And the next England manager is?

[BensGrandad]

It is rather ironic that when a player is overlooked by England they start digging into their ancestors to see if they are eligible for one of the home country teams.

 

[fat old seagull]

I have no faith in the F.A selecting the right man(whoever that may be) for the job.

There is clearly something wrong with the England set up. Previously we've blamed our failures and inadequate showings on several reasons, namely:

1) Players don't care enough, not enough pride.

2) They're over paid and too pampered.

3) They're not technically good enough.

4) Mentally not strong/good enough.

The success of Wales is a unique scenario that leads to some really interesting questions(IMO!). The Welsh team is made up of players who, like their English counterparts, have grown up with and in the premier league and football league. In the case of nine of those players they're even born and raised in England.

With that in mind we can't really put Wales's success and England's failure down to a question of innate national pride. If there is a difference in pride it must be down to something other than nationality. Which leads onto the over paid and over pampered claim. Wales star player is the most expensive footballer on Earth and plays for Real Madrid. That trumps any of the England squad and yet he is the exact opposite of the stereotypical over paid and over pampered prima donna. Wales's best performing player at the Euros has been Aaron Ramsey. Who plays for Arsenal. He should be a prime candidate for cruising through the tournament.

Numbers three and four can be put together. Seeing as the Welsh and English squads are drawn from the exact same pool there can be no real difference in technical or mental ability. In terms of technical ability with the exception of Bale and Ramsey you can argue that as a team and squad England are comfortably stronger.

So, Wales doing so well seems to disqualify our usual arguments why England fail. What else can it be? The manager? That seems unlikely. Coleman was hardly a stellar manager before the ales job and England have failed repeatedly under a succession of more qualified managers.

S what exactly is it that makes England such a basket case. What turns perfectly decent players into lethargic, uncoordinated serial losers when they play for England? How can Wales, with a group of players chosen from the exact same pool play with freedom and purpose while England look as if they'd rather be anywhere else but on the pitch. Is it an F.A cultural thing? Is it the press? The fans? What is it?!

The one constant in the endless stream of failure and misery has been the F.A. They have 'thorough reviews' after every tournament and nothing changes other than millions of pounds are wasted. That's why I don't trust them to get it right. They haven't done it before and I doubt they'll start doing it now.

All of that (be it rather long). I have completely lost faith with the football hierachy in England. Both the FA and the FL are bloody useless. The Stephens issue being the final straw for me! I don't suppose Sir Alex would do the job, would he? What am I thinking of, as if they'd ask him they'll want a yes man!

 

[Easy 10]

I take it you're joking? We have played decent football in the past, and will again. We should not be trying to mimic Bolton.

Then we don't ****ing want him! We want to be world beaters.
I don't care if we're embarrassed. All or nothing - I'll take some embarrassment followed by winning, rather than guaranteeing being 'ok'.

Seriously, how often have we played "decent football" ? And where has it got us ? We've beaten absolutely NOBODY in a tournament match when it really matters in living memory. Nobody. Every single time we play a proper team, we come up short. Its this strange snobbery that decrees we must somehow be like Spain or Barcelona and pass teams to death playing the clever, tactical, tippy-tappy football that it holding us back. You have to play to your strengths and EARN the right to play.

There is a middle ground that can be found here that does not just mean resorting to "hoofball". We'll find it by defining our own identity as a team and, playing to our own strengths, and not trying to be something we're not. We can't play a patient possession game like Spain. We're not as good technically as the Germans. We're not as tactically disciplined as the Italians. So we need to find our own way, our own system that works for England, and to do that we need a manager with clear ideas who can build a team and a system of playing that brings us success.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

But in the Premier League, those England players are surrounded by quality players from all nations, and they are playing in a familiar system with direction and leadership from the manager as well as leaders on the pitch. What happens when they turn up for duty with Hodgson ? Nobody knows where they're playing, nobody knows if they're playing, the system changes from game to game (half to half sometimes), they're given roles they're not familiar with. Now I accept that good players should be able to adapt, but I get the impression that ours are all a bit...thick. They need to be DRILLED, and you just don't get that with England.

