s get a little historical perspective on American health care. This is not intended to be an exhausted look into that history but it will give us an appreciation of how the health care system and our expectations for it developed. What drove costs higher and higher?

    To begin, let’s turn to the American civil war. In that war, dated tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the era combined to cause ghastly results. Not generally known is that most of the deaths on both sides of that war were not the result of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted. To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail’s pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. Secondly, many wounds were subjected to wound care, related surgeries and/or amputations of the affected limbs and this often resulted in the onset of massive infection. So you might survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical care providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed. In total something like 600,000 deaths occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U.S. population at the time!

    Let’s skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to more modern times. After the civil war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques and in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a “wait and see” approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and increasingly attempt risky surgeries (now largely performed in sterile surgical environments) but medicines were not yet available to handle serious illnesses. The majority of deaths remained the result of untreatable conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet fever and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.

    This very basic review of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently (around the 1950’s) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Here is a critical point we need to understand; “nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor if at all were relegated to emergencies so in such a scenario costs are curtailed. The simple fact is that there was little for doctors to offer and therefore virtually nothing to drive health care spending. A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that were provided were paid for out-of-pocket, meaning by way of an individuals personal resources. There was no such thing as health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by an employer. Except for the very destitute who were lucky to find their way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the responsibility of the individual.

    What does health care insurance have to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs has been, and remains to this day, absolutely enormous. When health insurance for individuals and families emerged as a means for corporations to escape wage freezes and to attract and retain employees after World War II, almost overnight a great pool of money became available to pay for health care. Money, as a result of the availability of billions of dollars from health insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to increase medical research efforts. More Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored health insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare and Medicaid (1965). In addition funding became available for expanded veterans health care benefits. Finding a cure for almost anything has consequently become very lucrative. This is also the primary reason for the vast array of treatments we have available today.

    I do not wish to convey that medical innovations are a bad thing. Think of the tens of millions of lives that have been saved, extended, enhanced and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable. Doctor’s offer and most of us demand and get access to the latest available health care technology in the form of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tools and surgical procedures. So the result is that there is more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most of us were insured and the costs were largely covered by a third-party (government, employers). Add an insatiable and unrealistic public demand for access and treatment and we have the “perfect storm” for higher and higher health care costs. And by and large the storm is only intensifying.

    At this point, let’s turn to the key questions that will lead us into a review and hopefully a better understanding of the health care reform proposals in the news today. Is the current trajectory of U.S. health care spending sustainable? Can America maintain its world competitiveness when 16%, heading for 20% of our gross national product is being spent on health care? What are the other industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even close to these numbers? When we add politics and an election year to the debate, information to help us answer these questions become critical. We need to spend some effort in understanding health care and sorting out how we think about it. Properly armed we can more intelligently determine whether certain health care proposals might solve or worsen some of these problems. What can be done about the challenges? How can we as individuals contribute to the solutions?

    The Obama health care plan is complex for sure – I have never seen a health care plan that isn’t. But through a variety of programs his plan attempts to deal with a) increasing the number of American that are covered by adequate insurance (almost 50 million are not), and b) managing costs in such a manner that quality and our access to health care is not adversely affected. Republicans seek to achieve these same basic and broad goals, but their approach is proposed as being more market driven than government driven. Let’s look at what the Obama plan does to accomplish the two objectives above. Remember, by the way, that his plan was passed by congress, and begins to seriously kick-in starting in 2014. So this is the direction we are currently taking as we attempt to reform health care.

    Through insurance exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid,the Obama plan dramatically expands the number of Americans that will be covered by health insurance.

    To cover the cost of this expansion the plan requires everyone to have health insurance with a penalty to be paid if we don’t comply. It will purportedly send money to the states to cover those individuals added to state-based Medicaid programs.

    To cover the added costs there were a number of new taxes introduced, one being a 2.5% tax on new medical technologies and another increases taxes on interest and dividend income for wealthier Americans.

    The Obama plan also uses concepts such as evidence-based medicine, accountable care organizations, comparative effectiveness research and reduced reimbursement to health care providers (doctors and hospitals) to control costs.

    The insurance mandate covered by points 1 and 2 above is a worthy goal and most industrialized countries outside of the U.S. provide “free” (paid for by rather high individual and corporate taxes) health care to most if not all of their citizens. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of restrictions for which many Americans would be culturally unprepared. Here is the primary controversial aspect of the Obama plan, the insurance mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear arguments as to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate as a result of a petition by 26 states attorney’s general that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution by passing this element of the plan. The problem is that if the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it is generally believed that the Obama plan as we know it is doomed. This is because its major goal of providing health insurance to all would be severely limited if not terminated altogether by such a decision.

    As you would guess, the taxes covered by point 3 above are rather unpopular with those entities and individuals that have to pay them. Medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all had to “give up” something that would either create new revenue or would reduce costs within their spheres of control. As an example, Stryker Corporation, a large medical device company, recently announced at least a 1,000 employee reduction in part to cover these new fees. This is being experienced by other medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies as well. The reduction in good paying jobs in these sectors and in the hospital sector may rise as former cost structures will have to be dealt with in order to accommodate the reduced rate of reimbursement to hospitals. Over the next ten years some estimates put the cost reductions to hospitals and physicians at half a trillion dollars and this will flow directly to and affect the companies that supply hospitals and doctors with the latest medical technologies. None of this is to say that efficiencies will not be realized by these changes or that other jobs will in turn be created but this will represent painful change for a while. It helps us to understand that health care reform does have an effect both positive and negative.

