|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 18, 2013 12:04:29 GMT
Lets be honest, theyre more fun than watching England ;)
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Jun 18, 2013 13:04:42 GMT
Lets be honest, theyre more fun than watching England ;) Spoken like a true patriot.... ::) :-X |
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 18, 2013 19:49:15 GMT
Lets be honest, theyre more fun than watching England ;) Spoken like a true patriot.... ::) :-X Right on the nail there David ;D i love watching England play cricket, rugby, competing in the Olympics, British through and through but watching them play football is something to self harm to ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 20:11:24 GMT
And right on the nail, there, Phil. Apart from an isolated incident when Beckham scored a free kick against Greece, the last time I enjoyed watching England play football was in Italia 1990, in Gazza's heyday. Check out this statement from Sir Alex of a year ago: www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2012/02/20/2918531/paul-gascoigne-is-the-only-world-star-england-have-producedRoy is doing a good job with the material he has, but the influx of foreign players to the Premiership has been detrimental to our game nationally and, ever since, watching us play has been cringeworthy. |
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 18, 2013 23:14:00 GMT
And right on the nail, there, Phil. Apart from an isolated incident when Beckham scored a free kick against Greece, the last time I enjoyed watching England play football was in Italia 1990, in Gazza's heyday. Check out this statement from Sir Alex of a year ago: www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2012/02/20/2918531/paul-gascoigne-is-the-only-world-star-england-have-producedRoy is doing a good job with the material he has, but the influx of foreign players to the Premiership has been detrimental to our game nationally and, ever since, watching us play has been cringeworthy. Not wrong there tommo, half the problem is that the Chelseas and Man Citys of this world are signing top fireign players that make the English players look better than what they are, which prompts Harry Redknapps comments that as a unit we havent got a clue! Old 'arry is right as far as im concerned, particularly after the hideous showing at the u21 Euro Championships. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2013 8:39:40 GMT
Old 'arry is right as far as im concerned, particularly after the hideous showing at the u21 Euro Championships. Yeah, even Sergeant Major Pearce, who would sweat blood for England, has been unable to knock 'em into shape. ::) |
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 19, 2013 10:04:43 GMT
Old 'arry is right as far as im concerned, particularly after the hideous showing at the u21 Euro Championships. Yeah, even Sergeant Major Pearce, who would sweat blood for England, has been unable to knock 'em into shape. ::) I think when you give these youngsters 100k a week nobody is going to get through to them, as they simply dont care! |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Jun 19, 2013 10:19:27 GMT
Not wrong there tommo, half the problem is that the Chelseas and Man Citys of this world are signing top fireign players that make the English players look better than what they are, which prompts Harry Redknapps comments that as a unit we havent got a clue! Old 'arry is right as far as im concerned, particularly after the hideous showing at the u21 Euro Championships. I agree that there are too many foreign players at the top teams in the Premier League, but we do have English players that have the ability. It seems to me that when those players get picked for England that we have no real system that allows them to show their ability.... the formation seems to change from match to match and it seems that many of the players are simply not allowed to express themselves freely and are therefore inhibited when they play. Perhaps Harry Redknapp has a point about the team not having a clue.... or maybe it is just a bit of sour grapes from him as he didn't get the job.... but I certainly think that part of the problem is that the FA seem to like to have a "safe pair of hands" when they appoint the England manager rather than somebody who will bring innovation into the team and is prepared to take risks to get results, perhaps the pressure that the media and public also place on the manager and players also makes it harder for our players than some other countries as well? The fact that we won the World Cup in 1966 means that everybody in the country feels we should win it every time.... especially as the Premier League is widely regarded as the best in the world. Hodgson has a solid track record, but nothing spectacular in his CV.... there are many managers around who could do the job better I am sure. There have been very few England managers recently that I felt were the right people for the job, the last ones that I liked go back to the era of Bobby Robson, Terry Venables and Glenn Hoddle, all of whom were tactically aware and seemed to be making progress. Since then, we seem to have been given dinosaurs as managers which means that we will never win anything.... :-X With regards to the Under 21's, it was an appalling display at the recent Euro Championships, although I do feel a bit sorry for Stuart Pearce.... many of his best players were not available which made his job very hard, especially as most of them were taken to Brazil for a friendly with the senior team.... okay, so it gave those players the chance to have a look at Brazil for the World Cup (if we get there of course.... :-/) but surely a competitive tournament should take preference to a friendly? Poor timing of the match in Brazil in my opinion.... ::) |
