He should never have been in the position in the first place.
And I’m not talking about the hilarious bandwagon that went on around the rumours surrounding Scolari. I’m not even blaming Brian Barwick or the FA!
Their positions were made untenable and Scolari, to his credit, saw the writing on the wall when the English press descended on his home.
I’m blaming OUR print media for hounding Sven out of the job!
A bloke who gave a mediocre national side the consistency we hadnt had for over 30 years, but because he wasn’t English and because he didn’t manage to achieve the ridiculous levels of expectations that OUR media assumed we should attain, he grew tired of the job and the constant prying into his private life and motivations.
So well done the media. You'll sell a load more papers tomorrow because your cretinous, lemming readers will want to read about what you think McClaren did wrong and how you think those wrongs should be righted and they will lap up every word and regurgitate your words to their mates in pubs up and down the country as though they were their own because they are too thick to form their own views.
All the while you'll be perpetuating your sales figures and keeping your shareholders happy.
I hate to say I told you so, but to all those on here that called for Sven's head, just as they did Curb's. Welcome to your wish.....No Euro's & 1st Div football. Sometime boring, sensible defensive football is the only way......
0
Comments
Nonetheless, he qualified us for the 2002 WC, 2004 EC and 2006 WC and we only ever lost on penalties in the latter two tournaments and lost to the winners, Brazil, in 2002.
He was defensive but he did at least get results unlike McLaren who is so far out of his depth that its not funny.
A man who doesn't seem to have the press on his back though is Alex Ferguson, or that Wenger guy at Arsenal. Know why? They seem to get results.
Now Sven got results, as I recall we were beaten in Japan by a Brazil side who were better than us for 90 minutes. We battled well against Portugal in 2004 and the PLAYERS lost the penalty shoot out.
Summer 2006 we played and battled well with ten men but again the PLAYERS lost the penalty shootout, are we seeing a pattern here? Tonight McClaren picked a system to fit the two big time charlies in the squad, and guess what the PLAYERS let us and dare I say McClaren down. I am not sticking up for him as I thought he was a cop out desperation appontment but at the end of the day players should be able to drag themselves up to the standards and heights we are told they are capable of. Besides, no matter what formation you are asked to play as a footballer you should always know how to keep possesion of the ball.
But all said and done, when was the last time you saw a decent England performance against decent opposition ?
When things go wrong you look for a scapegoat, but the truth is its a combination of so many factors; press, manager, number of foreign players in the prem, desire of the multi-rich players etc.
I thought that worked really well....
You're right about the real evil being the Press though, but i cant see that changing anytime soon.
Yes, but Ireland played it as a proper tactic by knocking the ball into the corner and 'turning' the opposition and forcing them to play under pressure whereas we just lumped it in the air to Crouch.
If you're going to play long ball then play 442 and do it properly!!!
Ericsson would have qualified us for the Euros
I wonder if Croatia or any of our other rivals would have been able to handle such a decimation to their squads?
I'm no fan of Mc Claren and in my opinion his position has become untenable but I do think that the witch-hunt needs to be kept within perspective. Most fans and media would have started with Carson and Wright-Philips and at least half would have gone 4-5-1.
As has often been said in other contexts the top echelons of English football are diseased for all sorts of reasons mainly concerning filthy lucre.
We need a manager with international playing experience himself and players who are proud of the England shirt and regard it as an honour to be selected for their country. I would prefer an English manager as theotetically he too would have a real passion and commitment to the cause.
I talk about singing the national anthem (mainly to wind Henry and one or two others up) but there is a serious underlying point. Your body language is sending out a message to the opposition and the supporters that you are totally committed to the cause. The slovenly demeanour of most of our lot sends out the opposite.
The players were at fault just as much as Mc Claren and in my opinion only Crouch, Beckham, Wright- Phillips and Richards can look at themselves in the mirror with a clear conscience. I exempt Bent from criticism as he had 10 minutes and that was it.
Not quite sure why that would wind me up as I actually like my country and I'm proud of it unlike the people on here always slagging it off and moaning about the good old days like 1974 or 1978 when we didnt qualify for tournaments but that's another arguement.
