Who do you think will be new England boss?
- Thread starter NickHSpurs
- Start date
True. But you could argue that you automatically get a similar chance as manager of Chelsea/Porto.
joey55
Well-Known Member
- May 20, 2005
- 9,691
- 3,168
Can't handle the pressure. He had to quit Man City (on medical advice) because of the stress brought about by expectation. He is clearly a good coach, but needs to have little pressure or expectation on his back to work effectively.
nipponyid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 19, 2006
- 7,425
- 7,412
:rofl:
Laugh all you like fella, look at his team on paper compared to ours.
Then look at the league table, speaks for itself.
Now whether that will last or not, who knows, but I cannot think of an English manager who I'd rather go for.
- Feb 1, 2005
- 55,595
- 205,144
- Admin
- #27
I reckon either Capello or Hiddink will get the gig. A rank outsider could be Marco Van Basten.
There aren't many English candidates who I think are worth a crack, maybe Twitchy or Hoddle.
There aren't many English candidates who I think are worth a crack, maybe Twitchy or Hoddle.
HuggyBear
Cupid Stunt
- May 14, 2006
- 3,291
- 61
We have time on our hands now so maybe taking a chance on an unproven isn't such a bad idea. If it all goes tits up then we still have enough time to get someone else in to handle 2010 qualification. Problem is none of the young up and coming managers seem to be any good.
Just heard Paul Ince and Harry Redknapp talking up Glenn Hoddle as a candidate. Definitely an option that the FA should consider providing he's interested. His win% ratio is tied with Alf Ramsey as the best of any England manager.
He's English, a good coach and his teams always play good football. As long as his man management has improved maybe its time for the FA to let bygones be bygones and give Ghod another go.
He's English, a good coach and his teams always play good football. As long as his man management has improved maybe its time for the FA to let bygones be bygones and give Ghod another go.
joey55
Well-Known Member
- May 20, 2005
- 9,691
- 3,168
If you look at the records of some of the coaches who have won the WC and Euro Championships etc, it does raise the question of just how important the coach really is at this level. Whoever we bring in isn't going to choose a group of players or formation particuarly different to McClaren. In fact the history of football shows that tactics and coaching at the highest level (International or even Prem) are perhaps the most over hyped part of the game in terms of signficance. There are just so very few examples of a club improving under a new coach, that can't much more readily be explained by his player recruitment or previous incompetence, rather than his coaching or tactical ability.
In the case of England there just aren't going to be any real suprises in terms of player recruitment. The squad will stay pretty much the same. At this level do players really need coaching? Was Gerrards performance last night or in England in general because McClaren or SGE told him to play like a tit? Say we bring Mourinho in, are we really suddenly going to start looking comfortable on the ball like his countymen the Portuguese? Brain Clough, Ferguson and Arsene Weneger both gave/give very simple team instructions, which is essentially to just pass the ball. If Wenger was appointed England coach would he really choose a team very different or with any real tactical differences to McClarens? Would Gerrard suddenly be good? When we played Arsenal this season Wenger didn't even adjust his defensive line when Bent came on, told no one to track Keane's runs towards the keeper at set pieces which he does everygame and put no one on Berbs at set pieces. Between them Wenger and Ferguson make as many tactical erros as any coach in the Prem. Yet they get away with it (not the right phrase), because of the fantastic player recruitment/development, club ethos and the basic brilliant way they get their teams playing. But they can't do the most important part (ie get the team playing) without the first 2 parts (ie player recruitement/development and club ethos). The England coach can't recruite new players from France or South America. He can't develop players when working with them a few times a year and he can't create a winning ethos for a country that has won nothing for over 40 years.
England would do well to follow Spurs and Sevilles fortunes over the next 18 months as our systems aren't that different to the England set up (in that the coach has to work with what he is given, which not entirely true in the case of Engalnd isn't far from the truth). It will tell us a lot about just how significant coaching and tactics really are. Too many good managers have failed with England for it to be a coincidence that the FA keep getting the wrong them man. I seriously doubt we'll find anyone with a better track record than SGE, yet he got mullered by everyone. Yet some pretty bog standard coaches have won the big tournaments. Maybe it's time to start looking at the quality of players produced rather than the qulaity of the coach. McClaren was definitely poor, but on the other hand, i'd have probably been able to win the WC with side Scolari won with in 2002 and I've never done a days coaching in my life. Is it a case of the FA constantly recruitng the wrong the coach, or the coach finding himself with the wrong set of players to succeed at International level?
