Roiling football blather

[crackerjack]

You gotta feel sorry for him, he was obviously in way over his head. The way that all his "big" decisions were instantly proved wrong yesterday was cruelly humourous. Carson dropping a bollock right at the start, Beckham left out but instantly providing the equalizer when he came on etc
Not sure about the nous of giving McClaren a two year contract - why give him a contract at all, everyone knew it was the wrong decision, they've got to fucking sort it out this time. It's a horrible job though, if you were Wenger or Morinho or whoever would you go for it?

I think Mourinho may yet surprise us.

Edit: Mac was right about Beckham. The cross for the goal was great, everything else he did was poor and even his corners and freekicks generally failed to clear the first man. He was so far off the pace it was like being a man short.

 

[baboon2004]

You gotta feel sorry for him, he was obviously in way over his head. The way that all his "big" decisions were instantly proved wrong yesterday was cruelly humourous. Carson dropping a bollock right at the start, Beckham left out but instantly providing the equalizer when he came on etc
..... It's a horrible job though, if you were Wenger or Morinho or whoever would you go for it?

But everything in football seems to be rated retrospetively - sometimes ridiculously so. if England had won 3-2, MacLaren would have been rated as some kind of genius comeback kid. And it could have easily happened. As for Beckham, it's not MacLaren's fault he chose yesterday to be quite good, whilst he was average against Austria - the coach can only do so much.

I think MacLaren's failures lie not so much in selection (if Carson had had a good game, it would have been a 'brave and inspired move'), but in the inability to inspire confidence/ panache in his team, whoever is playing. That's what someone like Mourinho does so brilliantly.

Best moment of the night: Motty completely losing it at ninety minutes: "Say something, Mark - say something!"

 

[IdleRich]

"Edit: Mac was right about Beckham. The cross for the goal was great, everything else he did was poor and even his corners and freekicks generally failed to clear the first man. He was so far off the pace it was like being a man short."

"As for Beckham, it's not MacLaren's fault he chose yesterday to be quite good, whilst he was average against Austria - the coach can only do so much."

Not sure about that. I think that the decision McClaren had to make was whether or not it was worth having Beckham as someone who was off the pace but might provide that moment of magic. The moment of magic proved more important in the end. Subbuteo Sean is a better choice to bring on as well because of his pace which is the last thing you want to see as a tired defender in the final thirty minutes.

"if England had won 3-2, MacLaren would have been rated as some kind of genius comeback kid."

I doubt it. I haven't heard anyone with a good word to say about him since he took over. People in football are stupid but I think that they can recognise that relying on Israel to beat Russia and then getting a draw with a penalty from nothing and the only other shot on target does not reflect well on anyone concerned.

 

[crackerjack]

Here's the current running

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2215076,00.html#article_continue

http://www.ladbrokes.com/lbr_portal?LANG=en&STYLE=en&VIEW=uk&LAYOUT=default

The Ladbrokes list (Stuart Pearce at 20/1, Venables at 16) says everything you need to know about the current stature of English managers.

Interesting that Shearer's so high in the running. Other countries have gone down the superstar player with no management experience route with some success. He's also arrogant enough to do the job

 

[vimothy]

Is this still the all-purpose football thread? In which case...

God, it's some weird sort of relief that England didn't spawn their way into the finals, innit? The embarrassments that would have followed...

Yes -- although it's a bit shameful, I was kind of hoping that we lost because at 2-2 I thought we were totally undeserving of a place in the tournament and playing utterly shit football. (With Wayne Bridge nearly scoring the goal of the game -- in his own net)!

MacClaren is gone and IMO that's more important than being humiliated in Euro 08.

 

[gek-opel]

Yes -- although it's a bit shameful, I was kind of hoping that we lost because at 2-2 I thought we were totally undeserving of a place in the tournament and playing utterly shit football. (With Wayne Bridge nearly scoring the goal of the game -- in his own net)!

MacClaren is gone and IMO that's more important than being humiliated in Euro 08.

Like an alcoholic pissing his life up the wall I can only hope this is England/The FA reaching rock bottom. But unless there are personnel change at the highest level this nonsense is only going to continue I'm afraid.

 

[baboon2004]

I doubt it. I haven't heard anyone with a good word to say about him since he took over. People in football are stupid but I think that they can recognise that relying on Israel to beat Russia and then getting a draw with a penalty from nothing and the only other shot on target does not reflect well on anyone concerned.

