Euro 2016 thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
SpursDisciple said:
hopefully time has mellowed his more abrasive ways with players.
Click to expand...
It was said that Hoddle wasn't the best at accepting inadequacy in his players (against his own standards) which frankly is hardly the worst fault and the fact that he was successful in his short tenure last time suggests that he knows how to manage/coach the best players, which is the key element of the national role.
 
1st choice, Pellegrini. 2nd, Big Sam. 3rd, Howe. 2,736th Southgate.

Pellegrini would be huge first choice for me, purely because I'd like the other 2 to stay at their clubs and Pellegrini would be free. When the FA interview candidates the first 2 questions should be "Should Rooney remain as captain?" and "Is the FA a competant organisation?". If they answer yes to either they should not get the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citizen Kane
Eddie Howe or Sean Dyche would be my picks, good, young English managers who'll grow into the role. Unfortunately I doubt either have a chance.

Big Sam's style of play wouldn't excite but it can be effective, plus I think he'd be the type to pick on form and not how popular the name is so that's definitely a plus point.

Southgate a big no-no from me, not good enough to manage the best this country has to offer.

Hoddle could be an option but he's been out of the game for years, not sure how he'd fare.

Despite how good Pellegrini is as a manager I personally don't like the idea of a foreign manager, always preferred an Englishman to manage the English national team, although the saddest thing is, there really aren't any English managers with a great reputation in the game.
 
Last edited:
No Kane No Gain said:
1st choice, Pellegrini. 2nd, Big Sam. 3rd, Howe. 2,736th Southgate.

Pellegrini would be huge first choice for me, purely because I'd like the other 2 to stay at their clubs and Pellegrini would be free. When the FA interview candidates the first 2 questions should be "Should Rooney remain as captain?" and "Is the FA a competant organisation?". If they answer yes to either they should not get the job.
Click to expand...
Quite a different interview style - to be expected to criticise the organisation you are applying to for a job?
 
So with the round of sixteen out of the way...

Best game: Belgium vs Hungary

Worst game: Portugal vs Croatia

Best goal: Xherdan Shaquiri, vs Poland
Honourable mention: Eden Hazard, vs Hungary

Flukiest goal: Giorgio Chiellini, vs Spain

Goal that's going to cost us a few million extra quid: Michy Batshuayi, vs Hungary

Most hapless display: England, vs Iceland
(Dis)honourable mention: Spain passing the ball sideways for half an hour despite being 1-0 down to an Italian team shutting up shop, Slovakia's limp surrender to Germany

Best rugby player: Renato Sanches

Worst refereeing display: Carlos Velasco Carballo, Croatia vs Portugal
 
I wonder if in the last 2 matches if Roy looked at the bench and though WTF is Barkley doing here and where is Andros! Because in all honesty both against Slovakia and Iceland I think that if Roy had trusted Barclay then he should have got on as we needed someone who could unlock the door and he should have been the best option.
 
I'd expect Rooney to retire from international football soon.

Whoever is appointed as England manager needs to identify quickly the system he wants to play, the players who fit that system and stick with it for 2 years until the World Cup. Other nations (notably Germany) have done this successfully. You can't have 30-40 players being selected, dropped, re-selected, mixed and matched and be no nearer knowing the best players, system, formation and tactics when a tournament arrives.

There are some promising young players around, but they need to improve technically and be honed as a team which plays to their strengths. There also needs to be a change in culture and attitudes so far as international football is concerned if the F.A really wants success. International football takes second place to club football. Players are routinely withdrawn from international squads because fitness for club games takes priority. The structure of the game also means that international players play twice per week almost all season with no break and arrive at tournaments tired or unfit. There needs to be more time allocated for the coaching and preparation of players selected and longer periods of rest. We will never have a system akin to the situation with centrally contracted players in cricket, but we need some power handed back to the F.A to control more rigorously the availability of players and the management of their workloads. As with cricket, if players are identified as being good enough for international football, they need all the technical support possible available to them to ensure that their skills are suited to the international game. That means less emphasis on them being physical specimens who can run all day in favour of honing technical skills and teaching them to more tactically astute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redwhiteandermblue
Being pilloried in public is hardly going to be a great incentive to young, multi-millionaires to turn out for their country, if they can get all the adulation they need at their clubs. As such, I am not at all as hopeful for the future of the England side as the FA appear to be.....

