SGE, without rooneys red card england would be now Wc winner

I think thats the problem with England resources rather than sven... there were a good starting XI, but not the same class in back ups... if Owen and Rooney got injured (as they did, Sven had bad luck with the injuries too, whic he could ill afford), who would come in?? Crouch? ok, perhaps... Bent?? Seriously??

For example, look at Italy.... if Toni and Gila get injured, they have Iaquinta, Del Piero, Inzaghi, Cassano, Di Michelle, and so many others who are almost at the same level.

And you forget the positive aspects... one of the biggest selection criticisms leveled at Sven pre world cup by Shearer, media & Co (and if I remember correctly, most english posters out here) was his selection of Owen Hargreaves and his persistance on playing him... so what happened?? I thought Hargreaves was England's best player in this world cup!

There are many such positives in the last 5 years which people have a selective amnesia about....

3 straight qauterfinals is par for England like someone just said, and this did not happen by fluke... it happened coz Sven instilled something that English national team has almost always lacked - tactical shrewdness.

Boring it may have been (probably coz in this world cup his team did not preform like Sven hoped - it wasn't always boring, anyone remember Englands win over Germany??), but would you rather have a first round exit after playing "exciting" football??

110% wrote:I think Eriksson started well and got England qualified.

He had a decent first game plan, but it basically it involved scoring first then defending for the remaining time, which made England look boring but effective. He had no plan to change things if England were losing, and he developed some favouritism of certain players, which was a problem when they were off-form.

He should at least have played better football with the players at his disposal.

@ Otto

You always knew that Eriksson could take England far in all major tournaments. He had the best qualification record and was consistant in getting to the later stages of each tournament. Unfortuantely we went out on penalties twice, in matches we really could've won (imagine if the referee hadn't found an excuse to disallow Campbell's goal in Euro '04, just like World Cup '98 ).

Although Eriksson was consistant, he never took England into the final stages. What we needed was a bit of that German luck. Poor/Average for 4 years, then come good at the World Cup, as proven since 2000. A team who, on form should barely make top 10, but then put in a top 5 performance in the World Cup.

S4P wrote:@ Otto

You always knew that Eriksson could take England far in all major tournaments. He had the best qualification record and was consistant in getting to the later stages of each tournament. Unfortuantely we went out on penalties twice, in matches we really could've won (imagine if the referee hadn't found an excuse to disallow Campbell's goal in Euro '04, just like World Cup '98 ).

Although Eriksson was consistant, he never took England into the final stages. What we needed was a bit of that German luck. Poor/Average for 4 years, then come good at the World Cup, as proven since 2000. A team who, on form should barely make top 10, but then put in a top 5 performance in the World Cup.

@ S4P

nice WU-attempt

it's true that English people are ungrateful

SGE made qualifying look easy; flashback to the Keegan/Taylor... eras and we realise, it wasn't always thus

Sven deserves enormous credit for that

yet ultimatively, England have neither the quality players nor the team to go beyond the quarters; that's undeniable

Campbell's 2002 goal was rightly disallowed

but you look at the 2006 team and a you see "ein Haufen Elend", a pitiful bunch of Sunday League-quality players

T&T and Ecuador had you cornered, their top players earn their living in Wrexham

England today are not even in the top 20

still, neither were Greece

the difference is that those philosophers were willing to LEARN

Cashley, Lampard, Owen, Becks and friends are not; after all they already are they best in the world

England are fu@$ed

a mule will never become a an Arabian full-blood, no matter how conceited

add England's inability to convert a penalty and suddenly SGE looks like a genius to have steered them lot into three quarters

bluenine wrote:I think thats the problem with England resources rather than sven... there were a good starting XI, but not the same class in back ups... if Owen and Rooney got injured (as they did, Sven had bad luck with the injuries too, whic he could ill afford), who would come in?? Crouch? ok, perhaps... Bent?? Seriously??

