New England Manager

[Arfie]

Now the worst manager England have had in my lifetime has gone Who's gonna replace him?

For me there's two questions, Who do you WANT in charge and who do you THINK they will put in charge?

The trouble is that when they went for the popular choice last time, we ended up with Keegan, who by his own admission wasn't upto the job, but if left to the suits in the FA who like "yes" men we end up with the likes of Mclaren.

Personally I'd be happy with a lot of the choices I've listed along with some I haven't like Fergie and Wenger, but if I have to choose one (and as I'm asking everyone else to) I'll pick Jose as the one I want in charge. He has the balls to drop a superstar and could well be the answer to getting the best out of the ones who aren't performing together. I don't think Lampard and Gerrard can work together as sucessfully as they both work with other players, but Jose tried to spend £40m to make that very thing happen and he's far smarter than I am, so maybe he could do it.

Sadly I don't think he will be there, because he's said so and I also think the FA wouldn't take on a manager who would be prepared to drop players that sell shirts.

Who do I think they'll get? Well taking it as red that Mickey Mouse will still be tied into his contract at Disney, I really don't know. Although he seems reluctant, I think there is stil a chance they might get O'Neill. Whilst he's not English I'm sure that he'd take some pride in getting the job that his old boss (scandalously) never got (Cloughie ). If not, then it may well be Harry Redknapp's time, I considered Curbishley, but I think Sir Trevor Brooking will block that now he's a hammer.

It could be months before they get their man, so like always it could be funny to see just how far off the mark some of us were when it's finally sorted

Arfie

 

[andywg]

I don't follow football anywhere near enough to comment on individuals, but looking across from Rugby, and assuming there is at least some parity in the set ups, then it is going to be very different selecting someone to take charge of the national team than a club side for the below reasons:

The national team will not have "asset" worries, such as crowd numbers, player wages, getting the best players etc;

There will undoubtedly be many, many coaches to worry about the technical aspects of the game (if not then there should be). So the national man in charge can almost be uninvolved in the actual training out on the park.

Therefore, the national man in charge needs mostly to be a very good organiser. Consider Clive Woodward in Rugby; great at setting in place the mechanics for other, more specialised, coaches to get the team to success - an awful coach in his own right.

I would say the most important thing about the new man in charge would be that they have to have the respect of the players and he must have the ability to get the players to raise their game.

 

[Arfie]

I think you may be sadly mistaken about the "assets", It feels to me as if the whole FA is now geared not towards generating the best football system, but the most lucrative. They are making plenty of cash from advertising/sponsorship/shirt sales etc and I feel that they want the poster boys in the team regardless of performance, just so they can sell the shirts.

Agreed, we need an organiser/motivator, but we also need someone with tactical nouse otherwise Keegan would still be in charge. I think an experienced manager even someone like Capello or Lippi with a younger motivator like Pearce, Adams, Shearer below them could be a perfect solution. If you can't as a coach learn from the likes of Capello or Lippi, you should change jobs. This could get them all groomed for future management, like an apprenticeship, after their time with England they should be going back to club management gaining more and more direct experience to prepare them to take over in say 10-15 years.

I'd love to see the contracts changed too, I would like the England manager to get a 4 year contract with a performance review in 2 years. If you fail to qualify for a major tournament, you fail your performance review and your contract can be terminated with immediate effect and no compensation IF the FA decide to invoke that clause. If you win a major tournament then the option to extend the contract by a further 2 years should be offered.

Arfie

 

[blue acara]

I totally agree Arfie. By McLarens own admission he has failed, but he get 2 million 2 million is not much really but to me (and more importantly to him probably) is a lot of money.

If the FA wants to make money they should install a manager that gets results, I think they will get £££ if we do-whoever is playing in the white shirt.

 

[Underwurlde]

Stuart Pearce for me. He has not lost a match yet with our under 21's (I think).

And he's ENGLISH.

