No Fight, No Passion, No Character, No Leaders

[bh_red]

The players aren't the common factor because we haven't had the same team for the last 40 years...

Look at the differing levels of success different England managers have had and their records _before_ they took over England.

Bobby Robson, great manager, world cup semi finals.

Graham Taylor, mediocre manager, failed to qualify for 94.

Terry Venables, good manager, European semis (at home though).

Sven, good manager, World cup quarter finals.

Steve McClaren, mediocre manager, failed to qualify for Euro 2008.

Of course the manager makes a difference.

that is very very harsh on Graham Taylor - he was a great manager at club level, unfortunately he had a shockingly bad team, Robson got out at the right team as his team was aging, also very harsh on Sven who is a great manager has done well prior to England and has been fantastic so far at Man City

The manager does make a difference, but without the players you stuffed 2 managers you have missed off the list,

Hoddle - Decent Manager - out in 2nd round of WC98

Keegan - Decent Manager - diddn't get past group stages at Euro 2004

Hoodle had a VERY good set of players, but didn't perform, he probably had a better set of players than Venables and yet the success wasn't there.

It's all very well having a good manager, but without the right players your always going to struggle

[bh_red]

Team - England have not played as a team for a long time.

Croatia are a better team than us which IS one of the reasons why they qualified and we didn't. People may say we have better individual players but we are certainly not a better TEAM.

it's funny that some still beleive that England are a better team than Croatia despite them taking 6 points of us,

Player for Player, Position for Position at club level, we probably are better than them, but England are terrible as a team

[Nibor]

problem being how many games could McClaren actually play his best team,

regardless of performances and results, one thing that can be said is that he had a shocking time with Injuries, hence the team that played on wednesday,

any team that misses playes such as Neville, Terry, Rio, Rooney and Owen is going to have problems, it doesn't matter what strength in depth you have, any team will have problems without 5 key players, the problem is, that has been a trait that has been a constant problem for England for most of McClaren's reign, Sven had the same problems but never to such a large degree.

We were only missing those players at the same time for one game. It's a poor excuse and it ignores the key players other teams were missing.

But yes, the number of players unavailable for England is a problem in general not helped by the FA packing the fixture list to get money out of Sky.

We should still have qualified comfortably.

[Portland Bill]

Russia a top footballing nation?

Sorry but that's actually just made me laugh out loud.

They have a top manager but that's about it I'm afraid.

Keep laughing if it makes you feel better :noexpression: . I am sure they will be next summer........at us.

[Nibor]

that is very very harsh on Graham Taylor - he was a great manager at club level, unfortunately he had a shockingly bad team, Robson got out at the right team as his team was aging, also very harsh on Sven who is a great manager has done well prior to England and has been fantastic so far at Man City

The manager does make a difference, but without the players you stuffed 2 managers you have missed off the list,

Hoddle - Decent Manager - out in 2nd round of WC98

Keegan - Decent Manager - diddn't get past group stages at Euro 2004

Hoodle had a VERY good set of players, but didn't perform, he probably had a better set of players than Venables and yet the success wasn't there.

It's all very well having a good manager, but without the right players your always going to struggle

Look at their records before they became England managers.

Robson - had won the FA cup and UEFA cup and taken IPSWICH to be twice league runners up.

Eriksson - won titles in three different European leagues, the UEFA cup and the Cup winners cup.

Taylor - finished 2nd with Villa one season.

Keegan - finished 2nd with Newcastle one season.

Hoddle - FA cup runner up at Chelsea.

First two were great/good managers. The other three were mediocre at best. Their teams were no weaker they just picked the wrong players, played the wrong tactics and didn't get the best out of anyone.

But the key difference is, two of those five - the most successful - were managers who had won things. The others weren't.

[bh_red]

We were only missing those players at the same time for one game. It's a poor excuse and it ignores the key players other teams were missing.

But yes, the number of players unavailable for England is a problem in general not helped by the FA packing the fixture list to get money out of Sky.

We should still have qualified comfortably.

yes, for that game, it's called an example, however it's over looking the fact that for each game we missed a good on or 2 players, and have pretty much never been able to play our best forward line.

We should have qualified without doubt, but too many people have underestmiated the other teams in that group and considered it to be "easy" it was never going to be the case,

unfortunately too many people listen to the "hype"

[bh_red]

Look at their records before they became England managers.

Robson - had won the FA cup and UEFA cup and taken IPSWICH to be twice league runners up.

