It would be interesting to see how well someone like Mourinho, Wenger or Ferguson would do, if they managed England?
In my opinion, it wouldn't suit those managers. Part of what they're about is bringing players in to do specific jobs, it's my belief that the Intl format is considerably different.
Is it REALLY the managers fault when we are poor, or is it that we are deluded about how good our English players are?
Ultimately, they are lumped with the same talent as any other manager and wouldn't necessarily be able to do much more with it than anyone else; I'm not sure any one manager has really failed since McLaren, when wrong players were constantly being picked. That said, English players aren't playing abroad, whereas every other nation has renowned talent both home and abroad. Yes, the Prem is over-paid in comparison, and I think this has contributed to the more cushy attitude of the English players. Is it any surprise that year on year, the "best XI" of each season is populated by foreign talent, frequently the player of the season award resides with a foreginer.
Is it simply the fact that our players are flattered in the Premier League due to all the technical foreign players gelling them together?
I tend to agree - we're a victim of being the "best league in the World", as we have a rich and vast array of talent at every club; Newcastle last year were driven on by an Ivorian, a Frenchman, a Dutchman, an Argentine (or maybe two) and two Senegalese. That Danny Simpson is even mentioned in the same sentence as "England" is symptomatic of the problem; Danny is never an Intl class fullback, for a nation in the top 10 of World football. But continue down the league and there are some seriously good players at appalling teams, like Villa or Wigan. If this league were mainly populated by English players, the marketing value of the league would be on the floor.
Or does Premierleague rivalrys make it hard for our team to play as a TEAM, given all their personal rivalrys during the season?
Don't think this makes a lick of difference. Tevez seemed fine switching red to blue, Milner's had no problem playing for 87 different clubs as just two of a hundred examples. Player allegiances mean absolutely nothing and arguably they should all, to a man, support their country regardless of birthplace or employer.
My main issue with England is this - why does the England manager, and they've done this for at least 20-odd years now, continue to go against the grain and stick a 4-4-2 in every, single time?? Arsenal play 3 in the middle, so do City, United don't stick to 4-4-2, two of the best teams of last year - Spurs/Newcastle - both went 4-5-1/4-3-3, Chelsea have played that way for 12 years or so, yet England continue to stick two in the middle, two out wide and then moan when they can't make it happen. It's baffling beyond anything else. I'm not saying that would win us a trophy - what I am saying is that this team should be playing a modern formation. A back four is a back four is a back four - what I mean is that defensive line is the same the world over, pick up your man, cover your zone, play the line, keep tight. But England's huge problem is the front 6. Two flat lines, with the only mild variation being the 1990's style "support striker", with Rooney dropping off. 90% of the time we're playing big man, little man up front and thinking that'll win matches.
Yes there's work to do with the 5 yr olds. But what the heck is so difficult about looking at the Premier League, looking at the top 5 or 6 clubs and thinking "hmmm, maybe THAT tactic will make a bit easier". We're still so tactically naive.