Andy

 

[chamberpot]

This is a difficult question to answer.
Even moreso, as Sky News are broadcasting that the top 5 on your poll don't want the job anyway.
And who can blame them? It's a poison chalice, thanks to the UK press mostly.
Sven was doing a good job until the tabloids decided that we needed a new manager, after they set him up!!

I don't think that a new manager, no matter how successful/popular he may be is the only solution.

Jose is/was a brilliant manager, (and would be my choice), but he was a manager of a premier league team, with almost unlimited resources and full of the best players that money could buy.
He doesn't want the job as England coach, which is a shame, but can you imagine how he would inspire the Portuguese team?
They would probably sell their souls just to have a chance to play for him and their country.
Can we say the same of our over-rated, over-paid, super-sponsered underacheivers?
I doubt if he (Jose) could do the same with the England side because the players are simply not good enough and we have to accept that there is a fundamental problem with: the National side, the FA, the Premier League, youth training schemes, and our undying belief that just because we invented the sport and won the World Cup once that we should beat every side that we play 15 nil without trying.

I think that Rednap should take the job for now, play some friendlies, gain some confidence, build some trust with the press etc etc.
But in the long-term this is a problem that will take 15-20 years to sort out. And at the end of the day, is it worth it?
It's just another game that we as a National side are no good at anymore.

 

[Arfie]

The thing people forget about Mourinho is that he has won things without squillians of quid He won the league and lest we forget, the Champions League with Porto.

As for motivating the players, don't forget the England captain was his captain, then Lampard, Ashley Cole, Joe Cole and Shaun Wright Phillips all played for him at Chelski, he tried to buy Gerrard twice, so he obviously rates 6 of Englands players. Add Rooney and Owen to that list as they are both world class (when fit) and you have the bulk of a decent squad, they just need gelling together.

People forget that not everyone in the 1966 team were first choice, Geoff Hurst was controversially in the team in place of the much better Jimmy Greaves, going to show that you don't need the very best players to win, you need the best team.

I'm not convinced by all these "not interested" cries, I think that one or two of those are waiting to be persuaded. O'Neill applied last time, so 18 months ago it is a job he wanted, he's probably saying he's not interested to try and save the pride that must've been hurt after being turned down last time. I still think in 3 months Jose could be persuaded if a massive european job hasn't come up. I think he'll head off to manage Portugal when he's nearing the end of his career.

Arfie

 

[andywg]

I think you may be sadly mistaken about the "assets", It feels to me as if the whole FA is now geared not towards generating the best football system, but the most lucrative. They are making plenty of cash from advertising/sponsorship/shirt sales etc and I feel that they want the poster boys in the team regardless of performance, just so they can sell the shirts.

But that is a point for the FA to handle, not the head coach of the team. Perhaps therein needs to be a change in the roles. The man coaching and preparing the national adult team should not also be responsible for developing the assets. And even then, little of what a man puts in place in the matter of developing youth is going to really impact on the youth coming through unless he is there for around 8 years or more.

Agreed, we need an organiser/motivator, but we also need someone with tactical nouse otherwise Keegan would still be in charge.

Do we need that much, or just a second coach who can explain the more in depth tactical side? Sure the head coach should decide the broad tactics (perhaps formation and whether to play more forwards or sit back) but the rest can, anbd arguably should, be handled by someone else.

Should we look for one experienced coach who can somehow bridge across many disciplines (with undoubted compromises attached), or should we try and get a decent team so that each person is performing to their strengths? Woodward took something like 17 coaches and back room staff for a playing squad of 30 to the RWC 2003.

Maybe it would even help the national side to let someone of his obvious organisational talents take a look at the overall set up of the national team?

 

[chamberpot]

All you say is fine and good and you obviously know a lot about football.
But you still seem to think that the England teams' problems lie solely at the hands of the incumbent manager.
I agree that Stevie Mac was the wrong choice, but who else wanted the job?
There was nothing wrong with Sven, in my opinion.
We, as fans have brought this falling down on our own heads. We expect too much of a national side, that quite frankly isn't up to the challenge anymore.
We see, week in, week out, top drawer premier league performances from teams that wouldn't even be there if it weren't for foreign players.
In fact, is there a decent English 11, never mind squad, to be found among the premiership teams?