Ok, not a genius, but he would've been lauded. And yet, ultimately, it's those 11 out on the pitch who contrived to start appallingly/get a lot better/fade. It's the yawning technical gap that was most evident last night, rather than any tactical shortcomings.

To illustrate, people still go on about how unlucky England were not to win italia 90, but to get to the infamous german game, England beat a very avergae Belgian side only after 120 mins, and then were given a bit of a footballing lesson against Cameroon. No-one ver mentions these things - results seem to take complete precedence when talking about England, and no-one talks about Bobby Robson as a pretty crap England manager (at least in that period)...

 

[baboon2004]

Like an alcoholic pissing his life up the wall I can only hope this is England/The FA reaching rock bottom. But unless there are personnel change at the highest level this nonsense is only going to continue I'm afraid.

reachng rock bottom is just something the England team does every few years. No need to panic.

 

[IdleRich]

"Like an alcoholic pissing his life up the wall I can only hope this is England/The FA reaching rock bottom. But unless there are personnel change at the highest level this nonsense is only going to continue I'm afraid."

I know it's judging personality by the internet and something you're (perhaps rightly at least in this instance) very much not in favour of but I'm amazed to discover that you are interested in football Gek.

"Ok, not a genius, but he would've been lauded. And yet, ultimately, it's those 11 out on the pitch who contrived to start appallingly/get a lot better/fade. It's the yawning technical gap that was most evident last night, rather than any tactical shortcomings. "

When did they get better? Anyway, he would not have been lauded, he'd already lost all credibility by even being in the situation of relying on Israel. Also, the tactical short-comings were there, Crouch was isolated in the starating formation just as all the pundits had predicted.

 

[baboon2004]

Considering that Italy or France could easily have lost out to Scotland though (a far inferior footballing team to Croatia), perhaps we're being a bit harsh on England. OK, they were shite, but many of the other big European teams are routinely disappointing as well.

I think the things that Enlgand fans rightly cannot stomach are more aesthetic, strangely (aside from number 3 below!):
(1) The aversion to risk, and the indulgence of 'star' players (hence let's get Jose in, as he won't take any shit);
(2) The defensive line we form on our 18-yard line whenever we get a lead against one of the 'big' teams;
(3) The capacity England have to bottle it at key moments. One or two more penalties scored and the 1990s/2000s could have been regarded as a golden era for English football.

 

[gek-opel]

I know it's judging personality by the internet and something you're (perhaps rightly at least in this instance) very much not in favour of but I'm amazed to discover that you are interested in football Gek.

Heheh... By inclination I prefer snooker I must say... however the mechanics (and the machinations) of football are actually fascinating. I'm slowly working my way into it...

 

[baboon2004]

When did they get better? Anyway, he would not have been lauded, he'd already lost all credibility by even being in the situation of relying on Israel. Also, the tactical short-comings were there, Crouch was isolated in the starating formation just as all the pundits had predicted.

Well, there were 15 minutes when it looked as though they might win (maybe I was drunk though).

Don't agree - Eriksson had some shocking results, and should by any logical criteria have lost all credibility, but we still would've kept him had we won the penalty shoot-out vs Portugal.

 

[gek-opel]

I think the things that Enlgand fans rightly cannot stomach are more aesthetic, strangely (aside from number 3 below!):
(1) The aversion to risk, and the indulgence of 'star' players (hence let's get Jose in, as he won't take any shit);
(2) The defensive line we form on our 18-yard line whenever we get a lead against one of the 'big' teams;
(3) The capacity England have to bottle it at key moments. One or two more penalties scored and the 1990s/2000s could have been regarded as a golden era for English football.

(1) here is anything but aesthetic. Its fucked England time and time again (specifically the last world cup). Rather than building a team which works (cf Reading- my home team... making the best of limited resources and actually constructing something which at its best is greater than the sum of its parts) the England team appears to be built around the idea of getting as many "stars" out as possible, never mind that they end up cancelling each other out! For all his tactical incoherency MacClaren did show some courage (fitfully) in terms of trying to break out of this. But Injuries combined with a lack of nerve put paid to this.

 

[tom pr]

I think MacLaren's failures lie not so much in selection (if Carson had had a good game, it would have been a 'brave and inspired move'), but in the inability to inspire confidence/ panache in his team, whoever is playing. That's what someone like Mourinho does so brilliantly.

