'arry's CV... can't read, can't write, can't text, can't email, can't fax but l can use the "F" word in every other word l use. Yup, guess he's your man.
Whoever it is we need a complete clear out. The current squad has had plenty of chances. Get rid of anyone over 30 and lets try to build a squad thats proud to wear the shirt.
But the question is, how many truly world class players do we have?
What a day for Harry: Wakes in the morning facing a jail sentance, hefty fine and tax to pay. Goes to bed with no sentance, fine or tax and virtual manager of England! Wonder if he did the lottery. Anyways, Beckham to lead England.
Whoever it is we need a complete clear out. The current squad has had plenty of chances. Get rid of anyone over 30 and lets try to build a squad thats proud to wear the shirt.
But the question is, how many truly world class players do we have?
Not that bigger question imo! How many did we have in 1966 1 maybe 2/3,,,,,,,,,,Bobby Moore and Bobby Charlton and possibly Gordon Banks.
As mentioned by someone earlier I'd be all for Beckham taking it on until after the Euros. He has bags of experience, knows the game, knows international football and would get respect from the players. Add to the mix an assistant with managerial experience and a first class coach. Look at the impact of first time managers in international football such as Klinsmann and Van Basten and we can see it isn't necessarily a position only for experienced managers.
Whoever it is we need a complete clear out. The current squad has had plenty of chances. Get rid of anyone over 30 and lets try to build a squad thats proud to wear the shirt.
But the question is, how many truly world class players do we have?
Not that bigger question imo! How many did we have in 1966 1 maybe 2/3,,,,,,,,,,Bobby Moore and Bobby Charlton and possibly Gordon Banks.
Admitedly before my time but maybe the Gulf in talent is larger now than it was then.
Rooney maybe but as someone said on another thread Greece won the the Euros recently and they didn't have any world class players. We shouldn't expect miracles this summer but we do have some bright up and coming young players who if moulded as a strong unit a la Alf Ramsey's side we might, just might achieve something in the next World Cup.
Only just noticed there are 2 threads on the same subject. So have posted my comments on both, apolgy to those who have already seen or read it.
The question should be who is the best manager for the job, not the best English manager. If realistically the best happens to be English then good.
All the English managers mentioned in contention have a question mark against them it seems.
Harry has a lot of attributes and his teams play with flair, however WHU Pompey etc were not noted for their defensive qualities. He reminds me much of Joe Mercer, honest talking guy who stepped in to the breach after the Revie debacle and restored some pride and flair in to our national team. The downside was you new Mercer was never going to pick or organise a team that was defensively strong enough to compete against the strong nations when it matters.
English players on the whole are not noted for total flair compared to the Spanish, Brazil, Argies etc, so having a tight organised unit will always be important in competitions for us to progress.
J Mourinho has proven track record even at Madrid (where it is not so liked) that he can create tight units that compete first to have the right to use some flair when required. Unlike the other foreign incumbents his teams are more in keeping with English style, additionally he speaks the lingo well, knows how to handle the press and won't be swayed by them as his confident (ok arrogant) in his ability. He also has a good track record in handling your prima donna types and more important getting the best out of limited players to do a job, Terry ironically at Chelsea.
Harry also has a proven track record with man management of all types of players.
Harry seems to be favourite and the easier target and decision for the FA, also the FA would have sway over Spurs, whilst Mourinho would likely cost more in compensation (R.Madrid always talk big bucks). However Madrid would not stand in Mourinho's way if the media view of his tenure is correct.
If either of these two get the job I hope they succeed and take English International football forward from the disasters we have encountered in recent Finals.
If it were my decision I would go for Jose Mourinho, but good luck to Harry if it is him, anyone else (except Curbs biased CAFC) more painful years could beckon.
'Arry this morning : "I haven't even thought about the England manager's job''.
It's a good job he didn't come out with that in court, else the jury might have changed their mind and decided to disbelieve everything else he said, too!
I’m more than happy to admit that Redknapp is, on traditional criteria, the obvious candidate. But for me the fact that we’re applying traditional criteria is exactly why England are regressing, if not directly then at least in comparison to the top teams.
When voicing my opposition to Redknapp’s seemingly inevitable appointment, I have been challenged more than once today to name my favoured man for the job. Each time I have declined because I believe we don’t know who the best candidate is for the job. The media don’t know, the league table doesn’t know – the Football Association certainly doesn’t know. Yet.
If England and English football are really committed to winning trophies and challenging the likes of Spain, Germany and the Netherlands for honours, appointing a tactically limited, old-school manager like Redknapp – regardless of the managerial qualities he obviously possesses – is not the way forward. We need to build for the future, bring players in from the Under-21 team more readily and improve coaching at all levels. And that’s just step one.
