Next England Manager

[Ian Royal]

It seems to me that the problem is almost entirely mental and organisational.

The team plays well in qualifying because there's plenty of games to put a mistake right and there are easy victories around the corner from the lesser teams. The tougher teams are less threatening because of that and are also less worried about losing for the same reasons.

At a tournament they have three games. The importance of a good start weighs down on them and they inevitably choke. Then it's must win and they often choke. The emphasis by the third game is always either must win the group for an easy tie or just must win to qualify. It's all tense. There's no calm relaxation taking each game as it comes and playing each on its merits.

Then you get to hthe knockouts and the pressure has already been exhausting. Noone wants to be the player that cocks up and loses the match. None of them play with freedom and confidence. Either none of them take the initiative or the ones that do do it in desperation and get it wrong.

Football isn't hard if you're good at it as long as you just relax and play your game with confidence and positivity.

It ws just so typical against Iceland. So unprofessional. Tgey turned up expecting to have all the ball and not defend. The only thing they thought they had to worty about ws how long to score. They get an early goal and clearly the game is won.

Once the game plan is gone they're all clueless and uncertain. No one is thinking. They all go into their shell and make bad decisions. It's slow, there's no purpose and it's aimlessly hopeful.

England must pick players that fit the formation and style they want to play. Andvthey have to pick smart players. Players who will move and think. Not just the heads down runners or workers. And they need to go young because the older generation are already shot.

Vardy had the right attitude but was woefully unsuited to the shape and style. Rashford had the desire and will, but isn't there yet. Sturridge plays for himself - out. Sterling s no control or idea what he's doing - out. Rooney is too set in the pattern - out. Lallana was the only one moving it quickly and with purpose. Hart's head just never seems in the game at a tournament. Kane looked clueless.

Dier and Lallana are the only ones that really made themselves undroppable IMO.

[Brosef Stalin]

so if this comp gets won by a team that is more similar to the England set up....how does this effect thinking?

Is several world class players coming through at the same time down to randomness or coaching (France & Spain)

[Royal Rother]

And the other thing to remember is that England aren't *bad*. They're somewhere up towards the top 10 in the world. Marginal gains could make all the difference.

Dave Brailsford for manager!

[stealthpapes]

so if this comp gets won by a team that is more similar to the England set up....how does this effect thinking?

Is several world class players coming through at the same time down to randomness or coaching (France & Spain)

There's no teams left that are as much as a shambles as England.

Anyway, population * process = profit!

[Franchise FC]

It seems to me that the problem is almost entirely mental and organisational.

...

Dier and Lallana are the only ones that really made themselves undroppable IMO.

And yet, in Woy's ultimate wisdom, neither of these players were on the pitch for the second half of a must win knock out match.

Dier, for me, was England's best player at the tournament.

[AthleticoSpizz]

Dier...that's an anagram right?

[Hoop Blah]

And the other thing to remember is that England aren't *bad*. They're somewhere up towards the top 10 in the world. Marginal gains could make all the difference.

Exactly, our system produces more than enough players of good enough quality but we don't seem to be able to get the best out of them at the very top level. That might be mental/organisational as Ian suggests or it might be a wider cultural influence which just stops us being able to get over the line when it matters.

In terms of coaching numbers we are miles behind the likes of Germany but one thing that never gets mentioned when we compare our 1,400 to their 6,000 is that we only have 1.3m registered male players compared to their 5.3m. That's quite eye opening as well if you ask me (FIFA's stats so who knows if they're correct or not!).

[Sutekh]

And the other thing to remember is that England aren't *bad*. They're somewhere up towards the top 10 in the world. Marginal gains could make all the difference.

Exactly, our system produces more than enough players of good enough quality but we don't seem to be able to get the best out of them at the very top level. That might be mental/organisational as Ian suggests or it might be a wider cultural influence which just stops us being able to get over the line when it matters.

In terms of coaching numbers we are miles behind the likes of Germany but one thing that never gets mentioned when we compare our 1,400 to their 6,000 is that we only have 1.3m registered male players compared to their 5.3m. That's quite eye opening as well if you ask me (FIFA's stats so who knows if they're correct or not!).