For example, look at Italy.... if Toni and Gila get injured, they have Iaquinta, Del Piero, Inzaghi, Cassano, Di Michelle, and so many others who are almost at the same level.
And you forget the positive aspects... one of the biggest selection criticisms leveled at Sven pre world cup by Shearer, media & Co (and if I remember correctly, most english posters out here) was his selection of Owen Hargreaves and his persistance on playing him... so what happened?? I thought Hargreaves was England's best player in this world cup!

There are many such positives in the last 5 years which people have a selective amnesia about....

3 straight qauterfinals is par for England like someone just said, and this did not happen by fluke... it happened coz Sven instilled something that English national team has almost always lacked - tactical shrewdness.

Boring it may have been (probably coz in this world cup his team did not preform like Sven hoped - it wasn't always boring, anyone remember Englands win over Germany??), but would you rather have a first round exit after playing "exciting" football??

110% wrote:I think Eriksson started well and got England qualified.

He had a decent first game plan, but it basically it involved scoring first then defending for the remaining time, which made England look boring but effective. He had no plan to change things if England were losing, and he developed some favouritism of certain players, which was a problem when they were off-form.

He should at least have played better football with the players at his disposal.

None of those Italian strikers are world beaters though- ie in the top 5-10 in the World? Italy's World cup victory owed more to defensive resilience I thought, once again, bar a very attacking performance against the Germans.

I get what you are saying, but you pick the weakest area of the england team.

Midfield and Defence wise, the squad is pretty strong.

Ashton back at Christmas should give a valuable boost to the striking options if he continues his rapid development. Ditto Walcott.

This is my bored at work ramblings though, not sure what this has got to do with your post sorry

otto the humble German wrote:

S4P wrote:@ Otto

You always knew that Eriksson could take England far in all major tournaments. He had the best qualification record and was consistant in getting to the later stages of each tournament. Unfortuantely we went out on penalties twice, in matches we really could've won (imagine if the referee hadn't found an excuse to disallow Campbell's goal in Euro '04, just like World Cup '98 ).

Although Eriksson was consistant, he never took England into the final stages. What we needed was a bit of that German luck. Poor/Average for 4 years, then come good at the World Cup, as proven since 2000. A team who, on form should barely make top 10, but then put in a top 5 performance in the World Cup.

@ S4P

nice WU-attempt

it's true that English people are ungrateful

SGE made qualifying look easy; flashback to the Keegan/Taylor... eras and we realise, it wasn't always thus

Sven deserves enormous credit for that

yet ultimatively, England have neither the quality players nor the team to go beyond the quarters; that's undeniable

Campbell's 2002 goal was rightly disallowed

but you look at the 2006 team and a you see "ein Haufen Elend", a pitiful bunch of Sunday League-quality players

T&T and Ecuador had you cornered, their top players earn their living in Wrexham

England today are not even in the top 20

still, neither were Greece

the difference is that those philosophers were willing to LEARN

Cashley, Lampard, Owen, Becks and friends are not; after all they already are they best in the world

England are fu@$ed

a mule will never become a an Arabian full-blood, no matter how conceited

add England's inability to convert a penalty and suddenly SGE looks like a genius to have steered them lot into three quarters

As humble, motiveless and balanced as ever

You and Trees should go on holiday together, maybe on an exchange? The war is over you know. What a jolly pair you would make

otto the humble German wrote:
@ S4P

nice WU-attempt

otto the humble German wrote:it's true that English people are ungrateful

SGE made qualifying look easy; flashback to the Keegan/Taylor... eras and we realise, it wasn't always thus

Sven deserves enormous credit for that

And I was the one giving him credit, whilst people like Deisler slagged him off

otto the humble German wrote:yet ultimatively, England have neither the quality players nor the team to go beyond the quarters; that's undeniable

No, England are just not very good at penalties (and also had a lack of strike force at the WC). The defence was one of the best around.

otto the humble German wrote:Campbell's 2002 goal was rightly disallowed

It was 2004, and why was it right? Did he get within 5 yards of the keeper or something. There was no foul from any England player whatsoever.

otto the humble German wrote:T&T and Ecuador had you cornered, their top players earn their living in Wrexham

Really, I thought it was just the underdog giving the bigger team a close run for their money. Bit like Costa Rica against you guys.

otto the humble German wrote:England today are not even in the top 20

And yet, like you said, Eriksson did a good job. Bit of a contradiction don't you think?