Our entire outlook needs to change, and it is my firm belief that the England manager should be at the heart of that change. Consequently, England’s next manager shouldn’t be the highest-placed, the most media-friendly or even the most successful. It should be someone with a spine and some imagination, someone who can fully outline in his interview his vision for the long-term ethos and culture of English football and the national team. That vision must match that of the FA and despite the fast approaching opening of St George’s Park I’m not entirely convinced the FA really has one.
at a loss to decide who would be best to control our current crop of prima donnas. would like someone who cares about the English team and winning trophies (unlikely I know) not someone who sees the job as a cash cow and a chance to enhance their reputation. someone who can handle the god awful media in this country, someone who would have the respect of the players. someone who has a son working for Sky and a mansion in the most expensive part of the country to buy property. someone who's won the FA Cup final and is clearly "not guilty". It must be:-
The only criteria needed in international football is your ability to blend a team together out of what you have. Redknapp was always recognised as being able to get teams playing well but there were question marks about the defending. Spurs are pretty solid at the back. It's a part time job anyway in my opinion so i see no reason why he couldn't do both - definitely up til the end of the season, and probably beyond. Pearce or somebody could do the day to day stuff. All Redknapp would need to do is call the shots in picking the team after being briefed on the opposition and reacting on matchday as things unfold. All the rest - the get togethers, the interviews and all that crap - let Pearce do it. The same would apply for Spurs and his assistants. I'm running 4 fantasy sides anda kids team this year. How hard can it be!!!???
The only criteria needed in international football is your ability to blend a team together out of what you have. Redknapp was always recognised as being able to get teams playing well but there were question marks about the defending. Spurs are pretty solid at the back. It's a part time job anyway in my opinion so i see no reason why he couldn't do both - definitely up til the end of the season, and probably beyond. Pearce or somebody could do the day to day stuff. All Redknapp would need to do is call the shots in picking the team after being briefed on the opposition and reacting on matchday as things unfold. All the rest - the get togethers, the interviews and all that crap - let Pearce do it. The same would apply for Spurs and his assistants. I'm running 4 fantasy sides anda kids team this year. How hard can it be!!!???
Thought your name would have been mentioned by now Dan.... 2-1 Favourite with the bookies?
I know - the phone hasn't stopped ringing and i noticed the bins had been rummaged through when i left this morning but there's too much i want to do in the game yet. I will answer my country's calling one day - but not yet. Be patient. I'm focusing on the under 12's shield this sunday and will not be distracted.
The fact is that Hodgson's record in Europe is better than Harry's and that for me is far more important than overall club performance because International Football is a completely different challenge. However, Pearce would seem to have the best credentials though - at U21 level he has built up a wealth of international experience and his sides have done well - qualifying easily, getting to a final and close to a final - he will know a lot of the younger players well as they have played under him and I'm sure he will need less financial enticement and be easier to sack if he doesn't deliver. For me it is incredible that people are talking about anybody else?
Also the argument for or against foreign coaches is ridiculous. If you are going to appoint a foreign coach, the things you should be looking for are command of the language- which is important - Knowledge of the players - which can be gained but important in the short term and a knowledge of the strengths of the English game. When we have appointed foreign coaches, they have not been from the English game and Sven has since shown that despite an excellent CV, he struggled to manage an English club. If you are going to look beyond Pearce then surely it has to be Hiddink. He did an excellent job with Chelsea and the jobs he has done internationally with limited resources have been impressive.
Redknapp could be good but could just as easily be a disaster - You would expect a top 4 side such as Spurs to have taken the Europa league by storm wouldn't you?
I very much doubt whether England will succeed unless they have a manager with strong principles that he is prepared to stick to - has anyone ever seen an effective leader who isn't like that. Capello may have had the wrong principles but at least he had them. Sir Alf Ramsey, Brian Clough and Bobby Robson had strong principles. Redknapp was not guilty of tax evasion, but anyone who watched the court case would be hard pressed to say that it demonstrated that he was a man of principle.
Personally, I would like to see Wenger given the job - he has strong principles which he sticks to and he knows the English games and players inside out. If it has to be someone English I think Hodgson would be a pretty good choice who knows not a little about managing international teams.
I wouldn't disagree too much - I'd have Pearce first choice English then Hodgson and Hiddink first choice foreign and then Wenger. For me any of those 4 would be less risky than Redknapp.
If Pearce gets it we might as well pack it in if you ask me. Yes he can speak English and yes, he can thump his chest, but has he ever shown he can put a winning team together? He's not even fluked a winning team together let alone proven it over and over again.
