Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Next England Boss

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Next England Boss

    GCostanza wrote: That's going to take a lot longer than a season.
    Sorry, I meant the Eric Dier phenomenon of this tournament. Scores a goal, has a couple of mistake-free performances. In the end, he stunk the place out for most of his tournament. England have a habit of going crazy when a player has a couple of decent performances. Rooney is still making a career out of Euro 2004.

    Comment


      Next England Boss

      steveeeeeeeee wrote: I don't get the "Wales are a shining example" rhetoric. England dominated and beat a pretty poor and negative Wales in Euro 2016. The Belgium game was a night to remember, the England game was clearly one to forget.
      That is fairly revisionist. England did not "dominate" Wales in the first half and, after using their greater strength in depth well at half-time, snatched a late winner while we were, it is true, hanging on for a draw which would most would probably agreed was a reasonably fair result. However, it was the one match where we played the wrong game and, ironically given what happened afterwards, let nerves and the occasion get the better of us, how we often do when we play England.

      not a model to follow, nor are Wales.
      No-one is saying it is. Wales' model is one of necessity of a small nation with lower expectations than England. I am not sure that it is a one-off, as Harry suggests, but it should see us with a fair chance of qualifying for the next campaign, possibly then one after. After that, who knows?

      What I will say is that, for this tournament, we genuinely lucked out a bit against Slovakia, did the sort of professional dismissal job on a pretty crap Russia that teams like England can but we often don't, broke down a Northern Ireland side that nullified us well, beat Belgium brilliantly and lost fair and square against England albeit in 10 minutes and without one of our more effective players of the tournament.

      England drew against a shit Russia, beat us, drew against a reasonably effective but limited Slovakia and got done to by Iceland what we did to Belgium. We matched what England have down twice in 50 years since 1966 by getting to the semis and losing. England went out in R16 and weren't even the best out of the teams that went out then.

      There are loads of things that you can say about Wales before and after the tournament but, during the tournament if not the match on 16 June, we were just better than England.

      Comment


        Next England Boss

        Duncan Gardner wrote:
        Originally posted by Defensive minded
        I agree about Wales. This was the first major tournament they qualified for for ages. They have been serious under-achievers, even worse than England
        If they are, England aren't the best comparison. Croatia or Denmark would be better, on population size and other factors.
        More Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia really.

        Comment


          Next England Boss

          Rogin the Armchair fan wrote: England haven't beaten Portugal in a competitive game in 50 years, now, a run that extends to our last six games.
          Defensive minded wrote: Statistics like this are useless. How many competive games have England played against Portugal in the last 50 years? Twenty? Thirty?
          Er, six. Rogin said that in his post.

          Comment


            Next England Boss

            steveeeeeeeee wrote: England seem to believe they must play incredibly attractive football by world class players who behave like valiant gentlemen on the pitch at all times.
            They might believe they have to do these things, but they never actually do them.

            steveeeeeeeee wrote: 6 semi-finals to 1.
            The question was actually framed as "since Euro 96", not "including Euro 96". So the real answer is Portugal 5-0 England.

            Comment


              Next England Boss

              Defensive minded wrote:
              Originally posted by Ray de Galles
              I'm not sure a country with 1/20th the population of England, where football has serious competition as the main sport and which has no real professional league of it's own can ever really match it for under-achievement.
              This constant reference to the size of the population of a country is tiresome.

              With the players at Wales's disposal in the past, they could have done better. And, please correct me if I'm wroung, but I can remember a lot of bickering on this board about the selection of the past Wales managers.
              I don't see the relevance of your last point at all, I'm afraid.

              We've certainly had some very good individuals in previous decades but never really an entire eleven, let alone a squad, of real quality that might have ensured qualification. We've frequently had to mix players from the lower half of the football league with an occasional superstar.

              When we have had a more consistently talented team we've done well, 1958, 1976 and 2016.

              I'm sorry if references to population are "tiresome" but they (and issues such as professional player pool and the national football structure) are very relevant.

              You really are in danger of living up to your screen name and coming across as very "I know you are but what am I?!" about the whole issue here, DM.

              .

              Comment


                Next England Boss

                Borracho wrote:
                Originally posted by steveeeeeeeee
                England seem to believe they must play incredibly attractive football by world class players who behave like valiant gentlemen on the pitch at all times.
                They might believe they have to do these things, but they never actually do them.

                steveeeeeeeee wrote: 6 semi-finals to 1.
                The question was actually framed as "since Euro 96", not "including Euro 96". So the real answer is Portugal 5-0 England.
                Last 20 years was the original parameter. It's all nonsense anyway, extend it by another 10 years and the stats even up more. What counts is recent history relevant to now. Portugal won the Euro through good fortune and understanding how they could progress. Wales did well by having a strong core group of players and superb collective spirit.

                However, England had poor collective spirit and no plan on how to win a game, let alone successive games. I see both issues as rectifiable, I'd give Allardyce a decent shout at being g able to do that. I doubt we'll win anything, but I'd hope to never see a performance like that against Iceland again in my lifetime.

                Comment


                  Next England Boss

                  I think Wales also did it by having a settled line-up & formation and style of play - all of which were designed to enhance the strength (and make up for the weaknesses) of the set of players we had.

                  That is certainly a significant contrast to England who made some absolutely mental choices in their initial squad and never settled in to a line-up, formation and style they were comfortable with.

                  .