@ bluenine

You are right he was limited in the squad with strikers (and goalkeepers) but then Italy's strikers didn't do a lot in the world cup. For me some of his failings as a manager:
- using gerrard as a defensive midfielder (and the partnership with lampard), hargreaves should have been in much earlier than he was
- taking walcot in particular, and injured players to tournaments
- insistence on playing beckham no matter what formation and for the full 90 mins
- not dropping underperforming/out-of-form players
- not trying fringe/young players or new formations in friendlies
- playing players out of position

He did ok, as S4P said by the luck of a penalty shoot-out they could have been in semi-finals. But I do think England could have played better.

@Otto,


Q) Do you know what the next major International European tournament is?

A) The under 21's championships in Holland.

Interesting to to see how England get on. Hope they're not drawn in Germany's group - dont fancy playing the TITANS of European football, especially after their SENIORS taught England a lesson the last time the teams played

Hargreaves being the only English player scoring a penalty, ironically the only guy in the squad who learned to play football in Germany, has nothing to do with "bad luck". It's incompetence, and nothing else.

It was not like it was a close affair. Only the Swiss managed to top that by being even worse at the penalties this summer.

S4P wrote: >

otto the humble German wrote:T&T and Ecuador had you cornered, their top players earn their living in Wrexham

Really, I thought it was just the underdog giving the bigger team a close run for their money. Bit like Costa Rica against you guys

question is : who was the underdog ???


-------------

@pele

I think it's good that you Englanders start caring about the U-21 Cup

when the economy is stuttering, it's time to downsize

blutgraetsche wrote:Hargreaves being the only one scoring a penalty, ironically the only guy in the squad who learned to play football in Germany, has nothing to do with "bad luck". It's incompetence, and nothing else.

It was not like it was a close affair. Only the Swiss managed to top that by being even worse at the penalties this summer.

"incompetence" - ha ha ha, such a profoundly stereotypical German way of thinking!

Forget about the human emotions that are involved in a penalty shoot out, the pressure of history, the effects of nerves: just be "competent" and "efficient"! Bingo, there is the answer to why Germany are so very good.

And you guys wonder why you are viewed as emotionless dullards!

otto the humble German wrote:

S4P wrote: >

otto the humble German wrote:T&T and Ecuador had you cornered, their top players earn their living in Wrexham

Really, I thought it was just the underdog giving the bigger team a close run for their money. Bit like Costa Rica against you guys

question is : who was the underdog ???

Now don't be silly Otto. We all know Costa Rica was the underdog.

The Real White Pele wrote:
"incompetence" - ha ha ha, such a profoundly stereotypical German way of thinking!

Forget about the human emotions that are involved in a penalty shoot out, the pressure of history, the effects of nerves: just be "competent" and "efficient"! Bingo, there is the answer to why Germany are so very good.

And you guys wonder why you are viewed as emotionless dullards!

'Dullards'? We are perfectionists, and don't excuse failure easily, unlike you guys. Hoeness, who runs FC Bayern these days, is still being ridiculed for his failure in the 1976 EC final against the CSSR, when he missed his penalty that cost us the title. The only time Germany lost a penalty shootout ever. Stielike was lucky that we still managed to win the shootout against the French in 1982, after he missed his penalty, otherwise it would have been the same for him.

Penalty shootouts are the ultimate test of character, especially in major tournaments. Football is not just about tricks, shots and passes, it's about mental strenght and character as well. You wish your players were as determined and resolved like ours. While we 'crucify' ours, you celebrate your losers, one of the reasons why you won't win a thing in my lifetime.

Indeed I picked up a weak area to demonstrate my example... but there are other examples too... goalkeeper (Amelia, Toldo, Perruzzi, Abbiati., Pagluica, Roma, Curci, etc for Italy as backups), defensive midfielder (Perrotta, De Rossi, Donadel, C Zanetti, etc are good backups for Gattuso), or the full back positions... truth is that England did not have the back ups that Lippi had to his disposal. I don't mean this in a bad way, I think that the england starting line up was extremely competent in the Sven era... just pointing out what IMO is a fact.