    Finally, the Obama plan seeks to change the way medical decisions are made. While clinical and basic research underpins almost everything done in medicine today, doctors are creatures of habit like the rest of us and their training and day-to-day experiences dictate to a great extent how they go about diagnosing and treating our conditions. Enter the concept of evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness research. Both of these seek to develop and utilize data bases from electronic health records and other sources to give better and more timely information and feedback to physicians as to the outcomes and costs of the treatments they are providing. There is great waste in health care today, estimated at perhaps a third of an over 2 trillion dollar health care spend annually. Imagine the savings that are possible from a reduction in unnecessary test and procedures that do not compare favorably with health care interventions that are better documented as effective. Now the Republicans and others don’t generally like these ideas as they tend to characterize them as “big government control” of your and my health care. But to be fair, regardless of their political persuasions, most people who understand health care at all, know that better data for the purposes described above will be crucial to getting health care efficiencies, patient safety and costs headed in the right direction.

    A brief review of how Republicans and more conservative individuals think about health care reform. I believe they would agree that costs must come under control and that more, not fewer Americans should have access to health care regardless of their ability to pay. But the main difference is that these folks see market forces and competition as the way to creating the cost reductions and efficiencies we need. There are a number of ideas with regard to driving more competition among health insurance companies and health care providers (doctors and hospitals) so that the consumer would begin to drive cost down by the choices we make. This works in many sectors of our economy but this formula has shown that improvements are illusive when applied to health care. Primarily the problem is that health care choices are difficult even for those who understand it and are connected. The general population, however, is not so informed and besides we have all been brought up to “go to the doctor” when we feel it is necessary and we also have a cultural heritage that has engendered within most of us the feeling that health care is something that is just there and there really isn’t any reason not to access it for whatever the reason and worse we all feel that there is nothing we can do to affect its costs to insure its availability to those with serious problems.

    OK, this article was not intended to be an exhaustive study as I needed to keep it short in an attempt to hold my audience’s attention and to leave some room for discussing what we can do contribute mightily to solving some of the problems. First we must understand that the dollars available for health care are not limitless. Any changes that are put in place to provide better insurance coverage and access to care will cost more. And somehow we have to find the revenues to pay for these changes. At the same time we have to pay less for medical treatments and procedures and do something to restrict the availability of unproven or poorly documented treatments as we are the highest cost health care system in the world and don’t necessarily have the best results in terms of longevity or avoiding chronic diseases much earlier than necessary.

    I believe that we need a revolutionary change in the way we think about health care, its availability, its costs and who pays for it. And if you think I am about to say we should arbitrarily and drastically reduce spending on health care you would be wrong. Here it is fellow citizens – health care spending needs to be preserved and protected for those who need it. And to free up these dollars those of us who don’t need it or can delay it or avoid it need to act. First, we need to convince our politicians that this country needs sustained public education with regard to the value of preventive health strategies. This should be a top priority and it has worked to reduce the number of U.S. smokers for example. If prevention were to take hold, it is reasonable to assume that those needing health care for the myriad of life style engendered chronic diseases would decrease dramatically. Millions of Americans are experiencing these diseases far earlier than in decades past and much of this is due to poor life style choices. This change alone would free up plenty of money to handle the health care costs of those in dire need of treatment, whether due to an acute emergency or chronic condition.

    Let’s go deeper on the first issue. Most of us refuse do something about implementing basic wellness strategies into our daily lives. We don’t exercise but we offer a lot of excuses. We don’t eat right but we offer a lot of excuses. We smoke and/or we drink alcohol to excess and we offer a lot of excuses as to why we can’t do anything about managing these known to be destructive personal health habits. We don’t take advantage of preventive health check-ups that look at blood pressure, cholesterol readings and body weight but we offer a lot of excuses. In short we neglect these things and the result is that we succumb much earlier than necessary to chronic diseases like heart problems, diabetes and high blood pressure. We wind up accessing doctors for these and more routine matters because “health care is there” and somehow we think we have no responsibility for reducing our demand on it.

    It is difficult for us to listen to these truths but easy to blame the sick. Maybe they should take better care of themselves! Well, that might be true or maybe they have a genetic condition and they have become among the unfortunate through absolutely no fault of their own. But the point is that you and I can implement personalized preventive disease measures as a way of dramatically improving health care access for others while reducing its costs. It is far better to be productive by doing something we can control then shifting the blame.

    There are a huge number of free web sites available that can steer us to a more healthful life style. A soon as you can, “Google” “preventive health care strategies”, look up your local hospital’s web site and you will find more than enough help to get you started. Finally, there is a lot to think about here and I have tried to outline the challenges but also the very powerful effect we could have on preserving the best of America’s health care system now and into the future. I am anxious to hear from you and until then – take charge and increase your chances for good health while making sure that health care is there when we need it.

コメントする

サイト内検索

このサイトについて

管理人への報告・連絡はメールフォームからどうぞ。 ネタ投稿もお待ちしています。(広告掲載のご依頼はお断りしています)

メールフォーム

このサイトについて

  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • 更新通知を受ける

人気記事

        カテゴリ

        月別

        おすすめサッカー記事

          ページ先頭へ