England Manager at Euro 2012

[Nobby]

1) Yes, it is xenophobic. If you're judging whether somebody is capable depending on their nationality, it's xenophobic.

2) Scolari took Portugal to a World Cup final & a 4th place Euro finish. Hiddink has also done well with Russia.

3) German Otto Rehagel won the Euro's with Greece in 2004.

1) Who is judging capable? I am talking desirable, World Cups and Euros are supposed to be competitions between nations, in my humble and apparently rabidly xenophobic opinion.

2) When did Portugal reach a WC final and what qualifies them as a major nation ?

3) Decent shout except of course there is always an exception which proves every rule.

1) The most capable managers in world football, are not English. Guardiola, Wenger, Ferguson, Mourinho, Del Bosque etc.. Name an English manager that would come in that top bracket? Desirably, we should want a manager that will win us the world cup, regardless of nationality.

2) Sorry, got them the wrong way around. 4th place at WC and runners up at the Euros under Scolari. Of course they're a major nation when it comes to international football!

 

[Brixton 'ill Pilgrim]

Redknapp epitomises Napoleon's old dictum on how it's better to be a lucky general than a good one.

West Ham: Had the good fortune to be at the club at a time when the youth system provided him with 5 future England internationals in the space of a couple of years. He wasted the money from Rio Ferdinand on jokers like Titi Camara and then quit when he knew it was about to go pear-shaped. The following season they were relegated

Portsmouth: Spent shedloads of money in a way that a club with small crowds in a dated stadium could never sustain. Won the FA Cup, and then got offered the Spurs job, just as Pompey were having to face the credit card bill. Again, within a year or so of his departure, they were relegated.

Southampton: The one club where he got found out. Didn't have money to burn, and couldn't turn around a losing team, even in the division below.

Spurs: Great example of Redknapp's ability to pick good jobs. A big club with a bit of money and good players performing well below their potential. He's got them going again, but the star players are ones brought in as promising youngsters by previous managers - Modric, Bale, Assou Ekotto etc - and Redknapp is now benefitting from their foresight. All his successful signings have been short-term fixes on big wages like Friedel, Gallas, Parker and Adebayor. You can't sustain a team in the top 4 with loanees and players in their 30s.

If past form is anything to go by, Redknapp will know that this season represents a high water mark for Tottenham. Bale and Modric can earn more elsewhere. They can't afford Adebayor permanently. Friedel, Parker, King and Gallas are on the decline.

He'll want to get out with his reputation intact. The England job - and I'm sure he'll be offered it - represents the perfect get-out route.

 

[Lord Tisdale]

1) The most capable managers in world football, are not English. Guardiola, Wenger, Ferguson, Mourinho, Del Bosque etc.. Name an English manager that would come in that top bracket? Desirably, we should want a manager that will win us the world cup, regardless of nationality.

2) Sorry, got them the wrong way around. 4th place at WC and runners up at the Euros under Scolari. Of course they're a major nation when it comes to international football!

1) I don't care, I want an English manager not a mercenary.

2) Portugal have got two WC semis to their name and long periods of abject mediocrity other than that, plus they cheat.

 

[GreenSam]

2) Portugal have got two WC semis to their name and long periods of abject mediocrity other than that, plus they cheat.

And aside from one WC win on home soil and one WC semi, what have we ever done aside long periods of abject mediocrity?


We're no more of a major football nation than Portugal. We need to stop living in 1966, we have no right to be amongst the likes of Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Holland etc. We're just not a good nation, at least not good like you think we are.

Last 16 of the world cup is a good finish for us in my opinion.

 

[Nobby]

1) The most capable managers in world football, are not English. Guardiola, Wenger, Ferguson, Mourinho, Del Bosque etc.. Name an English manager that would come in that top bracket? Desirably, we should want a manager that will win us the world cup, regardless of nationality.

2) Sorry, got them the wrong way around. 4th place at WC and runners up at the Euros under Scolari. Of course they're a major nation when it comes to international football!

1) I don't care, I want an English manager not a mercenary.

2) Portugal have got two WC semis to their name and long periods of abject mediocrity other than that, plus they cheat.

1) So anyone foreign is a 'mercenary'. Appears we've done full circle to my 'Xenophobia' argument.

2) They cheat? Cos an England player has never taken a dive? The Spanish cheat to, they're world champions. England are currently no more of a major footballing nation than the likes of Portugal or someone like the Ivory Coast.