Sure, maybe except for Toni, none of the italian strikers are a top 5 in the world - thats not important. The important thing is that ALL of the ones I mentioned are international class. You can see how this worked in Italy's favour duirng the world cup - Lippi used all 6 of his strikers during the WC, and ALL of them scored at least 1 goal each!!!! If any of the Top 10 Italian strikers were english, I have little doubt that Sven would have selected them in the squad. The likes of Cassano, Vieri, Tavano, Lucarelli, Rocchi, Montolivo, Miccoli, etc did not make the top 6 in Italy. Look at Guiseppe Rossi for example, Italians wouldn't even consider him in the top 15 at the mo - he couldn't even make the U21 squad last summer(!!!), but he might have made the England squad if he were english... it was a desperate situation, and Sven took a gamble (Walcott) - unfortunately he couldn't deploy him in the quarters coz Rooney got himself a red.

Fresh legs, more options, using strikers with different characteristics to implement different strategies - all this make a difference.

The Real White Pele wrote:

bluenine wrote:I think thats the problem with England resources rather than sven... there were a good starting XI, but not the same class in back ups... if Owen and Rooney got injured (as they did, Sven had bad luck with the injuries too, whic he could ill afford), who would come in?? Crouch? ok, perhaps... Bent?? Seriously??

For example, look at Italy.... if Toni and Gila get injured, they have Iaquinta, Del Piero, Inzaghi, Cassano, Di Michelle, and so many others who are almost at the same level.
And you forget the positive aspects... one of the biggest selection criticisms leveled at Sven pre world cup by Shearer, media & Co (and if I remember correctly, most english posters out here) was his selection of Owen Hargreaves and his persistance on playing him... so what happened?? I thought Hargreaves was England's best player in this world cup!

There are many such positives in the last 5 years which people have a selective amnesia about....

3 straight qauterfinals is par for England like someone just said, and this did not happen by fluke... it happened coz Sven instilled something that English national team has almost always lacked - tactical shrewdness.

Boring it may have been (probably coz in this world cup his team did not preform like Sven hoped - it wasn't always boring, anyone remember Englands win over Germany??), but would you rather have a first round exit after playing "exciting" football??

110% wrote:I think Eriksson started well and got England qualified.

He had a decent first game plan, but it basically it involved scoring first then defending for the remaining time, which made England look boring but effective. He had no plan to change things if England were losing, and he developed some favouritism of certain players, which was a problem when they were off-form.

He should at least have played better football with the players at his disposal.

None of those Italian strikers are world beaters though- ie in the top 5-10 in the World? Italy's World cup victory owed more to defensive resilience I thought, once again, bar a very attacking performance against the Germans.

I get what you are saying, but you pick the weakest area of the england team.

Midfield and Defence wise, the squad is pretty strong.

Ashton back at Christmas should give a valuable boost to the striking options if he continues his rapid development. Ditto Walcott.

This is my bored at work ramblings though, not sure what this has got to do with your post sorry

1. You now say that Hargreaves should ve been used more and earlier - in retrospect - but you forget that taking Hargreaves was one of teh biggest criticisms thrown at Sven before the world cup! I used to hear ridiculous statements like "he is not even EPL class" and "he did not do anything in the whole game". In retrospect, you appreciate that Sven did the right thing and now you are blaming him for not doing so earlier???

2. Whatever most people say, Beckham has been one of England's best players in the last 5 years. Th eproblem with the english press is that first they claimed that he was the world's finest alongwith the likes of Zidane (which was stupid, he never was anywhere THAT good), and when the difference showed, the press is after his neck and say that he is crap (he is not THAT bad as he is made out to be). Truth is that Becks always was a good player, with his limitations, and if I were the coach of England, Becks would make my starting XI even now, maybe not as regularily as before.

