Worst McClaren Decisions

[B Rock]

As one of the worst managerial careers in England history calls time, I thought it might be a good time to look back at some of the more laughable decisions of the aborted qualifying campaign:

1) The 3-5-2/5-3-2 in Croatia
A tactical cockup of the highest order. Not only does he pick an unfamiliar formation with a completely unfamiliar midfield (Parker, Lampard, and Carrick), he tells enough people about the change as that the "surprise" formation is leaked to the Croatians before the game. Croatia dominates the midfield and bosses the game in a 2-0 victory.

2) The Treatment of Jamie Carragher
McClaren, oddly enough, decides that Carragher should be behind the brittle Ledley King (as if England wasn't reliant on enough injury prone players) on the CB depth chart (see the Macedonia and Estonia game) and insists on using Carragher out of his natural position (Israel and Croatia games) much to his discomfort. He decides to call time on his international career after another embarrassing out of position performance against Brazil, correctly judging that McClaren had no idea how to use the 3rd best CB in the pool. Carragher would be missed as Joleon Lescott was run ragged in the ultimate decider as England conceeded three goals at Wembley while crashing out.

3) The Dropping of David Beckham
This was one of many media driven moves made by McClaren. There was no doubt changes needed to be made to England's style of play, especially in the midfield, in the wake of WC 2006. Yet instead of attacking the real problem (finding a central pairing that would work together), McClaren did the popular thing and dropped Beckham. Beckham's delivery and ability to create chances from out wide was greatly missed early in the campaign, especially in dropping points to Macedonia and Israel

4) The Love Affair with Stuart Downing
He's pants. End of.

5) The 4-3-3 Debacle at Wembley
Where to begin.
a) Wayne Bridge has made two Premiership appearances this season and was selected over Nicky Shorey for LB duty. No chance he would have shown a lack of match fitness and sharpness is there?
b) Starting Gareth Barry behind Lampard and Gerrard rather then Hargreaves. Its Hargreaves' natural position and a position Barry has rarely ever played. There was no one to track back and help the defense deal with Eduardo's break on the second goal and no one to break up Croatian passing moves.
c) Handing Scott Carson his first competitive cap in England's biggest game since WC 2006 with the experienced David James (Euro 2004 starter) on the bench.
d) Mistaking Peter Crouch for Didier Drogba and starting him isolated up top in a 4-3-3 with no one to flick on to and no service to speak of.
e) Fielding his 8th different midfield combination in his 12th, and most important, qualification game of the campaign.

Feel free to add your favorites as we celebrate the purging of this ginger muppet tomorrow morning.

[Mac_Howard]

His worst decision - because he repeated it again and again - was to play Lampard and Gerrard together in central midfield. It's even more ludicrous because he went away from that with some success and then returned to it here against Croatia.

It's the repetition that is unacceptable. As they say: the first time is bad luck, the second careless, the third incompetent.

No one that knows anything about the game can be unaware that Lampard and Gerrard do not make an effective midfield.

[Mac_Howard]

His worst decision - because he repeated it again and again - was to play Lampard and Gerrard together in central midfield. It's even more ludicrous because he went away from that with some success and then returned to it here against Croatia.

Refusing to learn from your mistakes is the cardinal sin. As they say: the first time is bad luck, the second careless, the third incompetent.

No one that knows anything about the game can be unaware that Lampard and Gerrard do not make an effective midfield.

[CherryBomb]

Thanks for your input!

[flippin269]

If the question is "worst McClaren decision", the answer has to be his entire handling of Becks.

1) He shouldn't have said "Becks is never coming back" when he decided to go to LA. That wasn't for football purposes; that was for PR.

2) When Beckham wasn't 100%, he should not have played, much less a full 90 minutes against Germany.

3) When Becks gets healthy again, and you have Rooney, Ferdinand, and Owens unavailable due to injury, he left Beckham as a substitute and change out the goalkeeper? Where was the tactic? Becks' assist to Crouch wasn't a fluke; they're really a great pair for England.

England has GREAT fans, but they have an arrogant and misguided press who care more about looking good than winning, and McClaren listened to them too much.

----------------------------

Now as to if the question were "why England didn't win against Croatia," I wouldn't even pin that on the Beckham decision; I'd blame lack of defense. They looked horrible and lost out there. The only goal that Croatia truly earned was the last one; the first two were preventable.

The first two things the new coach will have to do is:

1) Play the most deserving players and not worry about what the press wants. If Beckham is still one of the best 11 footballers for England at the age of 35, playing for LA Galaxy in America, and famous, why would you not play him at that point? Don't make the same mistake McClaren did and banish him from the team just because you want to prove you're the media's coach. Same goes for every player in England; the best available 11 should play, regardless of ego.

2) They have to coach the defense to be much more solid than they were under McClaren. I think the offense is getting there, but England doesn't stand a chance if the defenders play the way they did against Croatia.

As an American, I look forward and expect to see you with us in WC 2010. Respect to England, yo.