Eriksson - won titles in three different European leagues, the UEFA cup and the Cup winners cup.

Taylor - finished 2nd with Villa one season.

Keegan - finished 2nd with Newcastle one season.

Hoddle - FA cup runner up at Chelsea.

First two were great/good managers. The other three were mediocre at best. Their teams were no weaker they just picked the wrong players, played the wrong tactics and didn't get the best out of anyone.

But the key difference is, two of those five - the most successful - were managers who had won things. The others weren't.

graham taylor's career was based on more than "2nd place with villa" he took watford from the 4th Division to 2nd in the 1st Divison and into Europe, at the time when replacing Robson, he was without doubt the best man for the job, unfortunatly he just didn't have the players.

after leaving England he then did it all over again with Watford, as we well know.

[Nibor]

that's the problem, it wasn't an easy group, there was other groups that I would been much happier to be in, too many people though it was a straight forward task it was never going to be the case.

just checked groups A, C, F or G, personally speaking I would have been MUCH happier to be in

as it unfortunately proved.

too many people at the time believed it was an easy group. we should have won all our home games, personally I just see that as Naive and down to many people believing media hype that too many english players are better than they actually are.

Oh and I do feel Italy are a better side than Brazil right now.

Group A - Portugal are better than Croatia. Poland are on a par with Russia. Slightly harder but not much IMO.

C was easier.

F - Spain and Sweden would be harder than Croatia and Russia.

G - Romania and Holland? You're nuts!

It was the second easiest group out of the lot, we should have qualified with ease and we underperformed. I'm one of the last people who will ever believe hype.

[Nibor]

graham taylor's career was based on more than "2nd place with villa" he took watford from the 4th Division to 2nd in the 1st Divison and into Europe, at the time when replacing Robson, he was without doubt the best man for the job, unfortunatly he just didn't have the players.

after leaving England he then did it all over again with Watford, as we well know.

Success with Watford is completely irrelevant.

We're talking about INTERNATIONAL football here and his record when compared to Robson and Eriksson.

Taylor won nothing, he wasn't the best man for the job at all, and many people thought so at the time - me included.

Managers have a big impact on results, better managers get better results, and a better manager would have had us qualified for Euro 2008. Simple as that.

[jellyred]

Group A - Portugal are better than Croatia. Poland are on a par with Russia. Slightly harder but not much IMO.

C was easier.

F - Spain and Sweden would be harder than Croatia and Russia.

G - Romania and Holland? You're nuts!

It was the second easiest group out of the lot, we should have qualified with ease and we underperformed. I'm one of the last people who will ever believe hype.

I think you are missing the point Nibor, we would have been the top seed in either of those groups and so Portugal and Spain and holland wouldn't have been in any of the groups we would have been.

[bh_red]

Group A - Portugal are better than Croatia. Poland are on a par with Russia. Slightly harder but not much IMO.

C was easier.

F - Spain and Sweden would be harder than Croatia and Russia.

G - Romania and Holland? You're nuts!

It was the second easiest group out of the lot, we should have qualified with ease and we underperformed. I'm one of the last people who will ever believe hype.

your totally mad!

Group A - PORTUGAL - were top seed, so if we were in that group they wouldn't be!

C - Easy Group

F - We would have replace Spain

G - We would have replaced Romania or Holland which ever was top the seed?

you seemed to have totally forgot that if we have been in that group, the top seeded that is in that group, would not have been there.

personally, I think the only group of them that was actually tougher than ours was the scotland group, One of France/Italy and Scotland and Ukraine.

[Nibor]

you seemed to have totally forgot that if we have been in that group, the top seeded that is in that group, would not have been there.

Yeah I did forget that, fair enough.

I still don't think it matters, we were higher ranked than every team in our group and should have qualified.

We didn't, that's underperforming.

None of those teams should have come away from Wembley with anything other than a defeat.

It's not hype, it's a pretty reasonable expectation IMO and to say we underestimated the opponents smacks of an excuse.

I'm not saying they're bad sides, but a performing England side should be winning against them.

[bh_red]

Success with Watford is completely irrelevant.

We're talking about INTERNATIONAL football here and his record when compared to Robson and Eriksson.

Taylor won nothing, he wasn't the best man for the job at all, and many people thought so at the time - me included.

Managers have a big impact on results, better managers get better results, and a better manager would have had us qualified for Euro 2008. Simple as that.