In the case of England there just aren't going to be any real suprises in terms of player recruitment. The squad will stay pretty much the same. At this level do players really need coaching? Was Gerrards performance last night or in England in general because McClaren or SGE told him to play like a tit? Say we bring Mourinho in, are we really suddenly going to start looking comfortable on the ball like his countymen the Portuguese? Brain Clough, Ferguson and Arsene Weneger both gave/give very simple team instructions, which is essentially to just pass the ball. If Wenger was appointed England coach would he really choose a team very different or with any real tactical differences to McClarens? Would Gerrard suddenly be good? When we played Arsenal this season Wenger didn't even adjust his defensive line when Bent came on, told no one to track Keane's runs towards the keeper at set pieces which he does everygame and put no one on Berbs at set pieces. Between them Wenger and Ferguson make as many tactical erros as any coach in the Prem. Yet they get away with it (not the right phrase), because of the fantastic player recruitment/development, club ethos and the basic brilliant way they get their teams playing. But they can't do the most important part (ie get the team playing) without the first 2 parts (ie player recruitement/development and club ethos). The England coach can't recruite new players from France or South America. He can't develop players when working with them a few times a year and he can't create a winning ethos for a country that has won nothing for over 40 years.
England would do well to follow Spurs and Sevilles fortunes over the next 18 months as our systems aren't that different to the England set up (in that the coach has to work with what he is given, which not entirely true in the case of Engalnd isn't far from the truth). It will tell us a lot about just how significant coaching and tactics really are. Too many good managers have failed with England for it to be a coincidence that the FA keep getting the wrong them man. I seriously doubt we'll find anyone with a better track record than SGE, yet he got mullered by everyone. Yet some pretty bog standard coaches have won the big tournaments. Maybe it's time to start looking at the quality of players produced rather than the qulaity of the coach. McClaren was definitely poor, but on the other hand, i'd have probably been able to win the WC with side Scolari won with in 2002 and I've never done a days coaching in my life. Is it a case of the FA constantly recruitng the wrong the coach, or the coach finding himself with the wrong set of players to succeed at International level?
Yes and No. I absolutely take your point that at international level, players should not need basic skills coaching. But one of the things Ramos is supposed to be good at is one-on-one coaching of players about their precise roles in the team, and how to get the most out of their strengths. What I've seen with England under McClaren is a bunch of players who don't know what they're meant to be doing most of the time. Last night we ended up with Gerrard dropping back to the half way line, taking the ball off a CB and lobbing it towards Crouch's head!!!!!! What complete tactical nonsense, and why is Gerrard not hovering near Crouch trying to get on the end of any ball he wins in the air???
Ditto, under Keegan, England were so passionate and fired up that you always expected a Red card, whilst tactically they were a clueless shambles.
However, I agree with you about the absolute importance of team or club ethos. One of the reasons Hiddink was so successful with South Korea was that he was able to get the players together for months on end, to build and drill that team ethos. No England coach will ever get that much time with the players.
My main point is that I agree that players don't need skills coaching, but I do feel that they need to have the overall style of play and their specific roles within the team carefully communicated. And the coach needs to select a properly balanced team.
Even when you have Riquelme, Messi, Tevez and Aguero, or Kaka, Ronaldinho, Robinho etc in your team, you still need to have a clear team shape - as Argentina and Brazil constantly seem to prove by losing (because if it was only about "special players", all you'd need to do would be to put the shirt on them.)
ethanedwards
Snowflake incarnate.
- Nov 24, 2006
- 3,379
- 2,502
What about Lippi ?
joey55
Well-Known Member
- May 20, 2005
- 9,691
- 3,168
But this is what i mean by over hyping the importance of tactics and coaching. I'm not saying they aren't important, but compared to other factors their significance is relatively small. You are of course right that a coach needs to select a balanced team, but are a balanced team of england players good enough to match expectation/hype, no matter who the coach is. What you say about Ramos is fascinating, as he is a typical example of a coach who is supposed to improve players etc. This is why I think the next 18 months at Spurs and Sevilla will tell us so much about the reallity of the influence a coaches tactics and coaching etc have. If I was a betting man I suspect we'll see 2 top 4 finishes for Seville and a top 10, followed by a top 6, but not top 4 finish for Spurs.
joey55
Well-Known Member
- May 20, 2005
- 9,691
- 3,168
It would require the FA to go into a level of detail of looking at past Internationl coaches and Martin Jols record, that they are incapapble of. Of the realistic options Jol in one of the outstanding candidates, but the FA are like the media and club boards, in that they rarely look past the basics on the CV.
Joey - interesting comments, as always. I suspect our core opinions here are pretty close, and some of the seeming difference is to do with terminology (eg what is coaching and what is tactics?).
And of course you're correct that club coaches have the opportunity of signing the precise type of player they think they need to improve their system (subject to transfer fees and availability), whilst national coaches don't have this option.
It may very well be that England don't have good enough players at present to be a top international side. But I did not see any evidence that McLaren knew how to build a side which got the best out of both Gerrard and Lampard, and he didn't have the bottle to drop one of them for the sake of the team. Whereas until Jol's plans were sabotaged by the sale of Carrick, I did at least understand the type of team that he was trying to create. And that, for me, is coaching.
joey55
Well-Known Member
- May 20, 2005
- 9,691
- 3,168
I just want to make it clear, that I'm not suggessting McClaren wasn't shit - he was. But that I'm not sure the answer to a bad coach, is simply employ a good coach. we should undoubtedly have qualified and to not have done so is unforgiveable. But, I'd wager that had we had a great coach, we'd have qualified and then still gone out in our usual fashion. It's like waht Mourinho was saying about the omlette just before he got fired.
:grin::grin::grin: Joey - you're an astute guy, and I think the whole of SC knows you couldn't possibly have thought McClaren was a good coach..
Beni
Well-Known Member
- Mar 3, 2004
- 5,432
- 6,131
English football needs a total shake up.
From the FA, to the manager, all the way down to how we coach our youth teams.
The FA need to have people on the board who understand about football, and have been there and done it, not just financial astute pen pushers.
The Premiership needs to start playing more home grown talent, to enable a bigger pool of talent for the National manager to pick from.
A cap should be brought in to help the National team become better.
The stats from last season about how many foreigners played in 4 of the biggest leagues are as follows:-
England - 59% of the Premiership consisted of Foreigners.
Germany - 50% of the Bundesliga consisted of Foreigners.
Spain - 38% of La Liga was foreigners.
Italy - 30% of Serie A were from abroad.
* Add also European cup winners AC Milan consisted of 7 home grown players.
* World Cup winners Italy, had 2 players in their winning squad that played outside of Serie A, the rest played in Italy.
All Nations abroad seem technically better, and are able to keep the ball.
England need to start bringing up our youth teams, and coach them on a more European style.
These days at Younger levels, you have either got to be an outstanding talent to make it through the system, otherwise its players that are bigger, and stronger that mostly are picked.
The new England manager, needs to be someone that is his own man, won't bow down to media and FA pressure and play the players, system he thinks best suits.
A manager that is tactically astute, and able to get the best out of the players he has available.
My choice would be Capello, Mourinho or Hiddink.
From the FA, to the manager, all the way down to how we coach our youth teams.
The FA need to have people on the board who understand about football, and have been there and done it, not just financial astute pen pushers.
The Premiership needs to start playing more home grown talent, to enable a bigger pool of talent for the National manager to pick from.
A cap should be brought in to help the National team become better.
The stats from last season about how many foreigners played in 4 of the biggest leagues are as follows:-
England - 59% of the Premiership consisted of Foreigners.
Germany - 50% of the Bundesliga consisted of Foreigners.
Spain - 38% of La Liga was foreigners.
Italy - 30% of Serie A were from abroad.
* Add also European cup winners AC Milan consisted of 7 home grown players.
* World Cup winners Italy, had 2 players in their winning squad that played outside of Serie A, the rest played in Italy.
All Nations abroad seem technically better, and are able to keep the ball.
England need to start bringing up our youth teams, and coach them on a more European style.
These days at Younger levels, you have either got to be an outstanding talent to make it through the system, otherwise its players that are bigger, and stronger that mostly are picked.
The new England manager, needs to be someone that is his own man, won't bow down to media and FA pressure and play the players, system he thinks best suits.
A manager that is tactically astute, and able to get the best out of the players he has available.
My choice would be Capello, Mourinho or Hiddink.