Steve McClaren

[OzzieMandias]

Played 67

Won 40

Drew 17

Lost 10

 

Looks pretty good to me. He fucked up the WC when he picked his squad.

 

 

 

 

Looks even better when you take meaningless friendlies out of the equation. In over five years he lost five competitive games in total -- once each to France and Brazil, twice to Portugal on penalties; only the Northern Ireland game was any kind of dishonour -- and got us to the last eight of three consecutive major international tournaments (a feat not manaaged by any other European country in the same period). He beat Argentina, he tonked Germany, and he's ranked by the FA as the second most successful England manager of all time.

 

When he took over we were 17th on the FIFA list. When he left we were 5th. We're currently 11th. When the next list is published we'll probably be back down where we were when Keegan walked out. Sven's at times overly defensive tactics look, in retrospect, like a sensible way of handling a group of overrated players, and he can hardly be blamed for Rooney's 2004 injury, or Rooney's 2006 stupidity, or Beckham missing a penalty against France.

 

Quarter-finals not good enough for ya? Well, we all hoped for more, but who wouldn't take that over not qualifying at all?

[Kitman]

McClaren < Sven

England = Eliminated

McClaren = Sacked

Large drinks & golden handshakes all round  :occasion16:

 

Now there's a surprise  Who could have seen this coming, eh? 

[johnnypd]

that mcclaren is a hopeless manager doesn't retroactively improve sven's handling of the job. the bare minimum for an england manager should be qualification for major tournaments. McClaren has failed in that task so you've got to say he's an awful choice, which anyone with sense would've told you when he was appointed. however this qualification campaign hasn't been too dissimilar from the one for euro 2004, it came down to the last game, mcclaren's side conceded a goal 13 minutes from time which put england out, sven's side scored 3 minutes into stoppage time to get us through. very fine line between the failure of mcclaren's campaign and the success of sven's.

 

after that they're judged on how well they do in the finals. sven managed to get us out the group stages each time so he earns some respect for that, but in the knock-out rounds england were eliminated by the first decent team they'd face - brazil, portugal twice, with sven looking clueless in all those games. his defensive tactics weren't a way of getting the best out of the team, they were a result of his failure to overcome our technical disadvantage - inability to play it out of defence, keep the ball and dictate tempo. as a result we'd ended up pinned back around the penalty box for the majority of all those games, even tho we actually went ahead in two of them. if he set his gameplan out to be defensive how come he had scholes-gerrard or gerrard-lampard as the central midfield pair in plenty of his games? being forced to defend was a byproduct of his failings rather than a strategy he actively pursued. look at the subbing on of vassel rather than heskey in the portugal game in 2004, heskey would've enabled us to keep the ball upfield and emerge from the siege we were under, whereas vassel offered nothing in this respect and consequently the pattern of the game didn't change one bit.

 

the situation wasn't helped by his sycophantic mishandling of star players like beckham, rooney, owen, lampard and gerrard, finding a space for all of them even to the detriment of the team. the one player who is world-class in the technical aspects of the game in which england struggle - paul scholes - was forced to assume a deeper role in midfield to cover for the so-called stars, negating his goal threat but giving us much needed help in the engine room. to sven's eternal discredit he then shunted scholes out wide when lampard arrived on the scene, forcing the player out of the international game. for the portugal match in 2004, scholes was subbed early in the 2nd half, and with him (along with rooney) went our chance of progression. portugal had 35 shots and 61% possession in that match, so setting up the barricade on the 18 yard line didn't work so well did it? it was this tactic that did for us last night too, after we'd equalised we sat back, played at a snail's pace, stopped trying to gain territory upfield and invited croatia onto us. the result is no european championships for us this summer.

 

an international manager of one of the big footballing nations has to be judged on whether he gets his side cohesive and a genuine competitor in the finals. so the likes of scolari and klinsmann, despite not winning in 2004 or 2006, must be judged to have succeeded because they had a clear plan, a working system, got the best out of their players and made the side ultra-competitive. can you say the same about sven and england? yes he got england qualified so he is better than a manager who almost got boro relegated (big achievement!) but he failed on the other counts. using that sort of criteria i'd say robson in 90, venables in 96 and hoddle in 98 out-performed sven in major finals, which puts him behind them but ahead of keegan, taylor and mcclaren in the modern era. in some ways he was very good in qualification which gives him something extra but doesn't excuse the tournament showings. also you can't simply ignore the friendlies, they offer a good chance to introduce new players and forge a settled team, well they did until sven cheapened their value. i wonder if his mass substitions at HT had any bearing on our dismal 2nd half performances in comepetitive matches, i think so.

