[cite]Posted By: Medders[/cite]Bobby Robson had a fairly decent record didn't he?
Not really. Not if you had to suffer the stumbling qualifacation for Mexico '86 and the pathetic performances at the European Championships in '84 and '88.
Sure we got to the semi in Italia '90 but that was down to Peter Shilton against Cameroon, a last minute winner from Platt against Portugal and the players insisting they played the Sweeper system. Remember the group games against Holland and Ireland? Woeful.
I think people remember Robson's time through rose tinted glasses. Lovely fella, football through and through. Solid club pedigree but not happy memories with me as England manager.
Glenn Hoddle was decent enough. Got us through the group with Italy, and if we'd got past Argentina i think his side would've gone onto at least the semis in france 98
SGE wasn't a bad manager for the first couple of years - remember he picked up after the Keggy Keegle disaster - a clueless looking England losing to Germany at home, he righted the ship, got us to the WC finals and then the quarters, being KO'd by Brazil the eventual winners is no disgrace, but there he started to show the signs of what became his weakness. That he couldn't change formation and tactics and take advantage of Brazil going down to ten men, whereas Brazil did and it ended up looking as though we were a man down. Again he picked England up for the next European Qualifiers but he had no idea against the better teams and then things disintegrated in last year's WC.
I'm not sure that you have to be a brilliant manager at international level, just an astute tactician, be able to think on your feet a little bit and get the players motivated, it's not like the week in, week out graft of club management. A manager who can't get a bunch of players to play for their national team - essentially a busman's holiday for the best players in the land is on shaky ground. These guys are making millions, play for the best club sides and owe all their wealth to football. If they can't be arsed to "play" for the national team, and if the manager cannot motivate them then get a squad together from the lower teams in the Premiership and CCC or find a manager who manage egos.
I always felt with Sven that he had our best group of players for years and did nothing with them. I felt that at times we won games in spite of him, not because of him. Although to be fair at the WC he was hit by injuries to rooney and owen. But he picked Walcott!!
Where Sven was largely to blame, he was the first England Manager that properly let the players run the show, not the manager. They all liked him because he took a back seat and let the senior players in the group do what they wanted, when they wanted. As a result, controls, and a bit of real desire, went out the window.
I don't like MacClaren but don't think he is a bad manager. I just think it will be a long-haul job to turn 'playing for england' back around to becoming an honour again.
Having said that any team without the likes of Ashley Cole, Terry (although I thought Woodgate did well), Joe Cole, Lennon, Rooney, Owen, Hargreaves etc would struggle.
Sven. £4 million per annum of total shite. I was impressed at the beginning but the whole Walcott fiasco showed him to have poor judgement and left us with a squad of too many midfielders who weren't going to play plus a toddler who couldn't play in the big boys game and strikers unable to play.
Venables for me should have been given longer so I reserve judgement
Keagan lacked tactical nous
Robson was ok but never knew his best team until the players pointed it out to him
I think McLaren might be a decent manager if he's given a chance to turn it round without being harangued by the Meedja. Not much chance of that, I know, but given time and a bit of luck he could turn a bunch of decent players into a very good team. He has to drop either Lumpalard or Gerrard though - I don't care what he, they or anyone else thinks, they CANNOT play in the same team.
I've always thought that Steve Gibson is a great chairman, and this story at the BBC only furthers my admiration for him. He talks a lot of sense about McLaren not receiving assistance from the top teams in England, and especially bemoans the lack of English players at top clubs.
Also, he sticks the boot firmly into Mills and Maccarone - his comment about Mills' agent is proper funny, and bang on
Simon Barnes in the Times this morning was good about it
How a single defeat turned England into serial losers
The team’s history of underachievement can be traced back to a broiling afternoon in 1970, when they were struck by a meteor in MexicoSimon Barnes
There is an interesting point arising from England’s football match against Spain, something that will come as a surprise to those who watched it.
The occasion was seen as “the battle of the underachievers” and, on Wednesday night’s evidence, it is apparent that if Spain have achieved even less than England in the past half-century, England have a good chance of achieving even less over the next one.
The countries have a good deal in common — a vast lost empire, impossible maritime might, a surrendered position of being the world’s top nation, a self-understanding as a country in decline, a consciousness of former greatness and a consciousness of being less, much less, than they once were.