 

[Lord Tisdale]

1) So anyone foreign is a 'mercenary'. Appears we've done full circle to my 'Xenophobia' argument.

2) They cheat? Cos an England player has never taken a dive? The Spanish cheat to, they're world champions. England are currently no more of a major footballing nation than the likes of Portugal or someone like the Ivory Coast.

1) Which part of the "it's a competition between nations" argument don't you get ? My issue has nothing to do with a fear or dislike of foreigners, it is a morale question, just like the qualification to play for England should be a little more than getting off the plane from Rio in Lisbon. I like level playing fields me.

2) Fair comment but Ronaldo is still a ******* ******** ****.

 

[Jones the Green]

Sven to come back and rescue us. He is England's best manager ever (statistically), he is out of work, he has an up-to-date knowledge of English football and we know he would do it.

In what way statistically?

I think you'll find the best England manager (statistically) has just left, and old Sven finds himself down in fifth......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16941457

OK fair enough, but I'd like to go with.....

Win % + loss % + progress in major tournaments = the best manager ever on paper.

Ha ha! :lol: :lol: :lol:

You should know, Neilio. that by "statistics", bathpilgrim always means the carefully selected figures that support his statements, and not any others!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Jones the Green]

My worry about Redknapp is that in the past he has said the so called "Golden Generation" are still more than good enough to perform at a major tournament so how tempted would he be to bring the youngsters through.

Yes he would install the passion but any English manager could do that...

Would be interest to see how he might work tactics wise etc.

Least 'arry will have the media and most fans onside.

Indeed, if Harry Redknapp does get the job, I can even see him bringing BECKHAM back!!! :shock:

God preserve us from the media sh*t-storm if that happens! :roll:

 

[Green Rhino]

Fair point Bath Pilgrim (a few posts back) - he WAS a winner, the 2010 campaign was so awful though - you have to admit!?

 

[Greenrod]

Harry can easily handle the Euros, as long as they are clean and unmarked.

 

[Manchester Green]

2) Portugal have got two WC semis to their name and long periods of abject mediocrity other than that, plus they cheat.

And aside from one WC win on home soil and one WC semi, what have we ever done aside long periods of abject mediocrity?


We're no more of a major football nation than Portugal. We need to stop living in 1966, we have no right to be amongst the likes of Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Holland etc. We're just not a good nation, at least not good like you think we are.

Last 16 of the world cup is a good finish for us in my opinion.

Last 16 = good? So you think we're actually lucky to be in the top 16?

I'm negative about England, but that's just silly.

 

[GreenSam]

2) Portugal have got two WC semis to their name and long periods of abject mediocrity other than that, plus they cheat.

And aside from one WC win on home soil and one WC semi, what have we ever done aside long periods of abject mediocrity?


We're no more of a major football nation than Portugal. We need to stop living in 1966, we have no right to be amongst the likes of Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Holland etc. We're just not a good nation, at least not good like you think we are.

Last 16 of the world cup is a good finish for us in my opinion.

Last 16 = good? So you think we're actually lucky to be in the top 16?

I'm negative about England, but that's just silly.

Not lucky but standard. Expected. Lets look at the team for the World Cup.

James (not good enough for any more than top 16, in fact I'd say worse than top 16)

Johnson (see above)
Terry (past his best)
King/Carragher/Upson (Carragher past his best, the other two no better than top 16, Upson worse than)
Ashley Cole (fair enough, he's quality)

Milner (Probably no better than top 16 although he's a debatable one in the eyes of many)
Gerrard (fair enough, probably better than top 16)
Lampard(same as above)
Lennon (no better than top 16)

Rooney (fair enough, he is world class)
Heskey/Defoe/Crouch (none of them any better than top 16. Defoe is the only one who goes close, the others aren't even close at all)

Tell me that team honestly deserved to be amongst the top 8 teams in the world- I think last 16 was "par", I really do.

Let's not forget we had a lot of half fit players too-Terry being one, Ashley Cole coming back from injury being another.

Gerrard, Terry, Rooney and Cole were also at the centre of off the pitch exposures from the press- I know that sounds like excuse making but I think it's more along the lines of reality making. That stuff DOES make a difference. If their marriages are falling apart due to their private lives being all over the press, that will affect their frame of mind This also is not a variable applicable to all teams as NO country's media likes to wreck the team's chances as much as the english media- find me an example of where a country's media has, cause quite simply it happens nowhere else. Affairs and smut are our speciality.