[fernb8]

applying for the England job with a CV which included

1. The League Cup









(tumble weeds)

[ForzaGrifo]

As one of the worst managerial careers in England history calls time, I thought it might be a good time to look back at some of the more laughable decisions of the aborted qualifying campaign:

1) The 3-5-2/5-3-2 in Croatia
A tactical cockup of the highest order. Not only does he pick an unfamiliar formation with a completely unfamiliar midfield (Parker, Lampard, and Carrick), he tells enough people about the change as that the "surprise" formation is leaked to the Croatians before the game. Croatia dominates the midfield and bosses the game in a 2-0 victory.

2) The Treatment of Jamie Carragher
McClaren, oddly enough, decides that Carragher should be behind the brittle Ledley King (as if England wasn't reliant on enough injury prone players) on the CB depth chart (see the Macedonia and Estonia game) and insists on using Carragher out of his natural position (Israel and Croatia games) much to his discomfort. He decides to call time on his international career after another embarrassing out of position performance against Brazil, correctly judging that McClaren had no idea how to use the 3rd best CB in the pool. Carragher would be missed as Joleon Lescott was run ragged in the ultimate decider as England conceeded three goals at Wembley while crashing out.

3) The Dropping of David Beckham
This was one of many media driven moves made by McClaren. There was no doubt changes needed to be made to England's style of play, especially in the midfield, in the wake of WC 2006. Yet instead of attacking the real problem (finding a central pairing that would work together), McClaren did the popular thing and dropped Beckham. Beckham's delivery and ability to create chances from out wide was greatly missed early in the campaign, especially in dropping points to Macedonia and Israel

4) The Love Affair with Stuart Downing
He's pants. End of.

5) The 4-3-3 Debacle at Wembley
Where to begin.
a) Wayne Bridge has made two Premiership appearances this season and was selected over Nicky Shorey for LB duty. No chance he would have shown a lack of match fitness and sharpness is there?
b) Starting Gareth Barry behind Lampard and Gerrard rather then Hargreaves. Its Hargreaves' natural position and a position Barry has rarely ever played. There was no one to track back and help the defense deal with Eduardo's break on the second goal and no one to break up Croatian passing moves.
c) Handing Scott Carson his first competitive cap in England's biggest game since WC 2006 with the experienced David James (Euro 2004 starter) on the bench.
d) Mistaking Peter Crouch for Didier Drogba and starting him isolated up top in a 4-3-3 with no one to flick on to and no service to speak of.
e) Fielding his 8th different midfield combination in his 12th, and most important, qualification game of the campaign.

Feel free to add your favorites as we celebrate the purging of this ginger muppet tomorrow morning.

great analysis. About Hargreaves, I also think he is a must start as he provides lots of energy in midfield (sort of like Gattuso in Italy). England should play their familiar 4-4-2 all the time with Hargreaves the DMF and either Lamps or Gerrad the central AMF depending on who's more in form.

I can't believe McClown made so many amateurish mistakes. Even an armchair manager like you or I can do better than this clown.

[glennaldo_sf]

1) Showing up for the interview

2) Taking the job in the first place

3) Not stepping down a year ago

[Arsenal_pwns_all]

That 3-5-2 bull**** is probably his worst decision, considering how difficult it is to get the 3-5-2 formation to work and how he is playing against the strongest team in the group, with a very good home record. But you can't blame him for some of the things. In particular, Jamie Carragher deserves a lot of stick for whinning and adandoning England. So what if he wasn't played in his prefered position? So what if McSven judged that King is better than him, which is probably not true? He should be grateful that he is playing on the pitch at all. I had no doubt that had he not refused to play he would have been partnering Campbell in the middle of defense last night.

And playing Crouch up front alone is not a mistake, who else could McSven have choosen?

[Liam01]

After going 2 -2 vs. Croatia, not using Hargreaves when it was clear that Croatia had so much space in a dangerous area.

I remember when a player turned and it lost 2 of our midfielders in a snap :eek:

but actually, I believe his biggest mistake was dropping Beckham.. the more you think about it, it cost him his career.

[JediMindTricks]

i do agree with pretty much everything said here.

as the saying goes, it's all 20/20 in hindsight.

(however, one could argue that even when the decisions were made, it was still near-perfect vision!)

[revelationx]

His worst decision was not making one regarding Lamps or Stevie G. He obtained his best results in a 4-4-2 with one holding midfielder and one attacking midfielder in the middle and 2 wingers.

He should have tried the same pattern for the Croatia game. Pick one of Lamps and Gerrard and one of Hargreaves, Barry or Carrick. Pick Crouch and either Defoe or Bent.

He also made a very big mistake in picking Carson for the Croatia match. He is a good keeper but very young and inexperienced at this level. The manager knew that the defence would be missing Terry, Rio, A Cole and G Neville and would comprise of an international rookie, a teenager, a player past his best and a player just back from an injury. In such a situation, with a new and uncertain defence it seems very risky to pick a young keeper to make his international competitive debut. Even more so considering it was a crucial game against the strongest opposition in the group and that the heavy rain would make defensive mistakes more likely. If he was going to drop Robinson he should have picked James to step in for a game where international experience was lacking in defence. He then could have played Carson in the upcoming friendlies to bed him in.

Also McClaren should have tried harder to persuade Carragher to come in for this game. Carragher has said previously he would come back in the event of a major injury crisis if asked. Instead McClaren picked Lescott who is untried at this level and has not yet shown he is good enough at this level. Campbell is not really the loud shouter that Terry and Carragher are and with Carson feeling his nerves had gone there was no-one really organising the defence.

Barry should have received specific instructions from McClaren to sit and protect the back 4 and to just help maintain possession. The failure of McClaren to provide these instructions from the sidelines during the early part of the game proved fatal as Barry was upfield when Croatia scored on the break.

The manager should have reshaped the team after Crouch equalised. At that score England are going to qualify so Hargreaves should have come on to protect the defence and tighten things up. Lamps should have gone off for Hargreaves. I would have kept Gerrard on instead of Lamps as Gerrard is better defensively. Crouch was playing well, J Cole can keep hold of the ball well and so Lamps off would have been the best method to get fresh legs on.

McClaren made the mistake of not having the balls to make the tough decisions. By not having the guts to drop one of Gerrard or Lampard he instead kept on playing them together when all evidence points to them not complementing each other and the team suffers. It's not about having all the best players on the pitch, it's all about having the players on who form the best team.

Hopefully the next manager will be a strong one who makes the big calls and sticks to their guns.

[JediMindTricks]

Also McClaren should have tried harder to persuade Carragher to come in for this game. Carragher has said previously he would come back in the event of a major injury crisis if asked. Instead McClaren picked Lescott who is untried at this level and has not yet shown he is good enough at this level. Campbell is not really the loud shouter that Terry and Carragher are and with Carson feeling his nerves had gone there was no-one really organising the defence.


in all fairness to mcclaren, he did try to persuade carragher to come back. did he try hard enough? who knows? but it was a futile attempt because carragher stood by his decision and wasn't going to come back.

i could be wrong, but i remember hearing and reading quotes from carragher that his decision was final even in the situation of a major injury crisis.

[revelationx]

i could be wrong, but i remember hearing and reading quotes from carragher that his decision was final even in the situation of a major injury crisis.

I've heard otherwise. This would have been the first time England did not field any of their first choice defence and usual keeper. A plea to Carra to return for this one match at home at CB might have been heeded. Zidane, Makelele and Thuram were convinced to return when their national team needed them. Motivating players is supposed to be an important skill in a manager. Remember Carra only left because he felt McClaren did not rate him as a CB. McClaren could have asked him to lead the defence in one final match. Instead he played Lescott who had previously started only one competitive match for England, the Russia game in which we lost. In the event Lescott looked shakey and inexperienced against Croatia and this match looked a step too soon for him.

[sinner78]

His tactical buffoonery in both croatia games.
In both games we were hit by injuries so he responded by inventing mind boggling tactics.
lets face it ,we got unlucky away in russia.

[CityFan19]

The handling of Beckham and Carragher was inexcusable. Even being tactically inept, if he had these two for the entire campaign, England would have been through.

[flippin269]

He also made a very big mistake in picking Carson for the Croatia match.

Man, oh man. I gotta correct myself after that mention. That was even worse than the handling of Beckham. How do you take a dude who's inexperienced on the national team stage and expect him to perform well against the best team and most solid offense in the group?

Everything I said about Becks earlier is second. Rep Rep.

[JediMindTricks]

I've heard otherwise. This would have been the first time England did not field any of their first choice defence and usual keeper. A plea to Carra to return for this one match at home at CB might have been heeded. Zidane, Makelele and Thuram were convinced to return when their national team needed them. Motivating players is supposed to be an important skill in a manager. Remember Carra only left because he felt McClaren did not rate him as a CB. McClaren could have asked him to lead the defence in one final match. Instead he played Lescott who had previously started only one competitive match for England, the Russia game in which we lost. In the event Lescott looked shakey and inexperienced against Croatia and this match looked a step too soon for him.

once again, i could be wrong. but that's just what i remember. regardless, i don't think carragher really would have made that much of a difference in the campaign and the croatia match.

zidane, makelele, and thuram were indeed convinced to return for euro 2004 and eventually wc 2006. but there's a difference...they knew they were guaranteed a first place spot and weren't, in their minds, disrespected by the manager. and in fact, makelele wanted to retire but was threatened by domenech with a potential ban.

[thebigman]

agreeing to take the job when he clearly isnt/wasnt anywhere near a good enough manager/tactician/motivator as he needed to be

[JediMindTricks]

McClaren can't be blamed for Englands downfall! All the English players play in the best quality leagues in the world, and they get paid lots of money. If they can't put together a team that can't even make it to Euro 2008 that can't be McClarens fault. Seriously stop putting the Blame on a coach whom shouldn't have been named the England coach in the first place. Englands best bet would be to go foreign just like the Prem.

but isn't that the manager's responsibility?

but you are right in that the players must share some of the blame.

but to say mcclaren can't be blamed at all is untrue.