Is that what England’s 50 years of underachievement is about, then? Imperial hangover? One thing is certain and that is that England’s lack of self-esteem at the sharp end of international football has been a fact of life for a long, long time.
What, I hear you ask? Is 1966 a blip, then? It goes against national mythology to say this, but in a sense it was.
Everything came right for that tournament: three all-time great players (Banks, Moore, Charlton R), a goalscorer hitting form at the right moment (Hurst), no weakness in any position, a cussedly brilliant manager, the most dangerous opponents losing the plot (Argentina), home advantage.
In years before, England had been unassailable, so great that they didn’t bother to enter the World Cup until 1950. Defeat in that tournament by the United States didn’t really dent the notion of England as the just and inevitable top dogs of world football — it was all too far away, in Brazil.
But everything changed in November 1953, when England were beaten 6-3 by Hungary at Wembley. It was at this point that it began to dawn on people in English football that the way forward was the future rather than the past. And England went forward: beaten quarter-finalists (does that sound familiar?) at the World Cups of 1954 and 1962 and falling a round short of that in 1958. But in 1966, England were again world-beaters.
In the World Cup finals of 1970, England played a titanic match against Brazil — Banks’s save and all that — and if Brazil won 1-0, it was a match played as men against men: well played and see you in the final. But a few days later, León.
This was as traumatic a defeat for the football team as the Test-match loss in Adelaide was to the England cricket team a couple of months back. It was not just losing, it was losing from a point at which defeat was impossible.
England were 2-0 up against West Germany with 22 minutes left and somehow they lost 3-2. Neither the tears nor the conspiracy theories have ever really stopped.
But the real point is that England have never looked like a leading power in world football since. Four years before, England had seen themselves as one of football’s leading players — the natural top team in Europe, just as Brazil were the top team in the rest of the world; a rivalry that would go on and on, the planet’s own derby. It was not to be. Ever since León, England settled into the role of underachievers, rivalled only by Spain.
So how has the nation dealt with this difficult and uncomfortable truth? Easy — by finding someone to blame. Usually the manager. Every four years there is an orgy of blame, as the panel below makes plain.
But is it possible — is it just remotely possible — that we are blaming the sneezes for the cold? Is it possible that this serial underachievement has a much deeper cause? The dinosaurs became extinct because the Earth was in a state of cataclysm. The cause of the cataclysm was a meteor strike. Therefore, this meteor was not the proximate but the ultimate cause of dinosaur extinction.
What the chart lists is, at best, the proximate causes of England’s failure in nine successive tournaments. But what was the ultimate cause of England’s entire post1966 history of underachievement? Were England struck by a meteor in León?
There is no escaping the fact that England have underachieved since that day and the idea that it was rotten luck every time, plus the culpable behaviour of one or two individuals, doesn’t stack up. We must open things up a bit.
The first step is to look reality in the face and say yes, there is compelling evidence that England have not just a history but a culture of underachievement.
Let us look at the three most recent tournaments. Under Sven-Göran Eriksson, England had their best record in qualifying tournaments. But qualification led to three successive quarter-final defeats, occasions when they clearly lost their nerve. In Japan in the 2002 World Cup, England took the lead against Brazil but then created next to nothing and, having gone 2-1 down, could not recover, even against ten men.
Then, in the 2004 European Championship finals, England were playing Portugal in the quarter-finals and took a 1-0 lead, but again they failed to maintain their advantage. Wayne Rooney broke a metatarsal and then, yes, England lost their nerve in a penalty shoot-out.
And last year at the World Cup finals in Germany, England never found their nerve in the first place. Once Rooney’s metatarsal went — again — before the tournament, their self-belief trickled away like an ice-cream in the sun.
So now we have Steve McClaren.
England have failed to win in four matches and that must be his fault. England go to Israel next month for a qualifying match with the team’s self-belief in its usual tatters. And if you watch other sports, this is shocking.
I have seen the England rugby union team swagger on to a pitch as if the opposition might as well give up and I have seen the England cricket team take the field knowing that they had the beating of any team in the world.
But in football — a much bigger world, it has to be said — England have never shaken off the postLeón feeling that they aren’t really supposed to win the big, big matches. Every time, when the moment is there to be seized, the penalty flies over the bar or the free kick flies under it and, once again, a very good England team, full of very good players, fall short of the achievements that their talents entitled them to.