Watford is totally relevant in the context of the point, you based Robson and Sven being great managers based on their club records, but seem to totally disregard the point for Taylor who at the time, was the best (sober) choice for the job,

You also mention how great Robson was for England, but he failed to qualify for his first tournement when in charge of england, so by that reckoning, McClaren should have kept his job and been given time? apart from Italy 90 he wasn't that a great england manager, and at the time wasn't very popular at all!

[Nibor]

Watford is totally relevant in the context of the point, you based Robson and Sven being great managers based on their club records, but seem to totally disregard the point for Taylor who at the time, was the best (sober) choice for the job,

It's not relevant because it's not top flight.

The only thing he'd done in the top flight was had a good season at Villa.

You also mention how great Robson was for England, but he failed to qualify for his first tournement when in charge of england, so by that reckoning, McClaren should have kept his job and been given time? apart from Italy 90 he wasn't that a great england manager, and at the time wasn't very popular at all!

No, I'm talking about their records PREVIOUS to their appointment.

Look what I'm saying is simple.

Managers who have a track record of winning things in the top flight and across Europe have performed better as England manager than those who don't have that record who have all failed.

That's why appointing someone like McClaren was a mistake, appointing Allardyce or Pearce would be as well.

We need to be looking for a WINNER.

[bh_red]

It's not relevant because it's not top flight.

The only thing he'd done in the top flight was had a good season at Villa.

so manging a club like watford, not glamourous and with a lesser quality of player to 2nd in the table and into europe, isn't relevant?

surely the tactical and motivational and basic management skills required by the Taylor in getting a bunch of promoted players to that standing in the league in their first season, prove how impressive a man-manager he is and was,

[Nibor]

so manging a club like watford, not glamourous and with a lesser quality of player to 2nd in the table and into europe, isn't relevant?

surely the tactical and motivational and basic management skills required by the Taylor in getting a bunch of promoted players to that standing in the league in their first season, prove how impressive a man-manager he is and was,

Did you read the second part of the post?

It pretty much answers your question.

Managers with a track record of winning make good England managers, those without make bad England managers. The facts bear this theory out quite clearly.

We need a winner. Taylor never won anything, compared to the others mentioned his record was mediocre. Robson won the UEFA cup with Ipswich, Sven won titles all over the place.

The only world cup winning manager this country ever produced actually won the title with his relegation favourite side.

[bh_red]

Did you read the second part of the post?

It pretty much answers your question.

Managers with a track record of winning make good England managers, those without make bad England managers. The facts bear this theory out quite clearly.

We need a winner. Taylor never won anything, compared to the others mentioned his record was mediocre. Robson won the UEFA cup with Ipswich, Sven won titles all over the place.

The only world cup winning manager this country ever produced actually won the title with his relegation favourite side.

what titles have Van Basten, Jurgen, Van Basten, Bilic won as manager prior to get their international managerment jobs?

by your logic, Howard Wilkinson should get the job? (last englishman to win the title) or maybe Roy Hodgson?

[Nibor]

what titles have Van Basten, Jurgen, Van Basten, Bilic won as manager prior to get their international managerment jobs?

by your logic, Howard Wilkinson should get the job? (last englishman to win the title) or maybe Roy Hodgson?

Van Basten and Klinnsman hadn't been managers before. They were winners though who had won just about everything winnable in their playing careers.

I'd prefer we get someone with management experience who is a winner but failing that I'll take a winner over someone like Allardyce or McLaren.

Howard Wilkinson or Hodgson would be better than McClaren but I wouldn't want either. I don't see why we'd appoint a manager who hasn't managed for a decade just because he's English, that sort of "logic" is more for your Sun reading idiots.

Are you disputing the point I'm making that when we appoint managers with winning records we do better or are you just being a bloody minded pedant?

[Bangkok Red]

so manging a club like watford, not glamourous and with a lesser quality of player to 2nd in the table and into europe, isn't relevant?

surely the tactical and motivational and basic management skills required by the Taylor in getting a bunch of promoted players to that standing in the league in their first season, prove how impressive a man-manager he is and was,

Taylor only knew one way of playing and was badly found out at international level. He judgement was also seriously flawed. How the likes of Carlton Palmer and David Bardsley became England internationals is only known to him

His one great legacy is coining the phrase "do I not like that" which became part of the footballing lexicon

[jellyred]

Just had a quick think about this and do we really do better when appointing winning managers?