Now this sounds like excuse making but it isnt cause I don't do it for every tournament but as it so happens, they are actual, real life reasons (missing regular players, some of the playing ones either unfit or distracted) that would put us at something of a handicap, I am sure you'd all agree.

Now with that team (only Rooney, A.Cole, and to an extent Lampard and Gerrard being above your average top 16 team) and the handicaps that I have previously mentioned, why should we really be expected to be last 4 or even to be charitable, last 8??

We DID have a lot of bad luck, and the likes of Carragher, Lennon, Heskey, James and Johnson are not anything even close to players who were suitable for the best 8 teams in the world. If anything I'd say they're not even top 16 level and they were all STARTERS for England. I think people expect us to be last 8/4 just cause of who we are, and blame anything less on the management. Why is this? For all the reasons I've just said, I think last 16 was a par/good performance for England at the 2010 world cup. I said it and I stand by it.

Forget who the manager is, we just simply ain't that good! This applies in my mind to Euro 2012 too, whether we have Harry or whoever in charge.

 

[Manchester Green]

2) Portugal have got two WC semis to their name and long periods of abject mediocrity other than that, plus they cheat.

And aside from one WC win on home soil and one WC semi, what have we ever done aside long periods of abject mediocrity?


We're no more of a major football nation than Portugal. We need to stop living in 1966, we have no right to be amongst the likes of Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Holland etc. We're just not a good nation, at least not good like you think we are.

Last 16 of the world cup is a good finish for us in my opinion.

Last 16 = good? So you think we're actually lucky to be in the top 16?

I'm negative about England, but that's just silly.

Not lucky but standard. Expected. Lets look at the team for the World Cup.

James (not good enough for any more than top 16, in fact I'd say worse than top 16)

Johnson (see above)
Terry (past his best)
King/Carragher/Upson (Carragher past his best, the other two no better than top 16, Upson worse than)
Ashley Cole (fair enough, he's quality)

Milner (Probably no better than top 16 although he's a debatable one in the eyes of many)
Gerrard (fair enough, probably better than top 16)
Lampard(same as above)
Lennon (no better than top 16)

Rooney (fair enough, he is world class)
Heskey/Defoe/Crouch (none of them any better than top 16. Defoe is the only one who goes close, the others aren't even close at all)

Tell me that team honestly deserved to be amongst the top 8 teams in the world- I think last 16 was "par", I really do.

Let's not forget we had a lot of half fit players too-Terry being one, Ashley Cole coming back from injury being another.

Gerrard, Terry, Rooney and Cole were also at the centre of off the pitch exposures from the press- I know that sounds like excuse making but I think it's more along the lines of reality making. That stuff DOES make a difference. If their marriages are falling apart due to their private lives being all over the press, that will affect their frame of mind This also is not a variable applicable to all teams as NO country's media likes to wreck the team's chances as much as the english media- find me an example of where a country's media has, cause quite simply it happens nowhere else. Affairs and smut are our speciality.

Now this sounds like excuse making but it isnt cause I don't do it for every tournament but as it so happens, they are actual, real life reasons (missing regular players, some of the playing ones either unfit or distracted) that would put us at something of a handicap, I am sure you'd all agree.

Now with that team (only Rooney, A.Cole, and to an extent Lampard and Gerrard being above your average top 16 team) and the handicaps that I have previously mentioned, why should we really be expected to be last 4 or even to be charitable, last 8??

We DID have a lot of bad luck, and the likes of Carragher, Lennon, Heskey, James and Johnson are not anything even close to players who were suitable for the best 8 teams in the world. If anything I'd say they're not even top 16 level and they were all STARTERS for England. I think people expect us to be last 8/4 just cause of who we are, and blame anything less on the management. Why is this? For all the reasons I've just said, I think last 16 was a par/good performance for England at the 2010 world cup. I said it and I stand by it.

Forget who the manager is, we just simply ain't that good! This applies in my mind to Euro 2012 too, whether we have Harry or whoever in charge.

At the risk of sounding flippant, name the 16 nations who you think are better than us if making it to the top 16 is a "good achievement."

People enjoy bashing England. We're certainly in the top ten nations in the World, and last disastrous world cup aside we comfortably made the last 8 of the previous two world cups with much of the same team and came very close to making the semis in each instance.