 

anyway the talk of sven is not so relevant now that we're looking for another manager. but if there is are lessons i'd take from Sven's reign (the only lesson from mcclaren is that you don't appoint clowns who patently aren't cut out for the job) it is that we look for a manager who has shown to not respect reputation and who understands england's technical flaws. When Sven was appointed everyone delighted in the fact he was an outsider so wouldn't have favourites and would judge everyone from a blank slate, the selection of chris powell for the first game against spain impressing everyone. but had we looked closer at sven's club record we could've seen that his philosophy was always about building a side around "stars" and indulging these star players at every opportunity, rather than by building clever systems or approaches. when he was sampdoria manager and had Veron as the central focus of his side, he said he didn't give him any directions, just gave him a shirt and let him do as he liked. it was a recipe for disaster as he couldn't go out and buy new stars when the existing ones failed to deliver, especially when he decided beckham was to be his main crutch. he is a player's manager rather than a manager's manager and not nearly as tactical as we'd hoped. that is not to say he is a bad manager, just not suited to international coaching. i would've loved him here as our manager. on the 2nd point, hiddink and bilic have both ruthlessly exploited out tactical short comings in recent times, one of them even mocking us after the game http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/7055103.stm which reminds me of van gaal learning from alkmaar's defeat at SJP to rip roeder a new arsehole in the return match. not saying we should go out and appoint hiddink as even he struggled with qualification but he is the - type- of manager i'd be looking at.

[GM]

Felt the same about the appointment of McLaren to the England job as I did about the appointment of Souness to the Newcastle job. There was always a crushing air of despondency, calamity lurking menacingly around the corner. So no surprise to see how things panned out, either. I'm taking absolutely no joy in being vindicated in my feelings about Macca Spacka this morning, either. No home team representation at Euro 2008 will make for a very passionless affair next summer.

[James]

The FA are holding an emergency board meeting as we speak regarding McClaren's future, and journalists reckon the vote will be 8-2 in favour of sacking him.

[SEMTEX]

he's pining

[Guest johnson293]

According to Sky, He's Gone....

 

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_2896125,00.html

 

The Football Association have confirmed the departure of England coach Steve McClaren.

 

The FA board convened on Thursday morning after calling an emergency meeting and they wasted little time in confirming the termination of McClaren's contract.

 

McClaren's tenure was brought to an end less than 24 hours after England were knocked out of Euro 2008 at the qualifying stage.

 

England, who only needed a draw against Croatia to seal their place at the finals in Austria & Switzerland, lost 3-2 at Wembley on Wednesday.

 

 

[tmonkey]

Sacked.

[tmonkey]

According to Sky, He's Gone....

 

All over Sky news channel as well.

[Guest elbee909]

The FA are holding an emergency board meeting as we speak regarding McClaren's future, and journalists reckon the vote will be 8-2 in favour of sacking him.

 

They should now see about sacking the 2 who wanted to keep him.

[Cronky]

They've got to look at their system for appointing the next manager. That drawn-out, committee decision ended up with the candidate that the fewest people objected to, rather than a positive choice.

 

There's such a lot of pressure in that job, and you really need someone with a proven record of handling the big time. McClaren didn't really have enough faith in his own judgement, and ended up dithering eg playing 3-5-2 for a crucial game, then dropping it - dropping Beckham, restoring him, dropping him again - dropping Robinson too late and replacing him with someone inexperienced for the crucial game. It often hangs on certain decisions here and there, and McClaren managed to get too many wrong.

[Minhosa]

They've got to look at their system for appointing the next manager. That drawn-out, committee decision ended up with the candidate that the fewest people objected to, rather than a positive choice.

 

There's such a lot of pressure in that job, and you really need someone with a proven record of handling the big time. McClaren didn't really have enough faith in his own judgement, and ended up dithering eg playing 3-5-2 for a crucial game, then dropping it - dropping Beckham, restoring him, dropping him again - dropping Robinson too late and replacing him with someone inexperienced for the crucial game. It often hangs on certain decisions here and there, and McClaren managed to get too many wrong.

 

Totally agree. Didn't David Dein openly criticise it? Or am I dreaming?

 

I'm sure I read somewhere he was vehemently against the McClaren appointment from day one and had actually been against the Sven appointment too.

 

I've always rated Dein's approach so he might have something.

[Guest Phil K]

Good riddance.

He never should have been appointed in the first place.

The FA b*st*rds should go with him if they had any honour (which they don't)

 

[Guest alex]

Northern Ireland did nearly as well as England (not relatively, actually) in a much tougher group. Fair enough Croatia look a decent team and the English players are rather overrated but you can't tell me that a half-decent manager shouldn't have been able to get us qualification in the group we were in.

[Keefaz]

Northern Ireland did nearly as well as England (not relatively, actually) in a much tougher group. Fair enough Croatia look a decent team and the English players are rather overrated but you can't tell me that a half-decent manager shouldn't have been able to get us qualification in the group we were in.

 

Is Lawrie Sanchez or Worthington really that much better than McLaren? Surely some of the blame has to placed at the feet of the players. They are better--much better, tbh--than the other home nation sides and should've qualified comfortably.

[Guest alex]

Northern Ireland did nearly as well as England (not relatively, actually) in a much tougher group. Fair enough Croatia look a decent team and the English players are rather overrated but you can't tell me that a half-decent manager shouldn't have been able to get us qualification in the group we were in.