3. IMO, Walcot was a masterstroke. Its a pity Sven never got to use his secret missile. To use him in the early rounds would have been a waste - people would ve found him out. And Rooney's red card ensured that Sven couldn't used him in the quarters or thereafter... sad. And it only backfired to some extent coz of Owen's injury - but like I pointed out, it wasn't like Sven had many class options... Bent? Please!

110% wrote:@ bluenine

You are right he was limited in the squad with strikers (and goalkeepers) but then Italy's strikers didn't do a lot in the world cup. For me some of his failings as a manager:
- using gerrard as a defensive midfielder (and the partnership with lampard), hargreaves should have been in much earlier than he was
- taking walcot in particular, and injured players to tournaments
- insistence on playing beckham no matter what formation and for the full 90 mins
- not dropping underperforming/out-of-form players
- not trying fringe/young players or new formations in friendlies
- playing players out of position

He did ok, as S4P said by the luck of a penalty shoot-out they could have been in semi-finals. But I do think England could have played better.

3 quarter finals is very good for England. Look at their record before Sven...

Euro 92 First round
WC94 didn't qualify
Euro96 semi final, but only because of home advantage
WC98 second round
Euro 2000 first round.

Also in the 10 WCs since the fluke of 66, the best England have managed is only 1 semi final. A pathetic record compared with countries like Italy, Germany & France who have similar sized populations.

Murray wrote:3 quarter finals is very good for England. Look at their record before Sven...

Euro 92 First round
WC94 didn't qualify
Euro96 semi final, but only because of home advantage
WC98 second round
Euro 2000 first round.

Also in the 10 WCs since the fluke of 66, the best England have managed is only 1 semi final. A pathetic record compared with countries like Italy, Germany & France who have similar sized populations.

Not wishing to be pedantic but Germany actually has double the population of England.

Also, were England a better side in 2006 or 1998 for example?

In 1998, England went out in the 2nd round to Argentina on penalties, in 2006 they made it to the quarter finals where they lost again on penalties.

Purely by looking at the results, we should conclude that the 2006 team was better. But in my, and many people's opinion, Glenn Hoddle's side were the superior side, playing superior football under a manager whose main fault was to opine about disabled people. As far a England football managers go, Hoddle >>> Erikkson. That away draw in Italy was tactically far superior than anything Erikkson managed, even the 5-1 against a hopeless germany.

Football is an emotive game, and yes history will just look purely at results and say, for example, Germany were the 2nd best side in 2002 when we all know they quite blatantly weren't. USA were a handball appeal away from taking their place. But fans who have emotional attachments can see through pure results, and Erikkson's reign was purely results driven, methodical and sterile. He should have managed Germany.

Give me the 1998 performances over 2006 anyday. Just as im sure our German friends with some pride in performance would say 2006 was a greater success than 2002, despite not reaching the final

Maybe. But as a neutral, I used to think of England in 1998 as a dangerous team which can cause an upset or two. In 2006, I thought of England as one of the contenders who could go all the way, not among the favourites, but definately one of the outside contenders.

There is a HUGE difference between those two, and sometimes I seriously wonder whether the english are mentally ready to be considered among the contenders...... I think that led to Erikssons downfall more than anything else... think about it.

The Real White Pele wrote:

Murray wrote:3 quarter finals is very good for England. Look at their record before Sven...

Euro 92 First round
WC94 didn't qualify
Euro96 semi final, but only because of home advantage
WC98 second round
Euro 2000 first round.

Also in the 10 WCs since the fluke of 66, the best England have managed is only 1 semi final. A pathetic record compared with countries like Italy, Germany & France who have similar sized populations.

Not wishing to be pedantic but Germany actually has double the population of England.

Also, were England a better side in 2006 or 1998 for example?

In 1998, England went out in the 2nd round to Argentina on penalties, in 2006 they made it to the quarter finals where they lost again on penalties.

Purely by looking at the results, we should conclude that the 2006 team was better. But in my, and many people's opinion, Glenn Hoddle's side were the superior side, playing superior football under a manager whose main fault was to opine about disabled people. As far a England football managers go, Hoddle >>> Erikkson. That away draw in Italy was tactically far superior than anything Erikkson managed, even the 5-1 against a hopeless germany.

Football is an emotive game, and yes history will just look purely at results and say, for example, Germany were the 2nd best side in 2002 when we all know they quite blatantly weren't. USA were a handball appeal away from taking their place. But fans who have emotional attachments can see through pure results, and Erikkson's reign was purely results driven, methodical and sterile. He should have managed Germany.

Give me the 1998 performances over 2006 anyday. Just as im sure our German friends with some pride in performance would say 2006 was a greater success than 2002, despite not reaching the final

The Real White Pele wrote:
Also, were England a better side in 2006 or 1998 for example?

Truthfully, I think that they had better players in 1998 than in 2006. And, again it's only opinion, I think that with a pragmatic coach as Eriksson, they would have had a good chance of winning in '98.

bluenine wrote:1. You now say that Hargreaves should ve been used more and earlier - in retrospect - but you forget that taking Hargreaves was one of teh biggest criticisms thrown at Sven before the world cup! I used to hear ridiculous statements like "he is not even EPL class" and "he did not do anything in the whole game". In retrospect, you appreciate that Sven did the right thing and now you are blaming him for not doing so earlier???

2. Whatever most people say, Beckham has been one of England's best players in the last 5 years. Th eproblem with the english press is that first they claimed that he was the world's finest alongwith the likes of Zidane (which was stupid, he never was anywhere THAT good), and when the difference showed, the press is after his neck and say that he is crap (he is not THAT bad as he is made out to be). Truth is that Becks always was a good player, with his limitations, and if I were the coach of England, Becks would make my starting XI even now, maybe not as regularily as before.

3. IMO, Walcot was a masterstroke. Its a pity Sven never got to use his secret missile. To use him in the early rounds would have been a waste - people would ve found him out. And Rooney's red card ensured that Sven couldn't used him in the quarters or thereafter... sad. And it only backfired to some extent coz of Owen's injury - but like I pointed out, it wasn't like Sven had many class options... Bent? Please!

110% wrote:@ bluenine

You are right he was limited in the squad with strikers (and goalkeepers) but then Italy's strikers didn't do a lot in the world cup. For me some of his failings as a manager:
- using gerrard as a defensive midfielder (and the partnership with lampard), hargreaves should have been in much earlier than he was
- taking walcot in particular, and injured players to tournaments
- insistence on playing beckham no matter what formation and for the full 90 mins
- not dropping underperforming/out-of-form players
- not trying fringe/young players or new formations in friendlies
- playing players out of position

He did ok, as S4P said by the luck of a penalty shoot-out they could have been in semi-finals. But I do think England could have played better.

well I am not english, but I can see the mistakes that the manger made, as well as the players underperforming.

1. I for one always thought hargreaves must be a good player because he was doing a good job at Bayern, so I always thought it was the way Sven played him (and the rest of the team) that was the problem. I don't in retrospect think sven did do the right thing, he had just run out of alternatives so he gave hargreaves a chance as a defensive midfielder, and he played as he normally does. Didn't take a tactical genius to work out if you play a defensive midfielder that is what he brings to the game, and it is the fault of the manager that it took him so long to realise this.

2. Beckham was a great player a few years ago and a definite starter, but not so in recent years. When players are off-form or injured they should be dropped/rested. That is the job of the manager, not the media, not the fans and not the player himself. Beckham played regardless of form, fitness or formation. Also no matter how poor he was in a match he was not subbed "in case they got a free-kick". His form then affected the whole team, and this is the fault of the manager who refuses to drop him. He should be in the squad now, but not in the first team. He was used as an example, but it could apply to lampard as well.

3. Sven had never seen walcott play. No point saving him for later rounds if they don't get there. You have to win one game at a time. Maybe Bent is not the best option, but he would have been an option. How would sven even know, since he never tried gave bent a chance to prove himself before the tournament, and took walcott who he had never seen. Again the managers fault.