Ratio of coaches to players doesn't look exactly brilliant in either country with those stats. It does, however highlight the coaching "gap" as not being that big although there is still room for improvement in England. Ratio is approx 1 coach to every 883 players in Germany whereas England is 1 coach to every 928 players.

[stealthpapes]

And the other thing to remember is that England aren't *bad*. They're somewhere up towards the top 10 in the world. Marginal gains could make all the difference.

Exactly, our system produces more than enough players of good enough quality but we don't seem to be able to get the best out of them at the very top level. That might be mental/organisational as Ian suggests or it might be a wider cultural influence which just stops us being able to get over the line when it matters.

In terms of coaching numbers we are miles behind the likes of Germany but one thing that never gets mentioned when we compare our 1,400 to their 6,000 is that we only have 1.3m registered male players compared to their 5.3m. That's quite eye opening as well if you ask me (FIFA's stats so who knows if they're correct or not!).

Ratio of coaches to players doesn't look exactly brilliant in either country with those stats. It does, however highlight the coaching "gap" as not being that big although there is still room for improvement in England. Ratio is approx 1 coach to every 883 players in Germany whereas England is 1 coach to every 928 players.

But the 5 times as many part makes a whole lot of difference.

The same differences in number, if not greater, also occurs at the lower levels with the local teams and the cub scout teams having coaches who have been some coaching training.

There's really no argument to be had.

Or you lot can do it the same way for another twenty years and let's come back and see what the results are. Again.

[stealthpapes]

Dier...that's an anagram right?

Reid.

[AthleticoSpizz]

Nice one

[Hoop Blah]

But the 5 times as many part makes a whole lot of difference.

The same differences in number, if not greater, also occurs at the lower levels with the local teams and the cub scout teams having coaches who have been some coaching training.

There's really no argument to be had.

Or you lot can do it the same way for another twenty years and let's come back and see what the results are. Again.

The point I was making is that one of the reasons they have 5 times as many coaches is that they've got almost the same difference in actual players.

I'm not supporting/suggesting the idea that we don't need better coaching, just that looking at the number of players actually playing gives that difference a bit of perspective (if those FIFA figures are anywhere near like for like and accurate).

Anyway, I still maintain we produce good enough technical players, it's just converting that into an effective and robust team under pressure that we fail at. Why that is I'm not so sure.

[stealthpapes]

I've used intelligence in the past, while that particular word might enrage the 'Arry Redknapps on the board, the learned and trained ability to adapt to different tactics and adopt different styles, to understand what's expected at different times in the game, to play in an controlled manner might be something that UK players are typically missing.

I also think that England often suffer in tournaments from a massive lack of strength in depth - there's always someone on an injury comeback, or someone missing due to suspension or injury. Always. That would suggest that there *aren't* enough good enough technical players.

[Brosef Stalin]

I've used intelligence in the past, while that particular word might enrage the 'Arry Redknapps on the board, the learned and trained ability to adapt to different tactics and adopt different styles, to understand what's expected at different times in the game, to play in an controlled manner might be something that UK players are typically missing.

I also think that England often suffer in tournaments from a massive lack of strength in depth - there's always someone on an injury comeback, or someone missing due to suspension or injury. Always. That would suggest that there *aren't* enough good enough technical players.

+1 Danny Mills was part of the Golden generation first 11

[Hoop Blah]

I've used intelligence in the past, while that particular word might enrage the 'Arry Redknapps on the board, the learned and trained ability to adapt to different tactics and adopt different styles, to understand what's expected at different times in the game, to play in an controlled manner might be something that UK players are typically missing.

I also think that England often suffer in tournaments from a massive lack of strength in depth - there's always someone on an injury comeback, or someone missing due to suspension or injury. Always. That would suggest that there *aren't* enough good enough technical players.

+1 Danny Mills was part of the Golden generation first 11

Errmmmm, no he wasn't! He covered for Gary Neville at the 2002 World Cup and had a storming tournament to be fair.

I do agree Paps, at times we don't seem to have the mental capacity to adapt quick enough, or take the right choices during a game. The current trend is to call it in game management and it gets talked of a lot but, like defending properly, it seems to be something that passes us by a bit too much at the moment.