Its a team without a system, and without an identity. Which means its not really a team at all. Its a collection of interchangeable players selected by a man who, at the end of 4 years, still had no real idea what his best lineup was, and as a consequence, no idea what system to play them in.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

So we need to spend some of the F.A's money, and more importantly the premier league's, on the mental development of our players. What are the chances of that happening? Minimal, I'd guess.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

It is rather ironic that when a player is overlooked by England they start digging into their ancestors to see if they are eligible for one of the home country teams.

Are you Alanis Morissette?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Smug Eddie is in his comfort zone at "plucky little Bournemouth" - look what happened when he stepped out of that little pond and tried his hand at Burnley. The very notion that he could take on the England job is ridiculous.

Allardyce is the best of a (mediocre) bunch for me. A pragmatic no-nonsense manager who would pick a squad and instill a defined playing style and shape whereby everyone knew their JOBS. We would play to our strengths. Its time to accept we are not Spain, or Italy, or Germany, or whoever the current flavour-of-the-month football team is to try and mimic. We our England. Our footballers are thicko's who need instruction and direction, and if anyone in Allardyce's team is not cutting it, he would NOT be indulged because of his big name and Nike sponsorship deals.

England are a shambles on and off the pitch. Muddled thinking has got us where we are now. We need a manager with clarity of thought and the authority to impose it on this shower of shit - get Allardyce in this afternoon. NOW.

Why would you choose Allardyce over Klinsmann?

Allardyce has no meaningful international experience to speak of, either as a player or a manager. That means no tournament experience. He's never worked abroad, only in this country. Therefore, he'll not be able to give any international insight or inspire by his achievements, he'll not be able to give any of the squad an edge or a technical advantage and, once again, he's an English manager who has always been passed over for the big jobs.

If you're being kind then his football style is - at best - pragmatic. Why would you want to watch an England team that lumps it? Allardyce has been successful at keeping teams up partly because he's good in the transfer market, but he can't improve England by "bringing in a Defoe" and upgrading what we have.

 

[Easy 10]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

So we need to spend some of the F.A's money, and more importantly the premier league's, on the mental development of our players. What are the chances of that happening? Minimal, I'd guess.

I don't think throwing money at it would make any difference.

The confidence / mentality side of things should, in theory, take care of itself if players know what they are supposed to be doing. We need someone in charge who can build a system that does not involve putting square pegs in round holes, someone who takes a simple, pragmatic approach to the job and gets the best out of the tools available to him (and yes, most of them ARE tools), without chopping and changing everything from game to game. Not rocket science is it, but it seems to be well beyond the stuffed suits at the FA for some reason.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Why Klinsmann? Does England want to lose 4 - nil to Argentina?

 

[Triggaaar]

Seriously, how often have we played "decent football" ?

A few times. We played well in '90, '96, '98, ok in '02 and '04. It's not good enough, I agree, but let's not give up hope of ever being a decent team, and settle for playing like Bolton.

We've beaten absolutely NOBODY in a tournament match when it really matters in living memory. Nobody.

I agree with your basic point, but (as I seem to be the only one who remembers) we did beat Spain. We've also had a few good results in the group stages.

Its this strange snobbery that decrees we must somehow be like Spain or Barcelona and pass teams to death playing the clever, tactical, tippy-tappy football that it holding us back.

I wasn't suggesting we play tippy-tappy, that's not us, but we could play like Germany.

We can't play a patient possession game like Spain.

Agreed.

We're not as good technically as the Germans.

I disagree, sometimes we are.

 

[Icy Gull]

A few times. We played well in '90, '96, '98, ok in '02 and '04. It's not good enough, I agree, but let's not give up hope of ever being a decent team, and settle for playing like Bolton.

I agree with your basic point, but (as I seem to be the only one who remembers) we did beat Spain. We've also had a few good results in the group stages.

I wasn't suggesting we play tippy-tappy, that's not us, but we could play like Germany.

Agreed.
I disagree, sometimes we are.

