Yesterday Capello resigned from the England camp, specifically due to a Manager sticking up for one of his own players. I am by no means a John Terry fan up until his slip for United, but I fail to see what he actually did wrong?
We always accuse the media for our poor build up to every tournament, and not the players for actually committing the crimes. We always accuse the manager for his poor show, but never accepting that the players we have are not good enough to win a tournament. The scapegoat mentality has been installed into us since the 'Hand of God'. Since then we've blamed a handful of people for our failures at tournaments, and this seems to be the universal theme.
We've been banging on about which Managers we should have, and which ones we shouldn't have. Sven, whom in my opinion was a fantastic manager, had the 'golden generation' in it's prime, and did it's very best to take them as far as he could. We wanted a change! Along came Steve McLaren. We were all happy with the way he was, turning the England camp into more free speech and allowing players to have some power. An absolute disaster!
We then wanted players to be put on a leash, and we find Capello, one of the worlds highest calibre Managers. What he has won and achieved are without question, unbelievable. He brought professionalism back into the squad, and a strict regime. Players weren't above each other, and he attempted to play players based on their performances and not their names. He unfortunately was not capable of sticking by his word, and still went on to see a players name, instead of their stats.
Despite all this, he still went on to be the greatest win ratio Manager we had, so he was bringing a strong success rate to the England squad, and we went higher up the FIFA ranks. What more did we want?
Now, him being sacked, everyone seems to be happy for what ever reason, and each to their own, and all of a sudden Harry Redknapp is proclaimed to be the new England Manager. My question is, what do you really think Harry will do?
Winning a tournament under Harry Redknapp isn't going to be higher than winning one under Capello. Playing attacking football seems to be the only advantage, however, that isn't going to guarantee success. Ask Arsene Wenger that! I just don't see the bandwagon that everyone has jumped on in the resignation of Capello. Our chances haven't improved but have decreased dramatically!
I want an English Manager, I always believe the country should never go foreign, the passion is lost completely, however, we have never had a collective of World-Class players to win a tournament. So, exactly what is bringing a new Manager going to do? Is it just another scape-goat reason for not winning this tournament?
Are there any realistic England fans left?
posted on 9/2/12
Agree with Stretty
We actually played decent football under Sven.
Under Capello and Mclaren, the football has been dire to say the least. Cant watch an England match anymore
I remember that classic match against Portugal under Sven. We matched them for a good while and we went out on penalties I think?
posted on 9/2/12
People did'nt appreciate his calm demeanor but he was a good manager at the end of the day and has one of the best records, given the amount of time he was in charge for, that's no small feat.
.....................
He got where he got with England because it was our so called golden generation, that he had playing for him.
He could not see that Gerrard and Lampard in CM could not, and did not work.
Sven was the idiot that decided to put Scholes on the left wing, as well, and ruined his international career.
Good manager my a-rse.
posted on 9/2/12
I remember that classic match against Portugal under Sven. We matched them for a good while and we went out on penalties I think?
....................
We shouldn't have been matching them, that was the problem. That team should have been beating Portugal.
posted on 9/2/12
Stretty - Captain Ozil (U3123)
I agree with Stretty. Mentioned it in my OP that Sven did a fantastic job. I do wish he was able to understand at that point that the combination of Lampard and Gerrard wasn't going to work, and that Paul Scholes should be the main man in the middle, but despite all that he still got us to a great stage. I remember beating Germany, and he was considered a God in the media.
He tried and it didn't work out. It was far more stupid for the likes of McClaren for still trying to do after it clearly wasn't working!
posted on 9/2/12
darkphoenix
That was the problem. He got us to good stages, but din't have that bit extra to get us over the line.
Sven had good players at his disposal. He did not have kak cart horses Capello had with Barry, Milner etc.
The back four was one of the best in world football with Nevster, Rio JT and Cashley
You had Beckham, Gerrard (who was still good then) Lampard and Joe Cole in the middle with Rooney up top.
That team, should have done so much better.
posted on 9/2/12
I don't deny that we didn't have one of the best defence in the world at that point. However, it's not like we had conceded in that game at all. It did end up 0-0. However, we were looking the better team up until the point Wayne Rooney thought it was pretty normal to stamp on Carvalho.
What could have been if we still had Rooney on the pitch? Had the extra man? We lost on penalties, and that in itself is a gamble. We could have gone through that and played France in the semi-final.
posted on 9/2/12
What could have been if we still had Rooney on the pitch? Had the extra man? We lost on penalties, and that in itself is a gamble. We could have gone through that and played France in the semi-final.
................................
We shouldn't have been so negative from the start by playing Rooney up top on his own.
Hargreaves was in the best form he would ever show, so there really was no need to play 5 across the middle.
It was because Sven was afraid to drop one of Gerrard and Lampard.
posted on 9/2/12
His tactics were 4-5-1 and yes it was negative, but if you look at all his group stage games, he played 4-4-2 at all times. Even with a pairing of Owen and Crouch. However, against Portugal, Owen was injured and we couldn't have started Crouch. What was he going to offer? Height?! His headering recording for a man his size is poor at best. This Portugal team had the flair ability, and knew how to keep possession of a ball.
You're also forgetting just because we were 4-5-1 that doesn't mean that in a 4-4-2, Wayne Rooney wouldn't have behaved the exact same way.
On top of that a team like Italy who played probably the most negative football went on to win the World Cup in 2006. Also in 2004 a defensive team in Greece went on to win the Euros. Attacking football doesn't exactly equal success on the International stage.
posted on 9/2/12
I almost cry when I think how they wasted Scholes. Best player of a generation and forced out wide to accommodate pin up boys. I swear the FA had a hand in it, to boost revenue.
a CM of Hargo and Scholes would have been immense.
posted on 10/2/12
The back four was one of the best in world football with Nevster, Rio JT and Cashley
You had Beckham, Gerrard (who was still good then) Lampard and Joe Cole in the middle with Rooney up top.
That team, should have done so much better.
============================
Uh, not really, it wasnt that good of a team. You overrate it a hell of a lot it would seem.
As for the portugal team, one filled with a young ronaldo, rui costa, figo, etc. They were much better side than us.
Golden generation my aarse.
Bunch of cloggers who achieved realistic goals. They did no better than they should of.