'Pearce has the passion' is the biggest crock of bull i think i have ever heard as a reasoning for someone doing a job.
Pearce has managed a club side in his career for just two seasons. His 'passion' inspired Man City to 15th in the league one season, and nearly relegated the next before being replaced.
His passion saw them knocked out the cup by then lowly Doncaster. His passion inspired a very talented crop of U21s to not win a single game and get knocked out of the group stages of last years U21 championships.
When caretaker at Forest, his wife pointed out that the team he had picked did not include a goalkeeper.
Basically, he was a great player, and because he looked like he cared because he was an aggressive nutter, people think he is perfect for the highest footballing job in this country.
And have the numpties at the FA learnt anything about how to appoint a new manager - it appears not. They are going to take ages to draw up a shortlist while the press and every Tom Dick and Harry has the tupennyworth - and then the first choice might not agree. Why cannot they just spend the afternoon discussing the merits of the various candidates with some people who know about football in secret - and then just approach their first choice candidate - all in secret - and get the whole thing sorted by next Tuesday/Wednesday.
Comments
Yup, guess he's your man.
But the question is, how many truly world class players do we have?
Wakes in the morning facing a jail sentance, hefty fine and tax to pay.
Goes to bed with no sentance, fine or tax and virtual manager of England!
Wonder if he did the lottery.
Anyways, Beckham to lead England.
Besides I doubt we even have 3.
The question should be who is the best manager for the job, not the best English manager. If realistically the best happens to be English then good.
All the English managers mentioned in contention have a question mark against them it seems.
Harry has a lot of attributes and his teams play with flair, however WHU Pompey etc were not noted for their defensive qualities. He reminds me much of Joe Mercer, honest talking guy who stepped in to the breach after the Revie debacle and restored some pride and flair in to our national team. The downside was you new Mercer was never going to pick or organise a team that was defensively strong enough to compete against the strong nations when it matters.
English players on the whole are not noted for total flair compared to the Spanish, Brazil, Argies etc, so having a tight organised unit will always be important in competitions for us to progress.
J Mourinho has proven track record even at Madrid (where it is not so liked) that he can create tight units that compete first to have the right to use some flair when required. Unlike the other foreign incumbents his teams are more in keeping with English style, additionally he speaks the lingo well, knows how to handle the press and won't be swayed by them as his confident (ok arrogant) in his ability. He also has a good track record in handling your prima donna types and more important getting the best out of limited players to do a job, Terry ironically at Chelsea.
Harry also has a proven track record with man management of all types of players.
Harry seems to be favourite and the easier target and decision for the FA, also the FA would have sway over Spurs, whilst Mourinho would likely cost more in compensation (R.Madrid always talk big bucks). However Madrid would not stand in Mourinho's way if the media view of his tenure is correct.
If either of these two get the job I hope they succeed and take English International football forward from the disasters we have encountered in recent Finals.
If it were my decision I would go for Jose Mourinho, but good luck to Harry if it is him, anyone else (except Curbs biased CAFC) more painful years could beckon.
It's a good job he didn't come out with that in court, else the jury might have changed their mind and decided to disbelieve everything else he said, too!
I think he sums it up perfectly:
what are the odds on CafcCrazy for England?
Also the argument for or against foreign coaches is ridiculous. If you are going to appoint a foreign coach, the things you should be looking for are command of the language- which is important - Knowledge of the players - which can be gained but important in the short term and a knowledge of the strengths of the English game. When we have appointed foreign coaches, they have not been from the English game and Sven has since shown that despite an excellent CV, he struggled to manage an English club. If you are going to look beyond Pearce then surely it has to be Hiddink. He did an excellent job with Chelsea and the jobs he has done internationally with limited resources have been impressive.
Redknapp could be good but could just as easily be a disaster - You would expect a top 4 side such as Spurs to have taken the Europa league by storm wouldn't you?
Personally, I would like to see Wenger given the job - he has strong principles which he sticks to and he knows the English games and players inside out. If it has to be someone English I think Hodgson would be a pretty good choice who knows not a little about managing international teams.
Pearce has managed a club side in his career for just two seasons. His 'passion' inspired Man City to 15th in the league one season, and nearly relegated the next before being replaced.
His passion saw them knocked out the cup by then lowly Doncaster. His passion inspired a very talented crop of U21s to not win a single game and get knocked out of the group stages of last years U21 championships.
When caretaker at Forest, his wife pointed out that the team he had picked did not include a goalkeeper.
Basically, he was a great player, and because he looked like he cared because he was an aggressive nutter, people think he is perfect for the highest footballing job in this country.
You couldn't make it up, as they say.