I think it depends on what you think of as better.

The only two managers who have come close to winning a tournament since Sir Alf Ramsey were Terry Venables and Bobby Robson.

Now Venables did well at Barca but did he do much with a mediocre Spurs side (and lets be honest England are very mediocre), not really. Did he do anything anywhere else not really.

Of course Bobby Robson was a winning club manager but he had the axe hanging over him for long periods of his England tenure due to indifferent results, he redeemed himself at Italia '90.

Don Revie, hugely successful club manager, shite for England.

I don't believe that being a successful club manager necessarily makes you a good international manager.

Take our own GJ, went to Latvia and turned them around and lets face it he wasn't exactly successful before then.

[bh_red]

Taylor only knew one way of playing and was badly found out at international level. He judgement was also seriously flawed. How the likes of Carlton Palmer and David Bardsley became England internationals is only known to him

Carlton Palmer wasn't that bad, just the best of a very bad bunch of players available,

as for Bardsley - christ forgot about him, but in fairness all managers pick the odd dud, here and there, who can forgot Sven's masterstroke of Michael Ricketts!

[Bangkok Red]

Carlton Palmer wasn't that bad, just the best of a very bad bunch of players available,

No he wasn't. He was the epitomy of the headless chicken and shouldn't have got anywhere near an England shirt.

I won't go into the likes of Geoff Thomas and some of the other appalling choices he made. Taylor didn't have the tactical nous to be successful as an international manager and was rightly lampooned as a turnip. 'nuff said.

[Nibor]

Just had a quick think about this and do we really do better when appointing winning managers?

I think it depends on what you think of as better.

The only two managers who have come close to winning a tournament since Sir Alf Ramsey were Terry Venables and Bobby Robson.

Now Venables did well at Barca but did he do much with a mediocre Spurs side (and lets be honest England are very mediocre), not really. Did he do anything anywhere else not really.

Of course Bobby Robson was a winning club manager but he had the axe hanging over him for long periods of his England tenure due to indifferent results, he redeemed himself at Italia '90.

Don Revie, hugely successful club manager, shite for England.

I don't believe that being a successful club manager necessarily makes you a good international manager.

Take our own GJ, went to Latvia and turned them around and lets face it he wasn't exactly successful before then.

Venables won La Liga and won the FA cup with Spurs. I'd describe him as a moderately successful England manager. It would have been interesting to see what he'd have done in 98 had he not had to quit.

I agree that being a successful club manager doesn't necessarily make you a good international manager. Taylor was a hugely successful club manager because he got both Villa and Watford performing well above expectations. That's not the same as being a winner though.

Every good England manager I can think of was a winner of at least one major trophy as a manager or player or both before taking the job on. I can't think of any good England manager that hadn't won something prior to taking the job.

[WTFiGO!?!]

Thought this might be an interesting one to dig up Nibor old boy.....

I'm hopeful Don Fabio Cappelo is the man to finally get these piss taking idiots in line.

From the double scouse interview post match it does look as though attitude's might have thankfully at last been tapped into.

Let's hope he can g-up the FA too.

[Nibor]

Thought this might be an interesting one to dig up Nibor old boy.....

Why's that then?

I didn't watch tonight's game because basically international friendlies are about as interesting as Jeremy Kyle.

I wouldn't read anything into any non competitive game either way frankly.

I still stand by what I said in this thread, England's failure has absolutely nothing to do with this "lack of passion" b***ocks that the tabloids keep on feeding the gullible masses.

Capello wouldn't have been my first choice but he has an excellent track record and will get the team properly organised with a system they understand and will at the very least get us qualified to every major tournament.

We won't win anything until we sort out the way the game is run from top to bottom in this country, the problems are deep rooted at the FA and stem from too many imbeciles who've never been involved in coaching or playing trying to run the game.

[WTFiGO!?!]

Just to put this one to bed once and for all: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gG...lBwKVY0Qd9jBn8Q

Ferdinand: WAG circus behind us

"We became a bit of a circus, if I'm honest, in terms of the whole WAG situation. It seems like there was a big show around the whole England squad," Ferdinand said. "That then transposed itself into the team. This regime is very water-tight. If I'm honest, it feels as if we're going in the right direction."

He added: "It was like watching a theatre unfolding and football almost became a secondary element to the main event.

"People were worrying more about what people were wearing and where they were going, rather than the England football team.