                  Comment


                    Next England Boss

                    Yes, I'd agree with that. The Germany friendly was England's best performance under Hodgson and it came at a great time to build upon that team and formation. The loss of Welbeck was, in my opinion, a huge blow - he's as good as Pogba, if not better internationally. But his place and position in the team should have just been changed with another player. Instead, Roy made massive changes too close to the tournament.

                    I think Hodgson did some great work with England, he has brought a huge number of players into the reckoning, reducing the dependency on star players. Yet, he couldn't decide on an eleven. I'll state again, the England job is as easy as it's ever been, you've got good young players to pick and nobody really expects true success. Just choose a system and have 17-18 players you'll depend on and drill it into them.

                    Comment


                      Next England Boss

                      Very true, the old Walesathons on here used to be continually scarred by constant vicious civil wars over Toshack which rumbled on long after he was put out of our misery.

                      DM is saying there was bickering though (unless that's a typo), I just can't see what point he is making by it.

                      .

                      Comment


                        Next England Boss

                        How many competitive games have England played against Portugal in the last 50 years?

                        Comment


                          Next England Boss

                          They played them four other times, in the qualifiers for the 1962 World Cup and the 1976 European Championship.

                          (Yes, I know 1962 is more than 50 years ago)

                          Comment


                            Next England Boss

                            I can't see what that's got to do with this comment though :

                            And, please correct me if I'm wroung, but I can remember a lot of bickering on this board about the selection of the past Wales managers.
                            Besides, has anyone on here really suggested Wales as a "role model" for England? Their circumstances are wildly different.

                            Comment


                              Next England Boss

                              It's a good question.

                              I just read back five pages and steveeeeeeee rejects the "Wales as a shining example rhetoric", but I didn't see anyone actually proposing same, unless Bored meant something very different from how I read his post.

                              Comment


                                Next England Boss

                                I did wonder whether it was me he was referring to as I did compare Wales and England but, in both examples, specifically said that we had used our model for the last couple of campaigns and it may well only continue for the next couple of campaigns. My qualifier of "Even" was to show that, as well as teams such as Italy, Spain, Germany etc, even we had a set style of play, tactics, formation and set of players and have benefitted from it. If anything, Wales have, perhaps, looked at those bigger nations as role models.

                                Comment


                                  Next England Boss

                                  Quite.

                                  One can argue that it is a fascination with "role models" that is largely responsible for England's malaise.

                                  The FA is obsessed with fighting the last war, and adopting the "model" of the current Euro favourites. Thus the ham-handed attempts to imitate France, Spain, Germany and Belgium in search for "the secret" (no one ever thought Greece had one).

                                  Comment


                                    Next England Boss

                                    The Wales model constantly referred to is of a group playing together for years, who've known each other since school boy days, much like the Iceland model. Bored refers to it, Ray refers to it.

                                    On the other hand, England are disparate, without leadership and unsettled. Which is true, but it's a temporary problem, in my opinion, not the institutional issue that at times is implied by the press and on this messageboard.

                                    Comment


                                      Next England Boss

                                      I thought Hodgson's coaching was the weak link this time.

                                      Bobby Robson was at least sensible enough to stick with a winning formation even if it was forced on him by suspension or injury. Despite himself, Hodgson found a formula then promptly binned it along with half a dozen players.

                                      England's long-term problems of a disjointed junior set-up and issues around technical skills not withstanding, they had a decent enough set of players this time, but no clear plan on how to use them.

                                      Comment


                                        Next England Boss

                                        steveeeeeeeee wrote: The Wales model constantly referred to is of a group playing together for years, who've known each other since school boy days, much like the Iceland model. Bored refers to it, Ray refers to it.
                                        That definitely is, by necessity, the Wales model and, to a greater extent as far as playing since schoolboys is concerned, the Iceland model but no-one is suggesting that it is a shining example for England (although there is definitely an element that it can be a model for smaller countries and has been before Iceland and Wales' appearance). I mean there are parts that England could benefit from but I think that these elements are stemming from the larger countries such as Spain, Germany and France as much as anywhere else.

                                        As UE suggests and as I mentioned, the issue with England this time was that England had no idea how, where and who to play which is why they were dumped out so early. The relation to Iceland and Wales here is that both these teams knew how, where and who to play and have been like this for a couple of years now. The proof of this was that, without that same settled team, Wales were beaten by Portugal.

                                        Again as UE points and I have been saying for years, England's issue with progressing further than the quarter finals has been because they haven't had any long-term plan or style of play. This is because club academies take precedence over any junior national set-up which means that younger footballers are drilled in the style of their clubs and, often, the style of the academy or team manager during that particular time. This carries onto to the senior teams so that, whenever the England team gets together, they are having to deconstruct all that and be drilled into the England way of playing (which, in itself, can be the whim of the current manager).

                                        As UE points out, where England have been successful is where they stick to a team, formation and style. When there was a "British" style of play where anyone who played for an English club - who were mostly British-populated anyway, the England team did a touch better as the club teams played a style not dissimilar to England's when they did get together. However, they didn't do brilliantly with this as the British style of play was easily undone by superior technique.

                                        Basically, you can't have a Premier League that contains pretty much all English players but also attracts players, managers, coaching style and tactical formations from all around the world and have a trophy-winning England team unless the FA takes more control which, of course, it won't (or can't) because the Premier League clubs are all-powerful.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X