Unfortunately ALL the times we play like Germany are in games that don't matter, when the chips are down we play like a Sunday League team. If you disagree please let me know the last meaningful game against decent opposition that England looked like a good team.

 

[Triggaaar]

Unfortunately ALL the times we play like Germany are in games that don't matter, when the chips are down we play like a Sunday League team.

I actually think the opposite. vs Germany in '90 we were excellent, we battered Holland in '96 (were 2nd best against Spain, but won thanks to the linesman), were excellent against Germany again, then excellent against Argentina in '98 despite going down to 10 men etc.

If you disagree please let me know the last meaningful game against decent opposition that England looked like a good team.

Decent against Portugal twice - Rooney injured in one, sent off in the other, back when he was really good) - 5-1 vs Germany 2001, otherwise the games I already mentioned. It's been a while.

 

[Icy Gull]

I actually think the opposite. vs Germany in '90 we were excellent, we battered Holland in '96 (were 2nd best against Spain, but won thanks to the linesman), were excellent against Germany again, then excellent against Argentina in '98 despite going down to 10 men etc.

Decent against Portugal twice - Rooney injured in one, sent off in the other, back when he was really good) - 5-1 vs Germany 2001, otherwise the games I already mentioned. It's been a while.

15 years since we last played well against a decent team in a meaningful competition. That is jaw dropping isn't it?

 

[Easy 10]

Why would you choose Allardyce over Klinsmann?

Allardyce has no meaningful international experience to speak of, either as a player or a manager. That means no tournament experience. He's never worked abroad, only in this country. Therefore, he'll not be able to give any international insight or inspire by his achievements, he'll not be able to give any of the squad an edge or a technical advantage and, once again, he's an English manager who has always been passed over for the big jobs.

Every single point of which you could also level at, say, Chris Coleman. Yet he seems to be doing alright, because he has harnessed a group of players and moulded them into a team that plays to its strengths. On the other hand, maybe we could give the job to someone who HAS managed abroad, who HAS International insight, who HAS managed in tournaments, and who HAS had big jobs in his career. Oh, hang on....that'll be Roy Hodgson then.

If you're being kind then his football style is - at best - pragmatic. Why would you want to watch an England team that lumps it? Allardyce has been successful at keeping teams up partly because he's good in the transfer market, but he can't improve England by "bringing in a Defoe" and upgrading what we have.

See I don't think we would get an England team that purely "just lumps it". Allardyce would be working with players of a better quality than he's had at club level. What I think we'd get is a team capable of mixing it up a bit, or imposing itself on the opposition, playing to our own strengths and having a bloody plan. And if that means not always playing our way out of the back then so be it - there's no right or wrong way to win a football match. We can't out-Spain Spain, its time we learned to live with it and work out a system whereby we can actually compete at this level instead of folding at the first sign of a team in the top 10.

 

[Easy 10]

I actually think the opposite. vs Germany in '90 we were excellent, we battered Holland in '96 (were 2nd best against Spain, but won thanks to the linesman), were excellent against Germany again, then excellent against Argentina in '98 despite going down to 10 men etc.

Decent against Portugal twice - Rooney injured in one, sent off in the other, back when he was really good) - 5-1 vs Germany 2001, otherwise the games I already mentioned. It's been a while.

But its the same old hard luck story isn't it. Only 1 of the games you mention did we actually win (and we happened to be at home).

Our record in knockout games is nothing short of humiliating. Embarrassing. Spain is the only team of any note we've ever knocked out in living memory, 20 years ago, and that was at Wembley on pens. There is something deeply embedded in the english psyche that dictates failure. WHOEVER we bring in is not going to be able to change that any time soon, thats for damn sure. But a start would be to get a manager in who will select a core group of players, have them playing to a system that we are comfortable with, and sticking with it. Countries with far less talent available to them manage to do it, why can't we ?

 

[Triggaaar]

15 years since we last played well against a decent team in a meaningful competition. That is jaw dropping isn't it?

We've been pretty bloody awful (vs Portugal was less than 15 years ago, beat Argentina in 2002). Managers like McClaren haven't helped.