There is a malaise in the culture of the England football team. One team after another, one superstar after another, feel that the topmost branches are always just beyond their reach. Nerve fails and no coach, no great player, has been able to redress this truth. And this has been a fact of English footballing life since León.
Blame who you like as the proximate cause of each and every defeat, but the ultimate cause lies too deep for anyone to reach, still less address and put right. Hands up everyone who thinks McClaren is the man to succeed where so many others have failed over so many years.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Chris_from_Sidcup[/cite]I always felt with Sven that he had our best group of players for years and did nothing with them. I felt that at times we won games in spite of him, not because of him. Although to be fair at the WC he was hit by injuries to rooney and owen. But he picked Walcott!![/quote]
I agree with every word of that. We should have done a lot lot better. We had the talent but no manager worth a damn.
Last decent Manager? No contest. It was Terry Venables. He had everything, tactical awareness, charisma, motivational skills, his hand in the F.A.s pocket- yes he had everything. The F.A bottled it and kicked him out.
Comments
the thing with mcclaren? who else was there - without going "foreign",
shouldn't u be in bed?
But we played some great football- remember the match against the Dutch.
Sure we got to the semi in Italia '90 but that was down to Peter Shilton against Cameroon, a last minute winner from Platt against Portugal and the players insisting they played the Sweeper system. Remember the group games against Holland and Ireland? Woeful.
I think people remember Robson's time through rose tinted glasses. Lovely fella, football through and through. Solid club pedigree but not happy memories with me as England manager.
I'm not sure that you have to be a brilliant manager at international level, just an astute tactician, be able to think on your feet a little bit and get the players motivated, it's not like the week in, week out graft of club management. A manager who can't get a bunch of players to play for their national team - essentially a busman's holiday for the best players in the land is on shaky ground. These guys are making millions, play for the best club sides and owe all their wealth to football. If they can't be arsed to "play" for the national team, and if the manager cannot motivate them then get a squad together from the lower teams in the Premiership and CCC or find a manager who manage egos.
I don't like MacClaren but don't think he is a bad manager. I just think it will be a long-haul job to turn 'playing for england' back around to becoming an honour again.
Having said that any team without the likes of Ashley Cole, Terry (although I thought Woodgate did well), Joe Cole, Lennon, Rooney, Owen, Hargreaves etc would struggle.
This was not our 1st team
Venables for me should have been given longer so I reserve judgement
Keagan lacked tactical nous
Robson was ok but never knew his best team until the players pointed it out to him
Taylor was unbelievably bad
Hoddle had no man-management skills
Ron Greenwood never really achieved much
Revie was a con man
Therefore you have to go back to Sir Alf
I've always thought that Steve Gibson is a great chairman, and this story at the BBC only furthers my admiration for him. He talks a lot of sense about McLaren not receiving assistance from the top teams in England, and especially bemoans the lack of English players at top clubs.
Also, he sticks the boot firmly into Mills and Maccarone - his comment about Mills' agent is proper funny, and bang on
How a single defeat turned England into serial losers
The team’s history of underachievement can be traced back to a broiling afternoon in 1970, when they were struck by a meteor in MexicoSimon Barnes
There is an interesting point arising from England’s football match against Spain, something that will come as a surprise to those who watched it.
The occasion was seen as “the battle of the underachievers” and, on Wednesday night’s evidence, it is apparent that if Spain have achieved even less than England in the past half-century, England have a good chance of achieving even less over the next one.
The countries have a good deal in common — a vast lost empire, impossible maritime might, a surrendered position of being the world’s top nation, a self-understanding as a country in decline, a consciousness of former greatness and a consciousness of being less, much less, than they once were.
Is that what England’s 50 years of underachievement is about, then? Imperial hangover? One thing is certain and that is that England’s lack of self-esteem at the sharp end of international football has been a fact of life for a long, long time.
What, I hear you ask? Is 1966 a blip, then? It goes against national mythology to say this, but in a sense it was.
Everything came right for that tournament: three all-time great players (Banks, Moore, Charlton R), a goalscorer hitting form at the right moment (Hurst), no weakness in any position, a cussedly brilliant manager, the most dangerous opponents losing the plot (Argentina), home advantage.
In years before, England had been unassailable, so great that they didn’t bother to enter the World Cup until 1950. Defeat in that tournament by the United States didn’t really dent the notion of England as the just and inevitable top dogs of world football — it was all too far away, in Brazil.