It's fashionable to trash-talk our national team at the moment. It might not be the best, but it's still up there.

 

[GreenSam]

2) Portugal have got two WC semis to their name and long periods of abject mediocrity other than that, plus they cheat.

And aside from one WC win on home soil and one WC semi, what have we ever done aside long periods of abject mediocrity?


We're no more of a major football nation than Portugal. We need to stop living in 1966, we have no right to be amongst the likes of Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Holland etc. We're just not a good nation, at least not good like you think we are.

Last 16 of the world cup is a good finish for us in my opinion.

Last 16 = good? So you think we're actually lucky to be in the top 16?

I'm negative about England, but that's just silly.

Not lucky but standard. Expected. Lets look at the team for the World Cup.

James (not good enough for any more than top 16, in fact I'd say worse than top 16)

Johnson (see above)
Terry (past his best)
King/Carragher/Upson (Carragher past his best, the other two no better than top 16, Upson worse than)
Ashley Cole (fair enough, he's quality)

Milner (Probably no better than top 16 although he's a debatable one in the eyes of many)
Gerrard (fair enough, probably better than top 16)
Lampard(same as above)
Lennon (no better than top 16)

Rooney (fair enough, he is world class)
Heskey/Defoe/Crouch (none of them any better than top 16. Defoe is the only one who goes close, the others aren't even close at all)

Tell me that team honestly deserved to be amongst the top 8 teams in the world- I think last 16 was "par", I really do.

Let's not forget we had a lot of half fit players too-Terry being one, Ashley Cole coming back from injury being another.

Gerrard, Terry, Rooney and Cole were also at the centre of off the pitch exposures from the press- I know that sounds like excuse making but I think it's more along the lines of reality making. That stuff DOES make a difference. If their marriages are falling apart due to their private lives being all over the press, that will affect their frame of mind This also is not a variable applicable to all teams as NO country's media likes to wreck the team's chances as much as the english media- find me an example of where a country's media has, cause quite simply it happens nowhere else. Affairs and smut are our speciality.

Now this sounds like excuse making but it isnt cause I don't do it for every tournament but as it so happens, they are actual, real life reasons (missing regular players, some of the playing ones either unfit or distracted) that would put us at something of a handicap, I am sure you'd all agree.

Now with that team (only Rooney, A.Cole, and to an extent Lampard and Gerrard being above your average top 16 team) and the handicaps that I have previously mentioned, why should we really be expected to be last 4 or even to be charitable, last 8??

We DID have a lot of bad luck, and the likes of Carragher, Lennon, Heskey, James and Johnson are not anything even close to players who were suitable for the best 8 teams in the world. If anything I'd say they're not even top 16 level and they were all STARTERS for England. I think people expect us to be last 8/4 just cause of who we are, and blame anything less on the management. Why is this? For all the reasons I've just said, I think last 16 was a par/good performance for England at the 2010 world cup. I said it and I stand by it.

Forget who the manager is, we just simply ain't that good! This applies in my mind to Euro 2012 too, whether we have Harry or whoever in charge.

At the risk of sounding flippant, name the 16 nations who you think are better than us if making it to the top 16 is a "good achievement."

People enjoy bashing England. We're certainly in the top ten nations in the World, and last disastrous world cup aside we comfortably made the last 8 of the previous two world cups with much of the same team and came very close to making the semis in each instance.

It's fashionable to trash-talk our national team at the moment. It might not be the best, but it's still up there.

I wouldn't say 16 neccesarily are better, but I think we fall into the 8th-16th bracket.

Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Germany, Uruguay, Portugal all fall into the categories of countries who "ought" to be doing better than us. So there's 9. I suspect there are more too if I could give it a good bit of research and try and remembr exactly who played who and with what players. Maybe I will when I have more time. But just cause the likes of James and Johnson are in the top 16 most heard of keepers and right-backs at that world cup imo doesn't mean they're the best. There are a lot of gems out there.

With the factors of a lot of luck going against us (which all happened, it's not just excuse making) I don't see how the last 16 can be described as below par, I honestly don't.

 

[Manchester Green]

2) Portugal have got two WC semis to their name and long periods of abject mediocrity other than that, plus they cheat.

And aside from one WC win on home soil and one WC semi, what have we ever done aside long periods of abject mediocrity?


