McClaren OUT!!!

[Brovion]

Come on! He deserves credit for the novel way he tackled England's perennial left flank problem - he simply ignored it. He played a right-footed defender at left back and stuck Frank Lampard in front of him. Voila! No left flank to worry about.

Never mind bring back Sven, bring back Keegan.


Actually I wasn't too surprised at the result. Without the misunderstood and occasionally frustrating Ericsson we've reverting back to our usual position of being international also-rans instead of tournament quarter-finalists.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Actually I wasn't too surprised at the result. Without the misunderstood and occasionally frustrating Ericsson we've reverting back to our usual position of being international also-rans instead of tournament quarter-finalists.

If you don't mind me saying Brovian, you do seem to like making the above comment whenever England becomes a main topic of conversation.

I've got to be honest, I'm not sure why you think this. What do you term an 'also-ran'? For me it'd be a team that is happy to qualify for the major tournaments and is only there to make up the numbers with little chance of actually progressing.

England have taken part in the 15 post war world cups. They've qualified for the finals 12 times. That's an 80% success rate and one which suggests that England can, infact should, expect to qualify for the finals. How many teams coming from Europe can say the same? Half a dozen? Then we have our actual tournament performances. Whilst England doesn't have the pedigree of say Italy, Germany or Brazil they have given a fair account of themselves. On 8 of their 12 appearances in the finals England have progressed to at least the last 8. Of the world cups that I can remember (86 onwards) England have made the quaterfinals or better in 4 of the 5 tournaments they've qualified for. Then, just for some historical glory you can add in the fact that we are one of only seven teams to have actually won the tournament. So, whilst we might not have any right to claim that we should be winning every tournament I think it's fair to say that we're a little more than 'also rans'.

As such I don't think it's fair to defend Erikson by saying that he performed well. Historically he's performed to expectations but it's arguable that he's had as good a squad if not better that any in the past, what 30, 40 years? He's had some fine players at his disposal, players who are certainly highly hyped but who have also won international awards to at least partly back up their claims. Eriksson's failing was that he wasn't able to get the best out of them. He did adequately but no more. He failed to make the crucial decisions at the crucial moments. He stuck rigidly to the same formation and the same players even when things weren't working. He chose the best players but not the best team and that, for me, is his main failing. That he did better than Keegan shouldn't be used as a measure of success. Keegan admitted that he wasn't up to international management. Eriksson was, but not to a great standard, just to an average standard. Eriksson didn't perform heroics with a squad of mediocre players, he had a good squad of players and performed mediocrely with them.

If you want an example of good management, look to the german teams of the last two world cups. In both tournaments they didn't have particularly great individual players yet in 2002 they got to the final and in 2006 Klinnsman took a team that was unrated by most to the semi's and were arguably the most exciting and attractive team to watch in the tournament. THAt is good management, not failing to get the best out of your team a la Eriksson and it increasingly appears, McClaren.

 

[Brovion]

If you don't mind me saying Brovian, you do seem to like making the above comment whenever England becomes a main topic of conversation.

Yes, fair comment. I'm a bit like Easy10 in reverse. There's a number of reasons why I make the same point and I can appreciate that it does get boring - especially if you don't agree with it. But there is something about the way the national side is run and people's expectations of it that really irritates me.

However I DON'T make posts like the one above just for effect or to draw a response, I do genuinely believe what I say an for a number of reasons.

Firstly my age. I grew up in the 70s when the England team were REALLY dire. We failed to qualify for the 74 World Cup, the 76 Euros and the 78 World Cup. Consequently I've never taken qualification for any tournament as granted. Good heavens, we weren't even the best team in Britain in that era let alone Europe and let alone the world. However that never stopped the press from going on about how England had 'great' players and how we 'should' be the best and how it was just bad management that prevented us from winning anything. Yes, there is some truth in that but that narrow jingoistic attitiude really grates and ignores the truth that other countries have good players too. And STILL it's trotted out year after year after year! We were going to 'walk' the Euros in 1980 and again in 1988. Check the record books to see what happened. Historically we are poor and there's no getting away from it. I think it's people's inability to accept that that really drives me nuts.

Secondly Sven. Sorry, but by the standards of England managers he was one of the best. Yes he lost the plot in Germany and the second half of his reign was worse than the first, but when compared to the likes of Keegan, Taylor and Wilkinson he was a footballing mastermind. Take his first match against Spain. As usual England didn't have a left back so he called up Powell of Charlton who made the position his own until he was replaced by Cole. Nobody had heard of Powell up until that time but Sven did his homework and played the best available player. Keegan wouldn't have dreamed of doing that and neither will McClaren by the looks of it.

 

[Cian]

we need an english manager that has passion ie stuart pearce, bobby robson that sort! surely the fa must of realised that mclaren was to blame as much as sven!!

Robson is too old and sick, and he's crap at this stage anyway. And contracted to us, although hopefully not for much longer.

 

[blockhseagull]

Until McClaren starts to pick the best team rather than picking who he thinks are the best 11 players we will always perform like last night.

And to be fair we will probably still qualify for the Euros as someone is likely to have a good game in the remaining qualifiers and drag us through.

