I am totally serious, SC. I think Harry would make a complete an utter balls-up of the England job, and he will be crucified for it. Pardw, too, will make a balls-up of it, but I don't think he'd do any worse than Harry, nor do I think he'll be ravaged as fiercely when inevitably, he fails to live up to the nation's expectations, for the simple reason that he won't have have the same degree of expectation on his shoulders as does Harry. The media is trying to make like Harry is some sort of Henry V character, able to rally the beleaguered English to a victory that non expect otherwise. Most of these twats haven't even read Shakespeare - I doubt they can even spell his name without having to Google it - and yet it doesn't stop them with all the "cry Harry for England" bollocks! Among all the potential failures that the FA has at its disposal, Pardew is at least as good as Harry, in my view.
The best example I can think of are Dyer and Sinclair at Swansea, and bent and Agbonlahor at Villa. Oh, and somebody who has failed at international level for a decade at Liverpool...
I believe the actual quote from Andy Gray was "I think Roy Hodgson would be a great choice for Pwooooaarrrrrr look at the Jugs on that Woof woof woof......................................................." So I think that is inconclusive on his opinion.
Leave it with Pearcey, average manager for an average team, who is more than capable of our average QF finishes.
You've hit the nail on the head, notso The best we're ever going to do is be "average" on the international stage. Most sensible English fans have accepted that. It's only the knuckle-draggers who buy into all that "football's coming home" bollocks. A good manager is wasted on the England squad, and he's ruined for being better than the very average players that he tries to turn into some semblance of a winning team.
Except, Argentina & W.Germany both won WC's with average teams, and Greece & Denmark won EC's with average teams. Cup comps are always winnable by average teams playing above themselves.
However an average England team wont win anything. Greece might have been poor but they had a good team spirit...great bonding...and plenty guts. that can do the trick in a one off tournament.
All very true Spurf, as is favourites going home early. Also true, is that unlike the countries you mention, Englands name is marked, has been for years, so when the tournament orgainsers are against you which UEFA and FIFA are, and the refs give you nothing, our average team will remain just that.
When I come to power, the myth that West Germany had an average team will be exposed for the utter bollocks (with a hint of sour grapes) that it always was. Let's start with the fact that a team with Sepp Maier in goal, Beckenbauer and Breitner in defence, Hoeness and Bonhoff in midfield, and Gerd Muller up front is not "average" by any stretch of the imagination. It's also a myth that Argentina's 1986 squad was Maradona + ten. Whilst he was the best player in the world at the time, the rest of the squad weren't hanging on his coattails. Greece may have had a weak squad, but they knew how to defend like their lives depended on it - and were quite adept at taking a tumble when there were no better options available. They were anti-football at its worst, to the point that Jose Mourinho must've been a fan...
Mainly because the last time the Greeks adopted those tactics, they held the Persians to a 0-0 draw for three days...
Probably meant 1990, we were the better team in that semi and would have thrashed the Argies in the final. What might have been!