On on that subject...... That was one train wreck of a press conference...... :emoticon-0107-sweat
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Changing Man
Spur of the Moment said:
Being pilloried in public is hardly going to be a great incentive to young, multi-millionaires to turn out for their country, if they can get all the adulation they need at their clubs. As such, I am not at all as hopeful for the future of the England side as the FA appear to be.....

On on that subject...... That was one train wreck of a press conference...... :emoticon-0107-sweat
Click to expand...
To be watched through your fingers. He looked like he had dementia "I don't know why I'm here"
 
England are a mid-tier international side with potential to be top-tier but nowhere near there yet. Therefore we need to react to other teams to an extent rather than being able to impose a style every game because few teams (Italy, Germany, Spain and France right now) are able to consistently do that in a non-reactionary way. New manager needs to come in and:

  • Either decide on a single way of playing and practice it to death, or
  • identify a way to play when a) teams stick 10 behind the ball and play on the counter b) press us high up the pitch c) dominate us in possession. Big changes between each solution aren't really necessary I believe and fluidity within the match should be possible with few if any personnel changes. Players need to understand what is required in each circumstance and players need to be picked on the basis of their ability and willingness to commit to and execute that particular strategy, not because they're PL top scorer/Man U captain and record England scorer/on the books of a certain club. A, b and c cover the vast majority of situations one is likely to encounter in the match at international level and by and large changes to a team's strategy should be fairly easy to assess and predict given the need for substations in-game and the tendency of the vast majority of international teams to have a specific game plan, especially those England have struggled against in recent years. We knew Iceland and Russia and Slovakia were going to stick 10 behind the ball and counter but did not seem to have trained to defeat that. Similar to the long throw attacks which were specifically mentioned by management and were still inadequately countered.
  • be ruthless in selection. There is currently no outstanding player and/or leader in the England pool who is capable of being selected every game so do not appoint a permanent captain - or if you do make it an honorary position and make it clear that while having a permanent leader is important for the squad it does not mean that leader will play every game for the team if they do not deserve to start/it is deemed tactically wrong to do so. Have a leadership group of senior/vocal/respected players, one of whom can take control as captain during a game. There is far too much obsession in this country about who is captain of the National Team when you consider the relative importance of the position compared to sports like rugby and cricket.
  • be given a strong mandate to build lasting relationships with the clubs. Need to take a winger but not sure who might be best suited to be play a certain way? Ask the second opinions from managers with the best English wingers. Wondering if Wilshere can actually play defensive mid? Ask Wenger. Worried Joe Hart is out of form and gets mentally out of shape too often? Voice concerns to the manager and hear his thoughts on how to manage that. I see no reason why at least efforts should not be made to collaborate with club-level managers when they ultimately know these players best and might be able to assist in making informed decisions.
  • linked to previous - work with managers to assess players continually and talk with them and their club staff about improvements. Surely any player would be happy to hear from an international manager that they were very close to selection if they could work to improve a certain aspect of their game - and the test of the player would be to see if they wanted it enough to put the hours in on the training ground to improve.
We need a unified approach and a clear direction, and not an organisation driven by ex-players with little or no coaching experience who are only there because they once won the shirt, and suits who are self confessed "not football experts". It's not working. Southgate offers more than the likes of Rio and Shearer to be fair to him but he is not the answer for the seniors I fear.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying here and I have no idea who would be the person to execute this strategy, but can it really be that difficult unless you make it so by imposing restrictions on yourself?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Changing Man and vimhawk
The Huddlefro said:
The FA man's repeated assertion that he wasn't football expert was worrying as I think he's on the next committee to select the next manager!
Click to expand...

You're right, he is on the next England manager selection group. As is David Gill (who will be fine), and Dan Ashworth.

Ashworth is a failed player and a failed coach, yet is someone who has the gift of the gab to weasel his way into such a position of power. Me and him go back a long way and believe me, if he really does have an influence on the next appointment, then we should start worrying.
 