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 19, 2013 10:46:46 GMT
Youd think that a tournament would take priority but im wondering if they were presented with the option of either gaining a coveted senior cap, which are being handed out left right and centre to the likes of Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson, not to be unfair ;) or a chance to play in a tournament that doesnt really gain a lot of public and media recognition, but indeed im not on the FA board so havent a clue ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2013 10:51:38 GMT
Some sensible and valid points there, but not sure about this paragraph: Hodgson has a solid track record, but nothing spectacular in his CV.... there are many managers around who could do the job better I am sure. There have been very few England managers recently that I felt were the right people for the job, the last ones that I liked go back to the era of Bobby Robson, Terry Venables and Glenn Hoddle, all of whom were tactically aware and seemed to be making progress. Yes, the FA do tend to go for a safe pair of hands, but Roy Hodgson's CV is impressive: his managerial career spans nearly 35 years and involves stints at no fewer than 12 top flight European clubs and three international jobs. Add to this winning the Swedish and Danish league titles, reaching two European finals and taking Switzerland to their first World Cup finals in 28 years. On English soil he was brilliant when managing Fulham, struggled at Liverpool, but was brilliant again for West Brom. By contrast Hoddle (who you have mentioned) had limited experience as a manager when given the England job, and possesses 0% man management skills. The way he treated Gazza was disgraceful. An absolute disaster. Only Robson, Venables and Sven Goran Eriksson have measured up to the job in the nineties and noughties, and they were sacked for 'other reasons' (not to do with their managerial record). Harry boy was of the same ilk, would have come too expensive and they were never going to choose him. I was surprised when Spurs sacked him though, he's turned them into a force to be reckoned with again. |
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 19, 2013 11:51:24 GMT
Some sensible and valid points there, but not sure about this paragraph: Hodgson has a solid track record, but nothing spectacular in his CV.... there are many managers around who could do the job better I am sure. There have been very few England managers recently that I felt were the right people for the job, the last ones that I liked go back to the era of Bobby Robson, Terry Venables and Glenn Hoddle, all of whom were tactically aware and seemed to be making progress. Yes, the FA do tend to go for a safe pair of hands, but Roy Hodgson's CV is impressive: his managerial career spans nearly 35 years and involves stints at no fewer than 12 top flight European clubs and three international jobs. Add to this winning the Swedish and Danish league titles, reaching two European finals and taking Switzerland to their first World Cup finals in 28 years. On English soil he was brilliant when managing Fulham, struggled at Liverpool, but was brilliant again for West Brom. By contrast Hoddle (who you have mentioned) had limited experience as a manager when given the England job, and possesses 0% man management skills. The way he treated Gazza was disgraceful. An absolute disaster. Only Robson, Venables and Sven Goran Eriksson have measured up to the job in the nineties and noughties, and they were sacked for 'other reasons' (not to do with their managerial record). Harry boy was of the same ilk, would have come too expensive and they were never going to choose him. I was surprised when Spurs sacked him though, he's turned them into a force to be reckoned with again. I shall tell you why he was sacked, Daniel Levy is one of the most power mad chairmen in the history of football. Him and Harry could not stand each other and mainly over the transfer policies and structure of the club. How often do you hear Levy stepping in saying oh so n so wont be sold etc. you dont see that from the likes of Glazer, Hill-Wood, Abramovich and even Mubarak. He wont get on with his managers because hes always gotta be involved in his mind, if he backed off things would go smoother. Although as a gooner it makes me rub my hamds with glee ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2013 15:43:17 GMT
Sugar v Venables all over again. Venables told Sugar not to interfere with transfer dealings and to let him run that side of things in his own way. Sugar wasn't going to be spoken to like that so Terry had to go. Clash of egos.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 19, 2013 19:35:54 GMT
Sugar v Venables all over again. Venables told Sugar not to interfere with transfer dealings and to let him run that side of things in his own way. Sugar wasn't going to be spoken to like that so Terry had to go. Clash of egos. Lord Alan Sugar himself? Didnt know he had an interest in football |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2013 20:41:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 19, 2013 20:59:42 GMT
Well there we go then ;D i seriously had no idea |
|