I agree with what you say about the strength in depth of the squad in terms of goalkeepers, strikers and defensive midfielders, but I could say the same about italy for attacking midfielders, wingers etc. The difference was that Italy played to their strengths to win the world cup, e.g. using the full-backs to provide width, and an extra midfielder in the middle to help gattuso with the defensive work and push forward, this was down to the manager.

@Bluenine:

"and sometimes I seriously wonder whether the english are mentally ready to be considered among the contenders...... I think that led to Erikssons downfall more than anything else... think about it."

There is an enormous amount of truth in that statement. I think the overriding mentality in English sport is indeed to celebrate the gallant loser.

The Media and players continually cranking up the self belief that they are good enough to win these competitions is an adverse reaction to this mentality, trying to end this ingrained negative psyche. Its the incorrect way to go about it though because being seen as underdogs- just like England were against Germany in 2001, Argentina in 2002, under21's V Germany recently, Holland in 1996 - all England best results were those when they were not favourites. So bring on 2008!

@Johninho:

how do you say in Swedish "If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bycicle"?

Thanks TRWP.

But IMO England did take a step backwards with the coach selection. No, I don't think Sven should ve continued - I believe that 5 years is a maximum for a national coach, however good he may have been, and after that you need fresh ideas. But Steve wasn't the best choice, England should ve gone for one of the best tacticians in the world who would have given that step up post Sven. Steve most likely will end up taking that step backwards. I am not saying that he is a bad manager, or that he will be a failure. Just that Steve may bring back 1998, if that was ever the objective, but someone like Lippi or Capello or even Scolari might have helped England to keep the pragmatism built by Sven, and add that extra zing required to become champions.

I hope I have underestimated Steve, and that I am proved wrong, but I have seen nothing so far that would change my opinion.

The Real White Pele wrote:@Bluenine:

"and sometimes I seriously wonder whether the english are mentally ready to be considered among the contenders...... I think that led to Erikssons downfall more than anything else... think about it."

There is an enormous amount of truth in that statement. I think the overriding mentality in English sport is indeed to celebrate the gallant loser.

The Media and players continually cranking up the self belief that they are good enough to win these competitions is an adverse reaction to this mentality, trying to end this ingrained negative psyche. Its the incorrect way to go about it though because being seen as underdogs- just like England were against Germany in 2001, Argentina in 2002, under21's V Germany recently, Holland in 1996 - all England best results were those when they were not favourites. So bring on 2008!

bluenine wrote:Thanks TRWP.

But IMO England did take a step backwards with the coach selection. No, I don't think Sven should ve continued - I believe that 5 years is a maximum for a national coach, however good he may have been, and after that you need fresh ideas. But Steve wasn't the best choice, England should ve gone for one of the best tacticians in the world who would have given that step up post Sven. Steve most likely will end up taking that step backwards. I am not saying that he is a bad manager, or that he will be a failure. Just that Steve may bring back 1998, if that was ever the objective, but someone like Lippi or Capello or even Scolari might have helped England to keep the pragmatism built by Sven, and add that extra zing required to become champions.

I hope I have underestimated Steve, and that I am proved wrong, but I have seen nothing so far that would change my opinion.

The Real White Pele wrote:@Bluenine:

"and sometimes I seriously wonder whether the english are mentally ready to be considered among the contenders...... I think that led to Erikssons downfall more than anything else... think about it."

There is an enormous amount of truth in that statement. I think the overriding mentality in English sport is indeed to celebrate the gallant loser.

The Media and players continually cranking up the self belief that they are good enough to win these competitions is an adverse reaction to this mentality, trying to end this ingrained negative psyche. Its the incorrect way to go about it though because being seen as underdogs- just like England were against Germany in 2001, Argentina in 2002, under21's V Germany recently, Holland in 1996 - all England best results were those when they were not favourites. So bring on 2008!

Somtimes continuation is a good thing on the otherhand. Not everything Erikkson brought was a failure. As you say, he was tactically and defensively a pretty good coach. Im guessing the FA were hoping that Mclaren will bring the good elements of his reign with him and leave behind the bad.

A radical change may turn out to have been the best move, but we wont know this for a couple of years. Mclaren deserves a chance