Apparently Stuart Pearce has said he wants to stay on as Engalnd Under-21 coach, and he is due to start contract talks with the FA. Does anyone really believe that Pearce is the right man to bring on the country's future full international players? We are supposed to be in the middle of a coaching and development revolution which will break the eternal circle of failure at international level. How can anyone expect that to be taken seriously if the FA then re-appoint Pearce?
Yep, completely agree. Let's bring in someone from a successful country, I'd happily have a german, spaniard, etc in charge of their development. If it's supposedly not a problem with the full national team, I don't see why it should be with the youths. It should be the best man (or frankly, woman) for the job, and with the resources that the FA have, then frankly we should have nigh-on the best coach available in the world.
Pearce should already be out of a job. Was clueless bordering on embarrassing at the last u21 tournament.
Someone on the BBC website made a half-decent point; the U-21s last 9 results are as follows: Lost to Italy 1-0 Beat Austria 4-0 Beat Romania 3-0 Beat Sweden 4-0 Beat Northern Ireland 2-0 Beat Serbia 1-0 (twice) Beat Norway 1-0 Beat Azerbaijan 2-0 Beat Belgium 4-0 Does that not look as though Pearce is doing a fairly good job of managing the team? Thoughts?
Of those 9, only 2 reached the current Finals (Norway and Italy). So if we regard being in the top 9 good enough (discounting Israel, who qualified as host country), then OK. But does anyone think we compare favourably with the likes of Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy? David Pleat's comments after yesterday's Italy game summed it up well, and summed up everything wrong with England -- and with Pearce: "England were England, they defended and worked hard for each other but lacked inspiration. When they did have efforts at goal they were not too clever.... They were dogged and determined, but not creative enough. The Italians were clearly technically better........." In other words, what we have with Pearce is the same old England. The FA need to demonstrate that they believe their own development hype and make a statement to the effect that the future starts now.
I agree about the pearce comments generally, but also he doesn't have all the players which could be avaliable to his disposal, as david pleat also points out. Wilshere, welbeck, oxlaide-chamberlain and walker were all involved in the senior squad (unless they pulled out through injury). Why are they not picked for tournement football at the U21 level shows what is wrong about the FA. surely they can play for both as necessary? one other big problem is the severe lack of strikers (in fact that counts for the senior squad too), it's shocking. we had wickham and delfuenso last night, one is a bench-warmer at sunderland and one is on loan in the championship. italy had strikers playing who play for Serie A teams regularly (the too many foreigners in the PL point again)
Pearce has never filled me with any confidence. He might chest beat and be England through and through but he is not the brightest tool in the draw and cannot think that he has much respect from the players. I would stick with an English set-up because at some point we are going to have to stand up on our own two feet and there is no sign of that happenign soon is there?
Pearce is not at fault according to these points. I feel some people are being a little harsh on him. Also, if you look at those 9 results I posted earlier, although they weren't against the 'top sides', most of them appear to be comfortable wins (judging by the scorelines).
What gives you that impression? Goodness me, I never thought I'd be defending Stuart Pearce like this!
Simply for the reasons that I expanded. i would see him as a passion rouser and sometimes a player would look for a little more insight than that. Look at the great managers and you would look for additional qualities, that was all JK.
In terms of him being passionate I'm sure you're right. However, it annoys me a bit when people make general statements about players/managers/coaches like "I don't think he commands much respect from the players". How are we to know that without working with him or being a fly on the wall in the dressing room? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone involved in the U-21s set up has alluded to such have they? For all we know he commands the utmost respect of the players! Apologies, rant over!
I can see the force of the argument at full international level that we can only do the best we can with the type of player we've been left with after decades of falling further and further behind other nations such as Spain and Germany. We tried to reduce the gap by bringing in experienced continental coaches like Erickson and Capello, who in the end threw in the towel in despair at our technical shortcomings and lack of intelligence on (and off) the field. But with Pearce we are applying that same argument at Under-21 level, saying he'll get the maximum out of the limited resources we have. It is saying that even our current crop of youngsters are so technically behind and so incapable of being taught to play the kind of football needed, that we should give up on them too. And worse still, if you let Pearce carry on, you are saying that that is true of the generations below Under-21 level as well. And so it will go on. IMO the FA should put someone in charge who has at least played and/or managed abroad, and who represents a break from the past. Roy Hodgson has at least the right managerial credentials in that respect: he's hugely respected -- abroad! We need someone similar to him as coach of the Under-21s.
You do make some good point robbieBB I'll give you that. In my opinion, to an extent, it just seems to smack a little bit of the 'England management/coaching cycle' of: "We need a foreign influence!" -> "We need an Englishman!" -> "We need a foreign influence" -> etc etc
I guess you could argue the U21 manager is largely irrelevant, seeing as the players involved see him for maybe a couple of weeks per year (+ tournaments). That's nowhere near enough time to work on anything technical, it's barely enough to get the players to know each each other and prepare tactics for whatever match is approaching. The problems have developed before then, when players arrive in the U21's, the new generation have been developed just like the last one, and so there's no progress. It's at grass-roots level, in academies, etc, where the real work needs to be done, so that the players that Pearce has at his disposal are more technically able. I guess all we really need from an U21 manager is someone who can motivate, nurture, and play a similar system to the "proper" (for want of a better word) side, so the transition to full international level is easier.
the problem lays at grass roots football. youngsters are taught to win at all costs, to the detriment of proper coaching in ball skills, team awareness, player movement and the likes. thus as they progress up the ladder they are miles behind their continental counterparts and find it impossible to catch up. Pearce can only do so much with the material at his disposal. this was obvious 40 years ago, and nothing has changed since then. radical thought, have a series of regional leagues with the best young players playing against each other, with no league table and nothing for winning. it won't happen as the win at all costs mindset is so ingrained it is likely to be impossible for it ever to be eradicated. and at the forefront of this are the parents.