I don't agree that we suffer from a lack of depth in general. What we do suffer with is turning decent players into heroic talismen that the team can't possibly cope without and then we had a run of those players picking up injuries in the build up to tournaments (Rooney, Beckham and Owen at the WC 2006?). Like most countries, we can't produce 3 or 4 top international class in each position and we've perhaps been unlucky that Rooney picked up those injuries in his prime, but it's a cultural obsession with celebrity and building up heroic individuals that, IMO, compounds that issue.

It's the focus on the individuals not the team that is probably the underlying problem.

[Brosef Stalin]

I've used intelligence in the past, while that particular word might enrage the 'Arry Redknapps on the board, the learned and trained ability to adapt to different tactics and adopt different styles, to understand what's expected at different times in the game, to play in an controlled manner might be something that UK players are typically missing.

I also think that England often suffer in tournaments from a massive lack of strength in depth - there's always someone on an injury comeback, or someone missing due to suspension or injury. Always. That would suggest that there *aren't* enough good enough technical players.

+1 Danny Mills was part of the Golden generation first 11

Errmmmm, no he wasn't! He covered for Gary Neville at the 2002 World Cup and had a storming tournament to be fair.

I do agree Paps, at times we don't seem to have the mental capacity to adapt quick enough, or take the right choices during a game. The current trend is to call it in game management and it gets talked of a lot but, like defending properly, it seems to be something that passes us by a bit too much at the moment.

I don't agree that we suffer from a lack of depth in general. What we do suffer with is turning decent players into heroic talismen that the team can't possibly cope without and then we had a run of those players picking up injuries in the build up to tournaments (Rooney, Beckham and Owen at the WC 2006?). Like most countries, we can't produce 3 or 4 top international class in each position and we've perhaps been unlucky that Rooney picked up those injuries in his prime, but it's a cultural obsession with celebrity and building up heroic individuals that, IMO, compounds that issue.

It's the focus on the individuals not the team that is probably the underlying problem.

lols was just being a dick....Danny Mills was shit though. I recently saw the Eng v Bra WC game. Brazil
pressed the ball until it went to DM and then they were happy for him to have it as they knew he'd
just punt it long

[Hoop Blah]

It's too early....should've realised!

I'm quite undecided where I want England to go next. I'd much rather an English manager, for no other reason than I just think the England side should have England players and England staff and I think that should be part of ensuring we show that passion for playing international football.

I want a manager who will build a team, one that knows how to get good players playing well. Someone who won't pander to the media or public and just look to get the job done as best they can.

As I've been thinking about it a lot of factors are pointing me towards Big Sam, but I'm not sure he's quite the man to get the best of our talent reaching their full potential.

I also have a hankering for Hoddle to get another stab at it. His England side was great to watch and I think it was such a bad thing for English football that he was booted out and didn't get to manage the golden generation at the best. But then I think back to sight of David Batty stepping up to take a penalty and Hoddle's theory that practising penalties would've been irrelevant and I have my doubts again.

Oh for a young Terry Venables or Glenn Hoddle coming through and being ready for the job.

[stealthpapes]

lols was just being a dick....Danny Mills was shit though. I recently saw the Eng v Bra WC game. Brazil
pressed the ball until it went to DM and then they were happy for him to have it as they knew he'd
just punt it long

Eh, for Danny Mills you've also got Trevor Sinclair (2002), Darius Vassell (2004), Andy fucking Sinton (1992)

[stealthpapes]

I don't agree that we suffer from a lack of depth in general.

It'll be hard to quantify, but I think there's enough examples out there. And when you start delving into the not-quite-good enough, it's absolutely fatal.

Football is an O-ring game - the weakest link is key (as Bro's anecdote handily points out)

[Hoop Blah]

And as plenty of teams have shown, it's also a lot more about how those players are used than their reputations.

Wales have got James Chester and Gunter in their side and they're record over the last 18 months or so is pretty solid.

Danny Mills might not have been the white Cafu but he performed more than capably in that World Cup and was also part of the Leads side who made the Champions League semi-final around the same time. It's too easy to laugh off players like Mills and Sinclair, but they're good players and are just as capable as players that other strong nations call upon too (Giaccherini has done well for Italy in the Euro's for example, and lets not forget that Per Mertesacker has over 100 caps for Germany).

We're far too harsh on our players and far too caught up on reputation.