Next England Manager

No, the problem with Hoddle is that he is hideously poor at man-management, and also has an ego the size of Wayne Rooney's dinnerplate. His idea of training was, by all accounts, showing off how good he still was and fell out with anyone who had more raw talent/skill than him (Gascoigne, Le Tissier) or dared to question his concept of off-the-pitch preparation. He was also obsessed with his bloody 3-5-2 and failed to realise that the majority of English players aren't accustomed to playing that way.

Hoddle had good players at his disposal, he just didn't know how to use them. Look at some of the players he had available then, which we don't anymore: Seaman, Adams, Shearer, Scholes all at their peak, plus many more. I'm not saying we don't have better players now, but it was hardly like the end of the Graham Taylor era.
 
Oh, he wasn't a good manager tactically at all, but without the dressing room you wouldn't be anything even if you were a tactical god.

And nice dig at Rooney... bet you like him at the WC though :P.
 
Wasn't really a dig, I just needed something vaguely lighthearted to use for my analogy. I was going to mention Mick Quinn but some people here probably don't remember him :)

In terms of strength in depth I think we have quite a good squad now (left wing aside, as always), but you can only have 11 players on the pitch at once. Everyone likes to say how we have the best players for ages, this is our chance to win the World Cup - but to be frank, we had a cracking bunch during Hoddle's tenure as well. Sven can still **** things up for us in Germany.
 
Not Pearce.
Not Allerdyce.

Allerrdyce plays the most basic kick and rush type of football, his team never controls a game, they are either on the attack, or they dont have posestion, its as simple as that, with him in charge it would take 3 games tops for the press to be calling for his head.

And Pearce? he just doesnt know what he is doing yet, pretty much the same style of play as Allerdyce, either attacking, or not in possestion.

You dont need a genius to be England manager, you just need someone who knows when to stick, and when to twist, the team picks itself.
 
Ultimately who can name a manager responsible for winning a world cup, i know i cant, look at the last few winners they all had 1 or 2 absolulety fantastic players, who needs a tactical guru when you have a Zidane a Ronaldo a Klinsman a Rooney??(maybe)
 
atpbx said:
Not Pearce.
Not Allerdyce.

Allerrdyce plays the most basic kick and rush type of football, his team never controls a game, they are either on the attack, or they dont have posestion, its as simple as that, with him in charge it would take 3 games tops for the press to be calling for his head.

And Pearce? he just doesnt know what he is doing yet, pretty much the same style of play as Allerdyce, either attacking, or not in possestion.

You dont need a genius to be England manager, you just need someone who knows when to stick, and when to twist, the team picks itself.
Click to expand...

Not at all, Allardyce is very tactically aware, he plays to his sides strengths, does it work? Yes. It's exactly what Chelsea have been doing except Bolton have been doing it longer. If Bolton had the finances Chelsea do, then they would be top.
 
NokkonWud going back to your comment about passion, Keegan had a great deal of passion for the England team and look where that got him.

I do agree with your statement that Allardyce can be very tactically aware but can he deal with pressure of expectation that comes with the England job.

IF he did become England manager i'd like to hear his excuses when things went wrong. Can't use his normal line of 'we're not a big team so we dont' get the decisions'.
 
Bobby Robson is about the best qualified English manager about... shame he's getting on a bit and working with the Irish now. :(
 
As a Charlton Fan, I have a lot of time and respect for what Alan Curbishley has done at the Valley. His tactics are pretty good (look at last weeks 1-1 at Chelsea) and he does try and encourage attractive footy.

Also he is not one of those people who want the limelight, a la Sven, which IMHO would be good for the game - a manager who actually does his job rather than seeking celeb status.

Sad thing is that Charlton would be the poorer without him in charge.

If not Alan, then an "home grown" manager definitely - but not Big Sam. Psycho and Shearer and great prospects to take on coaching roles, but are not ready for the big time yet. Martin O'Neill is an interesting choice (although not strictly home grown) as an alternative.
 
Last edited:
W00dy said:
Also he is not one of those people who want the limelight, a la Sven, which IMHO would be good for the game - a manager who actually does his job rather than seeking celeb status.
Click to expand...
Do you really think Sven craves the attention he gets from the press? Or that its his choice?

I dont see why people knock Sven. His record with England speaks for itself.
 
NokkonWud said:
Not at all, Allardyce is very tactically aware, he plays to his sides strengths, does it work? Yes. It's exactly what Chelsea have been doing except Bolton have been doing it longer. If Bolton had the finances Chelsea do, then they would be top.
Click to expand...


Go home with you, he sits and waits on the break, its hardly tactical genius.

You cant compare the complete dominance of possesion and ability to build and sustain pressure that Chelsea have, to the bustling kick and rush of Bolton.
WHEN i see Allardyce do anything other than than sit on the break, he can be considered.

For instance you certianly dont need a crystal ball to see exactly how he is going to set his side up agaisnt Arsenal tommorow or when ever the match is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom