Let's line up several managers. Might as well, we know we'll not be doing with the next one, whoever he is, once he fails choose his tactics according to the prevailing sentiment on the Internet. Let's offer Redknapp two years, on the understanding that when he is thrown out on his ear for the above reason, he will be replaced in 2012 by Jose Mourinho for £14m a year, and he will be appointed on the principle that when it turns out he too is a terrible manager, he will be replaced in 2014 by, I dunno - say, Steve Bruce. Then, in 2016, we'll go foreign again, hiring Pep Guardiola for £1bn a year. All of which leads nicely to 2018, when we will host the World Cup and Guardiola, who turns out not to be as tactically astute as that guy off the Talksport drivetime show, will be replaced by Sir David Beckham. Who will lead the "Golden Generation" of English talent all the way to the quarter finals, where his inexplicable decision not to pick the team in accordance with what the Daily Star said that morning, will lead to a thrashing by Switzerland the like of which no one has hitherto witnessed. Or alternatively - I'll manage them. No, seriously. I might as well, given that it doesn't matter who manages this lot, they'll always be shit. I mean, I'd have to put my career on hold, but I'd be cheaper even than Reddy Hapknapp. I'll do it for just one million a year. For one qualifying campaign, after which my decision not to pick the team based on last night's bingo results in Rotherham will lead to my inevitable downfall.
No let's not appoint Harry Redknapp. Let's keep Capello. The difference between qualifying and the tournament: A combo of fear and the players suddenly not doing what they were told. Our positional discipline in qualifying was impeccable. Against Germany it weas non-existent. And you know what really pisses me off about such sentiments? If the referee let's that goal stand and we squeak through, not one of the naysayers are talking like this. Let's give a manager a bit of time to school these players on their mistakes and make changes.
As it's tough to get bungs in International football 'Arry wouldn't be interested even though he already owns 1/2 of Dorset.....and anyway now that the Internal Revenue are after his crooked arse he'll be in prison anyway....
And at least some of the blame for that must fall at Capello's feet. I've been a big Capello fan and thought he managed the qualifiers impeccably. But managing the finals is a different beast and I fear that he's essentially "lost the team" at this point. I read somewhere yesterday that he apparently said next to nothing in the dressing at half time. Why? You're 45 minutes from elimination and you don't have anything to say... that's very worrying, if true.
Fair point - but surely it's better to let the team for once learn from it's mistakes instead of rebooting the whole set-up for the European Qualifiers by bringing in a new manager? We've tried that and it hasn't worked.
You only have to look at the title of this thread to see why getting rid of Capello makes no sense on any level.
Rednapp's a twat and likely a tax-dodger as well. Having him anywhere near the England management would be a complete disaster.
Against Ukraine? The only defensive thing from those games I rememeber was Green's humdinger of a harbinger. Croatia were poor in qualifying. But yes, the games would have been different had we played Defoe/Upson in all of them.
I love this revisionist pessimism about our games. Aside from one game where we had already qualified, our qualifying campaign couldn't have been better. Croatia may have been poor, but we were certainly strong as well. I mean even our dominant performance against Slovenia has gone from "Good performance - only quibble is that we should have scored more" to "England had a poor group stage where they drew with USA and Algeria and struggled to beat Slovenia". Again - this German team was beatable with the squad we had. They didn't dominate us and it wasn't a 4-1 game. Everyone is focussed on that scoreline. It flattered Germany. If the shoe had been on the other foot, sure we'd have been euphoric in the immediate wake of the result, but there would certainly have been some naysayers pointing out that Germany's poor defending made it easy for us. That's not to say that everything is hunkydory in the England camp, because it's not. The nature of our defeat and our failure to fire at these finals does raise questions. On top of that, several of the supposed "key components" of this England side (eg Terry, Lampard, Gerrard) will be well into their thirties come 2014, so we need to start phasing in new talent now.
You're focusing on the result more than anyone. The issue isn't 4-1, the issue is the paucity of belief, cohesion and intelligence that typified the performances throughout the World Cup, culminating with that utter smattering. Ozul wasn't just technically better than any of England's midfielders, he was also far too clever for Barry, who never got near to him. Likewise, Müller, Podolski and Klose executed their game plan perfectly and the English defence floundered in befuddlement in the face of such simple but effective cohesion. It's all very well saying "except for the four goals and the generally dominant play, Germany weren't that much better" but it doesn't do much to acknowledge reality, let alone the actual substance of the matter.
The issue is (as usual) a complete lack perspective from certain quarters. It was a poor World Cup. We drew a group that despite the Sun's hyperbole, was never going produce a strong England performance. Three teams who were inferior in general ability but who weren't pushovers either. Three teams who from the moment the draw was made were going to play up against us. The US game was unfortunate, the Algeria game was lazy and the Slovenia game was dominant. Germany played better until the second goal, then England were in the ascendancy right up to that third German goal. Throughout we were stupid and wasteful, but we were certainly not playing the way we were capable of. Too much stock is put into internationals anyway. For me they are no longer the clear "top level" of football. You see higher quality weekly in the Champions League. You cannot judge a player or group of players on sporadic qualifiers and a handful of tournament games. Cristiano Ronaldo and Fernando Torres remain two of the games top attacking players. On the basis of this tournament, Landon Donovan and Keisuke Honda look better. What happened here was that England bottled it. If we ever get a full inquest, it will probably turn out that John Terry's shenanigans both before and during the tournament killed team unity. It will probably also be mentioned that the fan/media/Engalnd team relationship is not one of supporters and players but one of demand, expectation and pressure. Sure, they should be able to handle it, but the fact is that these demands have been present since '66, regardless of the teams quality. I didn't see one look of belief or determination - I have to think that the prospect of a media slaughtering for potentially being the one held responsible for any downfall is a heavy cross to bear. In fact I'm certain that played a part. Whether they should be able to handle it or not is another matter - the fact is that somehow they couldn't. There was something missing mentally with this team. And there's more substance in that last statement than in talk of "root and branch", "foreigners in the premiership" and tactical proficiency.
My point entirely. England perform to type and yet we all act as though it's a shocking reversal of our normal fortunes. This is how England almost always perform at tournaments. I agree with the general sentiment, international football isn't the highest calibre, that's the Champions League, which inevitably amounts to more than the sum of it's parts because it's parts aren't artificially restricted. That said, it's not true that you can't judge players by the specific standard of international football. If England had performed out of sync with their normal showing, then fine. You can't use a single tournament to judge a generation of players who have taken part in several tournaments together. You can, quite sensibly and realistically, judge a group of players by the sum total of their tournament performances, however. Plus, rather more immediately, you can judge a group of players by their endemic qualities - or lack of them. Not being able to keep the ball, for instance, isn't a phenomenon of this World Cup, it's a theme of English football, at club and international level. Which is what I've been saying all week. We need to focus on the mental dimension.
yes lets swap capello for redknapp, after all fried breakfast face has an epic career in management lifting league titles and european cups doesn't he?