As corrupt and flawed as the FA are, they were right to say a root and branch change is needed.

BTW, I am a jock and I know that a change in manager has had a vast improvement on the Scots team, but let's be honest, they're never going to win the world cup. But at least they play as if their lives, not their wallets depended on it.

 

[Arfie]

But you still seem to think that the England teams' problems lie solely at the hands of the incumbent manager.
I agree that Stevie Mac was the wrong choice, but who else wanted the job?

They aren't solely the problems of the manager, but the manager is the main problem.

Who else wanted the job? Martin O'Neill did, he actually applied for it, Phil Scolari until the hamfisted FA loused it up.

Andy, the trouble is that Rugby and football are different animals as you well know. The need for someone with tactical nouse isn't just about the practice and pre-match it's about recognising the need to change the formation/tactics during a match, closing up shop when needed (which Keegan never did) or being able to change to more attacking formation when appropriate, which Sven could never do else we would have beaten 10 man Brazil in 2002.

It's odd how much people are banging on about too many foreign players causing the ruination of English football. We have the most talented squad we've had in decades, have we all forgotten when the league was full of substandard and frankly pisspoor players and men like Andy Sinton, Carlton Palmer, Tony Dorigo, David White and Geoff Thomas were full internationals, oh yeah and that got us nowhere too.

If too many restrictions are placed on foreigners all that will happen is british players will have inflated prices and for christ sake, Darren Bent already cost £18m, can you imagine how much he'd be if teams had to have more british players? Mind you we'd get about £40m for selling Crouch

Personally as much as I'd like England to do well, I am a Liverpool supporter and I'd rather we buy top quality foreigners to play good football week in week out, than pay over the odds for average British players to support a corrupt FA wage bill and keep paying compensation to incompetant managers picked by clueless men.

Your point about Scotland actually proves my point, most of Scotlands players are not good enough to be first choice in their premier league teams, but with a decent team ethic and a decent manager (2 if you include the last one) they can pull together and perform above their standard. Englan have players who would be first choice in pretty much any team in the world, but failed miserably. Why? Bad management! Simple as!


Arfie

 

[chamberpot]

I agree with all of that too.

Scotland aren't perfect by a long way, but they try their level best and the fans love that, whether they win or not.
Scotland were unlucky not to qualify for Euro 2008, but the coach won't lose his job over it.
England expects far too much of its' team, and are let down time and time again. Having to rely on last minute points tallies, "favours" etc. in order to progress in competions is not the way, but how often do England scrape through on this basis.

Don't get me wrong Arfie, I'm not one of the jocks that love to see England lose. On the contrary, I support all the national teams, and I was cheering England on last week in a pub full of expats in the middle east. But it was all the same old stuff... wrong team selection, poor tactics, nerves, mistakes, relying on one or two players to lift the team and all they had to do was draw. Edge of the seat stuff but for the wrong reasons. It was sad, honestly.

Still, time to move forward. A new manager is a start but not the only answer if England wants a team to rise to their expectations. It has to start from school level up. Limit foreign players? I think it's too late for that, but I definately think that the amount of foreigners in the premiership has had a detremental effect on all the national teams. In fact I doubt that the you can have a successful premier league and a successful national team. There is far too much money involved in the former, which results in the deterioration of the latter.
The players need a major attitude adjustment. You can see it on their faces when it suddenly dawns on them that they're not winning. But hang on we're England, we should win. Well not anymore.

Bring back the Home Championships, that's a great leveller.

 

[andywg]

Andy, the trouble is that Rugby and football are different animals as you well know. The need for someone with tactical nouse isn't just about the practice and pre-match it's about recognising the need to change the formation/tactics during a match, closing up shop when needed (which Keegan never did) or being able to change to more attacking formation when appropriate, which Sven could never do else we would have beaten 10 man Brazil in 2002.