But that will mask the real problem, will anyone have the bottle to start dropping players who don't deserve a place. Gerrard and Lampard prove time and time again they can't play together and even if you play one out of position they still seem to both play shit. Lampard actually started to play slighty better last night when Gerrard went off. As which one to pick...well glad that isn't my job !!

It is clear McClaren hasn't got the bottle to make big decisions, sure he dropped Beckham but that wasn't a hard choice, a player 30+ who has just given up the captaincy.... made McClaren look like a strong character when really he used Becks as Sven's fall guy.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Firstly my age. I grew up in the 70s when the England team were REALLY dire. We failed to qualify for the 74 World Cup, the 76 Euros and the 78 World Cup. Consequently I've never taken qualification for any tournament as granted. Good heavens, we weren't even the best team in Britain in that era let alone Europe and let alone the world.

You do have to take into account it was actually harder to qualify for World Cups then - and certainly harder to qualify for Euro championships. These days we should expect to qualify. The tournaments are set up to make sure the big TV-revenue countries are there.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Firstly my age. I grew up in the 70s when the England team were REALLY dire. We failed to qualify for the 74 World Cup, the 76 Euros and the 78 World Cup. Consequently I've never taken qualification for any tournament as granted.

Secondly Sven. Sorry, but by the standards of England managers he was one of the best.

I guess the era when you grow up does have an effect. Like I said I can only really remember from 86 onwards and baring 94 we've had a pretty decent record. Not fantastic but better than most. This coupled with a win and three other quater final appearances before my time leads me to think that the very least we should expect is an appearance in the finals(of course I'm blissfully oblivious to the horrors of the national team in the 70's...). After that, with a decent team, a decent draw and a little luck then I think we have as good a chance as any at winning. As for press hype I wasn't around in the 70's and I wasn't in England for the last world cup so it's all passed me by.

I'm not saying that Sven is a particularly bad manager, just that he isn't a particularly good one either. Keegan was awful as was Taylor, no doubt about it. I'd put Sven in with Hoddle in the middle of the pack(of managers in my lfetime). Robson and Venables at the top. Sven performed to a historical average but I think he had a very good chance of doing better. The potential to win the last world cup was there...

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

If England lose a friendly match it doesnt really matter IF they try out new players.

What was the point of bringing Barton on with 12 mins to go?

Why not give Dawson a go instead of bringing on Carrigher who we now can do a job

Why Not start Bent?

Why start Richards and Barry?

 

[Springal]

Bent's shit

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Bent's shit

You can tell that from 1 cap?

 

[Uncle Buck]

You can tell that from 1 cap?

I think he has 2 now.

Am with Springal on this one, he is not good enough.

No movement across the line.

We miss Owen and Motson pointed that out last night and I really would look at Walcott as neither Bent or Defoe are up to it.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I think he has 2 now.

Am with Springal on this one, he is not good enough.

No movement across the line.

We miss Owen and Motson pointed that out last night and I really would look at Walcott as neither Bent or Defoe are up to it.

Goes back to what we were talking about the other day, few injurys and we a in the poo

 

[Uncle Buck]

Goes back to what we were talking about the other day, few injurys and we a in the poo

We are short of quality up front.

Crouch is plan B when we are losing as he offers the option to get the ball up the pitch quickly, but the problem is we are playing him from the start.

Bent and Defoe do not inspire confidence. Johnson probably is not of international quality, but as he is never fit it is difficult to say yes or no.

I really think they need to look at playing Walcott and Rooney as the front pairing until Owen is fit.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

We are short of quality up front.

Crouch is plan B when we are losing as he offers the option to get the ball up the pitch quickly, but the problem is we are playing him from the start.

Bent and Defoe do not inspire confidence. Johnson probably is not of international quality, but as he is never fit it is difficult to say yes or no.

I really think they need to look at playing Walcott and Rooney as the front pairing until Owen is fit.

The problem with Crouch is that we just hump the ball to him, as we saw yesterday.

 

[Uncle Buck]

The problem with Crouch is that we just hump the ball to him, as we saw yesterday.

Which is sort of effective to use as a subsitute as he can hold the ball.

Yesterday we did not seem to have a midfield as Lampard looked lost, Gerrard was either lost or knackered and Carrick is not a holding midfielder. Lucky that Ferdinand and Woodgate are decent on the ball as they 'long passes' did tend to find Crouch.

Kind of ironic that the midfielder we really seem to miss is one Owen Hargreaves...

 

[CHAPPERS]

Agree about Walcott. If he's good enough, he's old enough.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Agree about Walcott. If he's good enough, he's old enough.

Is he could enough tho?

Guess thats what last nights game was ment to be about.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Is he could enough tho?

Guess thats what last nights game was ment to be about.

I think he is good enough.

A lot of pace and a decent touch. His movement needs working on, but as Hanson said last night, defenders at any level hate players that have the pace to get beyond them and we had nobody far enough up the pitch to do that.

SWP and Dyer were playing as midfielders rather than supporting Crouch and neither is good enough anyway.

 

[keaton]

I've seen nothing to convince me Walcott's good enough to be included in the full squad at the moment

 

[Uncle Buck]

I've seen nothing to convince me Walcott's good enough to be included in the full squad at the moment

I guess it does not help that he is not a regular at Arsenal, but I would say he is a better bet than either Defoe or Bent.