One of the most successful national management appointment processes produced Terry Venables as manager. The FA engaged Jimmy Armfield to do the assessment of candidates and to speak to people who were deemed relevant and might have something to contribute. I'd like to see something similar again but won't hold out too much hope.

It's a football appointment, allowing weasels and toads to do the job is just rubbish. Still, if the International Committee was disbanded, there'd be a load of old administrators short of a free lunch and lacking a reason to shine brass buttons on their second best blazer. They're the power in this - a bunch of old farts clinging on to an anachronistic amateur administration (alliteration). They loved Roy. No boat rocking. No scandal. Okay, he couldn't set up a team to beat The Eastbourne Heaven's Waiting Room Nursing Home Second XI; but nobody's perfect, eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotSoMightyEastbourneBoro
The F.A is an old boys' network - just like the MCC and ECB in cricket, PGA in golf and LTA in tennis. Full of damn good chaps with jolly good pedigrees who know f*** all about the sport they control. Bring in some Aussies
 
Last edited:
Although a lot of the problems begin and end with The FA, there's also been another major issue with the England camp: the players think they know better.

One example I remember is seeing Emlyn Hughes recount a story about when Ron Greenwood was England coach, and he'd always compile dossiers on the next opposition, yet Hughes said that half the time the players didn't read them as "It was only Cyprus" - yet how many times in recent years have we seen England play "only" teams x, y and z yet at no point did the team even look like they knew each other? Start with last night's game against "only Iceland", and work your way back through "only Costa Rica", "only the USA", and "only Algeria" for a start.

Another is how, at regular intervals when Sven and Capello were in charge, it felt as if the players were running the show instead of the coach - or to put it another way, as fine an example of lunatics running an asylum as you can get without having actual lunatics run an asylum.
 
"Thanks for that Brian" said:
This is exactly right.

We have good enough players to build a competitive team. Not good enough to win competitions but good enough to match Wales or Iceland. Hodgson was a typical FA appointment - bloody useless. I saw all I needed to see of him 4 years ago. He was awful then and remains awful now. He chops and changes players and systems, plays players out of position, picks injured and out of form players and has no motivational qualities. I've seen more charismatic mould.

I had no expectation of this team, nor any England side since 2006.Consequently, I'm not disappointed. I'm finding Icelandic a bit tricky but I'll get there...


Við erum ekki góður á öllum. Við þurfum að skipa alvöru þjálfara. Val mitt er fyrir Hoddle.
Click to expand...
That’s right, Icelandic is so easy a baby could learn it. And Iceland would welcome England into the EEA--http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2016/06/25/brexit_is_good_news_says_president_of_iceland/ though, apparently that may be a non-starter.

I’m always in favor of the youngest best man for he job, whoever that might be, and Pochettino has done nothing but reinforce my prejudice. Of the names that have come up, I’d go for Eddie Howe. The job needs someone who has to build his reputation. Anyone who already has one won’t take the risks and show the ruthlessness required to forge a team.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Spurf
AKCJ said:
They need to get someone in who knows what they're doing on the black board in the dressing room.

Sick of Roy "We'll play 4-3-3 and we'll be fine because Spain and Germany do despite the fact that none of my players play in a 4-3-3 for their clubs" Hodgson.

Edit; but Ranieri isn't your guy. It's all lies, he's a rubbish manager. Honest.
Click to expand...
Ranieri for England!

Never mind, he’d just use the job offer from a naive organization of red-shirted jerks to get himself a raise.
 
Media are of course disingenuous. For example if an England manager had the courage to leave Rooney behind for this competition they would have been slaughtered for doing so before the tournament started, and again if we'd gone out at this stage (despite in reality Rooney probably having no positive effect on the outcome). Before going there would be headlines of caps and goals won, of leadership and experience (etc etc blah blah), and if/when we go out they would have repeated that, or at least spun it to make it the managers fault. Who in their right mind is going to volunteer for that?

The only hope would be to lose gloriously, which the fans would probably accept, but managers appear to find difficult to achieve. Perhaps a manager who has the balls to make tough decisions about the make up of the squad would be able to motivate the team to do so, but then again, would the FA select such a manager?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back