To be fair, all Herbert seems to have done was not play Sigmund at the WC - I say "all" a bit loosely, as to Sigmund that "all" means the world, but that seems to be the gist of the beef with Herbert and everything (such as dissatisfaction at the Phoenix) seems to have grown from that.
The defence at the 2010 WC conceded just 2 goals - while Herbert should've at least shown better communication skills (if Sigmunds side of the events is taken as gospel), no one can argue that our defence wasn't rock solid, and what is the tactical benefit of changing that?
The truth is that both Reid and Smith are much better players than Sigmund, and if they were available earlier in the campaign then Sigmund wouldn't have played there either.
Should Sigmund have got on at some point, as a reward for his hard work in qualifying? It would have been nice.....but McGlinchey could say the same thing (esp v Paraguay), or Moss. And how did Peverley feel about being dicked about? There does seem to be a bit of 'woe is me' about it - maybe I'd feel the same. Probably would!
So Sigmunds position isn't a unique one - I hope one day he comes to terms with not playing......maybe writing the book is a cathartic process for him, he can exorcise the demons, and be at peace with what he actually did achieve.
(PS: Yeah, yeah.....read the book.....)
I don't agree, from what I read it seems as though Herbert and he had a communication breakdown and Herbert in general wasn't very good at telling players what was required of them or let them know what his thoughts were. You know the coaching part of coaching.
I don't think this is a Sigmund v Herbert issue.......I have no love for Herbert after his undermining of the 2003 Confeds Cup......I'm saying that while its understandable Sigmund is bummed he didn't play in the WC, other players in his position were/are better - a fact borne out by the results. He was unlucky that we didn't have injuries/suspension.....but even then, would Ivan have dropped back into the defence?