But everything changed in November 1953, when England were beaten 6-3 by Hungary at Wembley. It was at this point that it began to dawn on people in English football that the way forward was the future rather than the past. And England went forward: beaten quarter-finalists (does that sound familiar?) at the World Cups of 1954 and 1962 and falling a round short of that in 1958. But in 1966, England were again world-beaters.
In the World Cup finals of 1970, England played a titanic match against Brazil — Banks’s save and all that — and if Brazil won 1-0, it was a match played as men against men: well played and see you in the final. But a few days later, León.
This was as traumatic a defeat for the football team as the Test-match loss in Adelaide was to the England cricket team a couple of months back. It was not just losing, it was losing from a point at which defeat was impossible.
England were 2-0 up against West Germany with 22 minutes left and somehow they lost 3-2. Neither the tears nor the conspiracy theories have ever really stopped.
But the real point is that England have never looked like a leading power in world football since. Four years before, England had seen themselves as one of football’s leading players — the natural top team in Europe, just as Brazil were the top team in the rest of the world; a rivalry that would go on and on, the planet’s own derby. It was not to be. Ever since León, England settled into the role of underachievers, rivalled only by Spain.
So how has the nation dealt with this difficult and uncomfortable truth? Easy — by finding someone to blame. Usually the manager. Every four years there is an orgy of blame, as the panel below makes plain.
But is it possible — is it just remotely possible — that we are blaming the sneezes for the cold? Is it possible that this serial underachievement has a much deeper cause? The dinosaurs became extinct because the Earth was in a state of cataclysm. The cause of the cataclysm was a meteor strike. Therefore, this meteor was not the proximate but the ultimate cause of dinosaur extinction.
What the chart lists is, at best, the proximate causes of England’s failure in nine successive tournaments. But what was the ultimate cause of England’s entire post1966 history of underachievement? Were England struck by a meteor in León?
There is no escaping the fact that England have underachieved since that day and the idea that it was rotten luck every time, plus the culpable behaviour of one or two individuals, doesn’t stack up. We must open things up a bit.
The first step is to look reality in the face and say yes, there is compelling evidence that England have not just a history but a culture of underachievement.
Let us look at the three most recent tournaments. Under Sven-Göran Eriksson, England had their best record in qualifying tournaments. But qualification led to three successive quarter-final defeats, occasions when they clearly lost their nerve. In Japan in the 2002 World Cup, England took the lead against Brazil but then created next to nothing and, having gone 2-1 down, could not recover, even against ten men.
Then, in the 2004 European Championship finals, England were playing Portugal in the quarter-finals and took a 1-0 lead, but again they failed to maintain their advantage. Wayne Rooney broke a metatarsal and then, yes, England lost their nerve in a penalty shoot-out.
And last year at the World Cup finals in Germany, England never found their nerve in the first place. Once Rooney’s metatarsal went — again — before the tournament, their self-belief trickled away like an ice-cream in the sun.
So now we have Steve McClaren.
England have failed to win in four matches and that must be his fault. England go to Israel next month for a qualifying match with the team’s self-belief in its usual tatters. And if you watch other sports, this is shocking.
I have seen the England rugby union team swagger on to a pitch as if the opposition might as well give up and I have seen the England cricket team take the field knowing that they had the beating of any team in the world.
But in football — a much bigger world, it has to be said — England have never shaken off the postLeón feeling that they aren’t really supposed to win the big, big matches. Every time, when the moment is there to be seized, the penalty flies over the bar or the free kick flies under it and, once again, a very good England team, full of very good players, fall short of the achievements that their talents entitled them to.
There is a malaise in the culture of the England football team. One team after another, one superstar after another, feel that the topmost branches are always just beyond their reach. Nerve fails and no coach, no great player, has been able to redress this truth. And this has been a fact of English footballing life since León.
Blame who you like as the proximate cause of each and every defeat, but the ultimate cause lies too deep for anyone to reach, still less address and put right. Hands up everyone who thinks McClaren is the man to succeed where so many others have failed over so many years.
I agree with every word of that. We should have done a lot lot better. We had the talent but no manager worth a damn.
Last decent Manager? No contest. It was Terry Venables. He had everything, tactical awareness, charisma, motivational skills, his hand in the F.A.s pocket- yes he had everything. The F.A bottled it and kicked him out.