We're no more of a major football nation than Portugal. We need to stop living in 1966, we have no right to be amongst the likes of Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Holland etc. We're just not a good nation, at least not good like you think we are.

Last 16 of the world cup is a good finish for us in my opinion.

Last 16 = good? So you think we're actually lucky to be in the top 16?

I'm negative about England, but that's just silly.

Not lucky but standard. Expected. Lets look at the team for the World Cup.

James (not good enough for any more than top 16, in fact I'd say worse than top 16)

Johnson (see above)
Terry (past his best)
King/Carragher/Upson (Carragher past his best, the other two no better than top 16, Upson worse than)
Ashley Cole (fair enough, he's quality)

Milner (Probably no better than top 16 although he's a debatable one in the eyes of many)
Gerrard (fair enough, probably better than top 16)
Lampard(same as above)
Lennon (no better than top 16)

Rooney (fair enough, he is world class)
Heskey/Defoe/Crouch (none of them any better than top 16. Defoe is the only one who goes close, the others aren't even close at all)

Tell me that team honestly deserved to be amongst the top 8 teams in the world- I think last 16 was "par", I really do.

Let's not forget we had a lot of half fit players too-Terry being one, Ashley Cole coming back from injury being another.

Gerrard, Terry, Rooney and Cole were also at the centre of off the pitch exposures from the press- I know that sounds like excuse making but I think it's more along the lines of reality making. That stuff DOES make a difference. If their marriages are falling apart due to their private lives being all over the press, that will affect their frame of mind This also is not a variable applicable to all teams as NO country's media likes to wreck the team's chances as much as the english media- find me an example of where a country's media has, cause quite simply it happens nowhere else. Affairs and smut are our speciality.

Now this sounds like excuse making but it isnt cause I don't do it for every tournament but as it so happens, they are actual, real life reasons (missing regular players, some of the playing ones either unfit or distracted) that would put us at something of a handicap, I am sure you'd all agree.

Now with that team (only Rooney, A.Cole, and to an extent Lampard and Gerrard being above your average top 16 team) and the handicaps that I have previously mentioned, why should we really be expected to be last 4 or even to be charitable, last 8??

We DID have a lot of bad luck, and the likes of Carragher, Lennon, Heskey, James and Johnson are not anything even close to players who were suitable for the best 8 teams in the world. If anything I'd say they're not even top 16 level and they were all STARTERS for England. I think people expect us to be last 8/4 just cause of who we are, and blame anything less on the management. Why is this? For all the reasons I've just said, I think last 16 was a par/good performance for England at the 2010 world cup. I said it and I stand by it.

Forget who the manager is, we just simply ain't that good! This applies in my mind to Euro 2012 too, whether we have Harry or whoever in charge.

At the risk of sounding flippant, name the 16 nations who you think are better than us if making it to the top 16 is a "good achievement."

People enjoy bashing England. We're certainly in the top ten nations in the World, and last disastrous world cup aside we comfortably made the last 8 of the previous two world cups with much of the same team and came very close to making the semis in each instance.

It's fashionable to trash-talk our national team at the moment. It might not be the best, but it's still up there.

I wouldn't say 16 neccesarily are better, but I think we fall into the 8th-16th bracket.

Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Germany, Uruguay, Portugal all fall into the categories of countries who "ought" to be doing better than us. So there's 9. I suspect there are more too if I could give it a good bit of research and try and remembr exactly who played who and with what players. Maybe I will when I have more time. But just cause the likes of James and Johnson are in the top 16 most heard of keepers and right-backs at that world cup imo doesn't mean they're the best. There are a lot of gems out there.

With the factors of a lot of luck going against us (which all happened, it's not just excuse making) I don't see how the last 16 can be described as below par, I honestly don't.

I'll agree that the last World Cup wasn't much below par. It all depends on who you draw in the second round. There was no massive shame in losing to Germany, although there was in the manner in which we did. Likewise, Germany in the 2002 World Cup had just about the easiest run to the final ever (and relied on some penalty shootouts). There is no way in the world that team could be described as in the world's "top 2" of the time, even though they were finalists. So yeah, it does depend on the luck of the draw.

Your post seems sensible enough to me, although you seem a little more negative about England than I (and I consider myself pretty negative!)

I'm sure we can both agree that for all the decent players, we don't seem to play together on the day, and I fear no managerial appointment will ever fix that.