For the record all but one (Richards) of the team sang the national Anthem last night and they still lost just like the F******* rugby W****** (Talk about over rated and press over reaction to a few defeats and then a few wins) who sang the national anthem and still LOST
It means nothing. The money they earn means nothing. The cars they drive mean nothing. Do you think the Italian players earn £50 a game and drive Fiat Puntos. Or all those Croations playing for Arsenal or Inter etc etc.
Bottom line the players aren't good enough. Pound for pound our best sqaud isn't as good as Brazil, Italy, Portugal, France etc. When we lose a couple of decent players we did like last night we can't cope. Add to that a clueless manager who picks players on reputation (why take Barry off and Keep Dumb and Dumber on when we know it doesn't work playing the two of them) and you get what we always get. Play a decent team and we lose.
We are not as good as the public and the press - one feeds off the other - think we should be. Call it Spurs syndrome if you like but that is the reality. Only when we accept that will we be able to move forward. We need a magician not a new manager as that is the only person who will meet our unrealistic expectations.
Although our ability is not as good as everybody would like to think the major problem is one of attitude. Those f*** w*** rugby players as you put it, despite losing in the final, exceeded expectations largely because of their spirit, team ethic and patriotism.
Had our footballers shown a fraction of the rugby mens' attitude last night we would have qualified.
...........
You obviously have a short and selective memory, the rugby squad performed woefully in the world cup - against the USA in the first game they laboured to a victory, were totally blown away by South Africa in the next match, before recovering against Tonga and Samoa. They then won the quarter and semi-final match by grinding out victories and played magnificently under pressure, real tooth and claw rugby where both sides fought over every blade of grass.
As for the singing of the National Anthem with pride, that's a red herring, its about being organised and determined and knowing what your opponents strengths and weaknesses are and how to win the game. not to mention playing as a cohesive unit. If players need "God save the Queen" to give them a lift, then we really are in trouble.
A bloke who gave a mediocre national side the consistency we hadnt had for over 30 years, but because he wasn’t English and because he didn’t manage to achieve the ridiculous levels of expectations that OUR media assumed we should attain, he grew tired of the job and the constant prying into his private life and motivations.
............
I agree the papers are culpable for heaping pressure on the players, but Eriksson was a weak and inflexible manager who was unable and unwilling to change tactics and formation during the games.
As for the media attention he garnered his naivity in media relations was incredible, and he was too unprepared to take on the clubs. Lastly, taking an untried and untested at premiership level Theo Walcott to the last WC when the main two strikers - Rooney and Owen were chronically unfit, and then having only Peter Crouch as the main striker. Why? My guess is that he bowed to pressure from the top clubs, just as he did in friendlies which became farces with virtually the whole team being subbed at half time and the players strolling through matches.
If you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail...
You are right the rugby players did start appallingly in the World Cup but they displayed the right mental attitude to overcome the potentially devastating setback of being stuffed by South Africa in the group match to exceed expectations in reaching the final.
The footballers were given a lifeline by Israel's magnificent result against Russia yet couldn't even raise themselves for a proper effort against Croatia.
That is what I mean when I say a fraction of the rugby mens' attitude.
My national anthem point is slightly tongue in cheek as Henry has often derided the rugby players previously for singing it and indeed today refers to them in unflattering terms.
Why does Defoe get on ahead of Bent for example, despite Bent having more goals and appearances this year and the last? Why hasn't Bent been given more chance in friendlies like last Friday, despite being the best English striker for some years now? Why play Owen in the game on Friday - give the poor bugger a rest. Why play an inexperienced keeper when you are being forced to play your second string defence, etc, etc, etc??
I couldnt turn it off ...
They did win Le Tournoi in 97 ....
He looked bored and tired of the place and so did the players (and definitely the fans - I'd been bored for years!). Great great manager for Charlton but all good things come to an end and it did (a couple of years late in my opinion).
As for Eriksson and England, I felt it went a similar way to Charlton and Curbishley, I was always a big advocate of Eriksson until his last tournament where England actually reminded me very much of Charlton under Curbishley at the time. Devoid of ideas, they looked like they were just going through the motions. The team picked itself (injuries aside) you knew exactly how we were going to try and play and there was no plan B.
You can't question his record but I think by that time the relationship had gone a bit stale, this probably had a lot to do with the press intrusion and the constant sniping on football and non football matters, but either way a change probably wasn't too bad an idea. The change should have been wholesale though, not putting his number 2 in charge, that was just stupid.