But giving up and assuming we have to play like Stoke is not the answer. We do produce talented players at times, and we are capable of decent football with the right manager. That's what we all want.

 

[Easy 10]

We've been pretty bloody awful (vs Portugal was less than 15 years ago, beat Argentina in 2002). Managers like McClaren haven't helped.

But giving up and assuming we have to play like Stoke is not the answer. We do produce talented players at times, and we are capable of decent football with the right manager. That's what we all want.

You see again, its just taken to an extreme to say that we'd just "play like Stoke" under Allardyce. Its nonsense. If it means we're actually well drilled, well organised and tough to beat, then thats not a bad starting point. Then we have actually got some decent players who he can bring in and utilise on the more creative side, which is also needed at International level. The notion that he'd just have 9 outfield players and the goalie lumping it onto the head of Andy Carroll every game is ridiculous.

 

[Triggaaar]

But its the same old hard luck story isn't it.

Yep.

Only 1 of the games you mention did we actually win (and we happened to be at home).

Well, 2 games, both at home, but I agree with your point.

Our record in knockout games is nothing short of humiliating. Embarrassing. Spain is the only team of any note we've ever knocked out in living memory, 20 years ago, and that was at Wembley on pens.

And thanks to dodgy decisions.

There is something deeply embedded in the english psyche that dictates failure.

Well it seems to be deeply embedded in you (and many other fans). I agree we've been crap, but we have also been decent at times, and yes we have been unlucky at times.

WHOEVER we bring in is not going to be able to change that any time soon, thats for damn sure.

I do understand your defeatist attitude, it's why I had little hope this year and could manage no more than a sigh when we were beaten by Iceland, but it can change. Other teams have awful periods, and they change. Holland didn't even qualify for Euro 2016, but they'll be back. Germany lost 5-1 against us at home, then they got to the WC final. France (World and Euro champions) lost every game in the group stage of 2002, knocked out of 2004 by Greece, then WC final 2 years later.

But a start would be to get a manager in who will select a core group of players, have them playing to a system that we are comfortable with, and sticking with it.

I agree, but I don't think that system has to be like Stoke. Man U played with English players, and that wasn't like Stoke - even Spurs can play decent football with English players.

Countries with far less talent available to them manage to do it, why can't we ?

Such as whom?

You see again, its just taken to an extreme to say that we'd just "play like Stoke" under Allardyce. Its nonsense. If it means we're actually well drilled, well organised and tough to beat, then thats not a bad starting point.

Agreed, that's a good starting point. I didn't come up with Stoke, Icy-gull did - which team were you thinking we'd play like?

 

[Easy 10]

I do understand your defeatist attitude, it's why I had little hope this year and could manage no more than a sigh when we were beaten by Iceland, but it can change. Other teams have awful periods, and they change. Holland didn't even qualify for Euro 2016, but they'll be back. Germany lost 5-1 against us at home, then they got to the WC final. France (World and Euro champions) lost every game in the group stage of 2002, knocked out of 2004 by Greece, then WC final 2 years later.

All true. They've all come back from disappointments and then gone deep into tournaments, if not won them. We've had ALL the disappointments and failures of those teams and more, and nothing changes. We've still not even come CLOSE to winning one. Not even threatened since 96, our home tournament. We don't change - we actually get worse.

I agree, but I don't think that system has to be like Stoke. Man U played with English players, and that wasn't like Stoke - even Spurs can play decent football with English players.

And as I've said, I don't think we have to "become Stoke", thats just who many people seem to assume we'd become under Allardyce. I don't really mind who we play like, if we can just get our own defined system down and breach our 2nd round / QF glass ceiling once in a while.

 

[BensGrandad]

We dont need Big Sam all we had to do was take Andy Carroll to France and do the same lump the ball up high to him.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

I wish I knew the answer as to why we have suffered fifty years of hurt.

But I think the problem is much more with the players than the manager. Whoever had managed England in the Euros would have encountered the same problem.

Maybe the players don't want it enough, or maybe, and I hate to say it, they simply aren't as good as we all think they are.