I think he's useless in both aspects. You can't see someone like Rooney coming into the setup from a week of training at their club under Ferguson's eye, and then having to take orders from someone who's enjoyed minimal success at club level and earned most his money as an assistant manager, and tactically he's completely inept.

Last night offered up so many questions (though they only emerged after the laughter; I had no particular desire to see us go through). if you're going to change keeper and you have a friendly the weekend before, why not give him a game in that? Why play 442 in the friendly and then change the system the minute Owen gets injured, when it's clearly more beneficial to the team to keep the shape and sub in Defoe? Why, the minute Croatia scored their third, did he take off our best midfielder on the night to throw on another striker and kill the team's shape?

And the worst one: why is a team full of players so good at club level unable to play with any patience or composure the minute they concede a goal? The last fifteen minutes England literally did nothing but boot the ball over the top as hard as they could, and Croatia couldn't have had it easier. I think everything about English football needs to be ripped up; the attitude, the demand for instant results, the tactical stubborness (this 442 or death deal is one of the main things that hold the team back, especially when the idiot commentators and media support it), the calling for players' heads the minute they don't play well... The whole thing needs a revamp; a six year plan type deal where we build around a new core of young talent (the backline is fine, but Cole and Rooney aside, I'd keep nothing from there up), encourage more players to move abroad and pick up the sort of pedigree Hargreaves has, and give these players time to learn each others games inside out until we finally have an international team that plays like one. It'll never happen though.

 

[IdleRich]

"Well, there were 15 minutes when it looked as though they might win (maybe I was drunk though)."

Yeah, but not because we were playing well. We got a lucky penalty (it was a foul, I'm just saying it was lucky because there was absolutely no need for him to do it when the ball floated so aimlessly across the area) and Crouch scored a very good goal. Apart from that we didn't create anything since SWP hit the keeper in the fifteenth minute.
Disclaimer: I too was drunk.

"Don't agree - Eriksson had some shocking results, and should by any logical criteria have lost all credibility, but we still would've kept him had we won the penalty shoot-out vs Portugal."

Not to the same extent he didn't. Which results did he have as bad as 0-0 with Macedonia at home? On top of that he always qualified with ease, even after getting stuck with a bad hand by Keegan. Eriksson played 67 games and lost 10, mostly in the later stages of major tournaments; McClaren played 18 games and lost 5 of them, mainly in a piss poor group in the qualifying stages of the European Cup - surely you wouldn't seriously try and compare those records?

 

[vimothy]

Has anyone slagged off the state of the pitch yet?

 

[IdleRich]

Last night offered up so many questions (though they only emerged after the laughter; I had no particular desire to see us go through). if you're going to change keeper and you have a friendly the weekend before, why not give him a game in that? Why play 442 in the friendly and then change the system the minute Owen gets injured, when it's clearly more beneficial to the team to keep the shape and sub in Defoe? Why, the minute Croatia scored their third, did he take off our best midfielder on the night to throw on another striker and kill the team's shape?

Excellent points.

why is a team full of players so good at club level unable to play with any patience or composure the minute they concede a goal?

Likewise, but even more, why is the team so much less than the sum of its parts? Why can't they perform at the levels they do every week for their clubs? That's a problem with the manager for me.

 

[gek-opel]

Likewise, but even more, why is the team so much less than the sum of its parts? Why can't they perform at the levels they do every week for their clubs? That's a problem with the manager for me.

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/007995.html

England, however, never seem able to escape these fatalistic nets. That is partly because Defeat has been transcendentalized in English culture, transformed into a basic presupposition of experience. The problem is that a failure of belief - 'We cannot win' - has been transformed into a desire for failure - 'it is better not to win'. This kind of libidinal switch was what Nietzsche famously described in his analysis of slave morality. Unable to act, the slave eventually comes to think that it is better not to act, that those who are successful are Evil oppressors, that it is the weak and the destroyed who are the Chosen.

 

[vimothy]

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/007995.html

I've read that before -- I quite agree with some of it, actually.

 

[gek-opel]

I've read that before -- I quite agree with some of it, actually.

Yup its a nice analysis- the stuff about going into "plucky defeat" mode is especially accurate... we demand nothing more than a GLORIOUS failure.