And a second person cannot sit next to him and advise him during the game?

 

[Arfie]

And a second person cannot sit next to him and advise him during the game?

It's been done, Keegan had Don Howe but ignored him half the time, McLaren had Venables and I can't believe for a minute that a man with Venables record and experience was promptin or advising McLaren to do some of the things he did, though of course I could be wrong.

If the top man doesn't have the knowledge or ability to make the descisions himself (which if it's wrong will get him pilliaried, by me ) when needed, then he quite simply isn't the top man. If the man you propose sitting at the side has the knowledge then he should run the show, the organiser can help in the prep before a game getting the formation and style of play drummed into the players.

IMO the "head coach" or manager of a football team is normally the man with the technical knowledge, in charge of tactics and formations etc the people below him are normally the ones there to help motivate. The assistants do advise, but ultimately the manager makes the call, now if the man at the top is more of an optimist like Keegan was, he is unlikely to make the negative descision to close up shop.

Some men are seemingly well suited to being assistants, McLaren himself was supposedly a great assistant to both Jim Smith and Sir Alex, but had a below average record as a manager. Someone like Keegan would probably have made a brilliant assistant to help keep the players spirit and confidence up, but when in charge and clearly clueless that reduced players confidence in him and affected performances. (much like his brother )

Managing by commitee is a recipie for disaster, the very best managers, both now and in the past have been in charge and dictators, interested in football or not you will know most of them - Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho, Shankley, Busby, Cloughie, Paisley.

Another thing the man needs is experience, McLaren had what 6 years as a manager? At Boro where he won the league cup once, got hammered in the UEFA cup final and had league posistions that were average at best. In fact in his final year at boro they were 14th, which was the position they were in when he took over, hardly impressive credentials. I want a manager that has managed either a winning side, or dragged a club up and improved it, which all of those men I've listed have done. Someone who will drop players if HE wants to and big names like Gerrard, Rooney, Lampard, Owen, Rio et al shouldn't be safe.

Arfie

 

[Arfie]

Something else I want to add, I don't think that England have a devine right to win everything, BUT, with the players we have and have had for the last decade or so we should be challenging the likes of Brazil, Germany, France, Argentina, holland, Spain & Italy and I would place us amongst that group. Bearing that in mind if we are in a group of the top 8 teams, then a final 8 place SHOULD be a bare minimum target and really we should be aiming for a semi-final place. I know that Brazil are a better team than England, I am under no illusions, but I also know that we can on our day beat them, just as Scotland can beat France.

In the same way that I don't think Liverpool as the most sucessful club side have a devine right to win the league (just as well), but we should be challenging the other top sides like ManUtd and Arsenal.

Now before someone points out we are now ranked 12th, that is after a period of poor performance under the outgoing manager. But to put it in context, England have been underperforming, Scotland have been doing really well and are still below England Though one more match could change that .

For the Scots who think that English fans thave the attitude that we have the right to win everything, I'd ask you this: If you are a Celtic or Rangers fan, you KNOW that either of your teams have the majority of the best players in your league, do you not expect your team to challenge for the league? Are you not dissapointed if they get knocked out in the early rounds of the cups? Same thing! Now if you support someone like St Mirren or Falkirk, you will be delighted to even get near a cup final and only dream about winning the league but would feel like you had won it if you get 3rd. They are lower ranked teams and the expectation is to survive and any decent cup run is a bonus and if you have a good day, you can get a result against the big boys. Sound familiar?

Arfie

 

[chamberpot]

Arfie, you sound like a great bloke and I don't think deep down that we have disagreed during this chat.
I just think that a new England manager is not the only answer and I'll leave it there.
But, I sincerely hope that England can sort out their stuff, because they are the best UK national side and on their day can challenge any of the top 10 teams in the world. We all want to see them do that again as soon as possible.

BTW, I support Rotherham. Dronfield was home for a long time and next time I'm in Chesterfield I'll buy you a pint in the Derby Tup.