 

Is Lawrie Sanchez or Worthington really that much better than McLaren? Surely some of the blame has to placed at the feet of the players. They are better--much better, tbh--than the other home nation sides and should've qualified comfortably.

I don't exonerate the players for one minute mate but I think the manager has been very poor and while Sanchez and Worthington perhaps aren't anything special they did something the England manager couldn't - i.e. get the best out of their players. I just think England paid the price for appointing a mediocre manager. I also think the FA were determined that he should be English even though there were absolutely no outstanding English candidates.

[Beren]

Great uber-post johnnypd

[Keefaz]

Maybe we should go Dutch? Get a manager in who's not afraid to let the players express themselves. People are saying our players are so much more inferior technically than continental players, but I think it's closer than that, but we play with the 'must not lose' mentality.

[James]

To be honest, I would now replicate McClaren's Beckham treatment on all of England's senior players probably excluding Beckham, Rooney, Crouch, Ferdinand and Neville.

 

That is to say, I wouldn't even have Robinson, Terry, Cole, Bridge, SWP, Gerrard, Lampard, or Owen in the squad.

 

These players would then only be recalled based on how well they respond while playing for their clubs and achieve some objectives that are set for them. For example, Owen will be told that he has to be available for a certain percentage of matches between now and the end of the season, Gerrard Lampard Terry and Cole have to play well in Europe, Robinson has to become a good keeper, SWP and Bridge need to get regular first team football.

 

Then I would reintroduce these players one or two at a time if they respond well. They will be shown the TEAM, told the roles and objectives of the TEAM, told their role and expectation within the TEAM, and told that they better fulfil the role the TEAM requires straight away, otherwise they are straight back out again.

[Yorkie]

To be honest, I would now replicate McClaren's Beckham treatment on all of England's senior players probably excluding Beckham, Rooney, Crouch, Ferdinand and Neville.

 

That is to say, I wouldn't even have Robinson, Terry, Cole, Bridge, SWP, Gerrard, Lampard, or Owen in the squad.

 

These players would then only be recalled based on how well they respond while playing for their clubs and achieve some objectives that are set for them. For example, Owen will be told that he has to be available for a certain percentage of matches between now and the end of the season, Gerrard Lampard Terry and Cole have to play well in Europe, Robinson has to become a good keeper, SWP and Bridge need to get regular first team football.

 

Then I would reintroduce these players one or two at a time if they respond well. They will be shown the TEAM, told the roles and objectives of the TEAM, told their role and expectation within the TEAM, and told that they better fulfil the role the TEAM requires straight away, otherwise they are straight back out again.

 

Drop the underachievers, not the whole bloody squad. We'd be having people like Smith and Agbonlahor upfront at that rate.

 

The likes of Gerrard, Lampard, Ferdinand and Neville need the wake-up calls. Neville's finally been replaced as far as i am concerned anyhow, and i honestly can't see Beckham featuring much after he gets his 100th.

 

Drop Rooney, Cole, Owen, Wright-Phillips? Eh? They're the only ones that actually produce on a fairly consistent basis.

 

Nevertheless, i do agree with the incentive to tinker with the squad. Time is available now, after all. I just don't think doing it to such an extent is a wise decision.

[Offshore]

To be honest, I would now replicate McClaren's Beckham treatment on all of England's senior players probably excluding Beckham, Rooney, Crouch, Ferdinand and Neville.

 

That is to say, I wouldn't even have Robinson, Terry, Cole, Bridge, SWP, Gerrard, Lampard, or Owen in the squad.

 

These players would then only be recalled based on how well they respond while playing for their clubs and achieve some objectives that are set for them. For example, Owen will be told that he has to be available for a certain percentage of matches between now and the end of the season, Gerrard Lampard Terry and Cole have to play well in Europe, Robinson has to become a good keeper, SWP and Bridge need to get regular first team football.

 

Then I would reintroduce these players one or two at a time if they respond well. They will be shown the TEAM, told the roles and objectives of the TEAM, told their role and expectation within the TEAM, and told that they better fulfil the role the TEAM requires straight away, otherwise they are straight back out again.

 

Drop the underachievers, not the whole bloody squad. We'd be having people like Smith and Agbonlahor upfront at that rate.

 

The likes of Gerrard, Lampard, Ferdinand and Neville need the wake-up calls. Neville's finally been replaced as far as i am concerned anyhow, and i honestly can't see Beckham featuring much after he gets his 100th.

 

Drop Rooney, Cole, Owen, Wright-Phillips? Eh? They're the only ones that actually produce on a fairly consistent basis.

 

Nevertheless, i do agree with the incentive to tinker with the squad. Time is available now, after all. I just don't think doing it to such an extent is a wise decision.

 

Only Beckham of that four I would say ta-ta to.

 

Ferdinands looked sound his last few games, Nevilles been injured a fair while, and while he's not as good as Richards getting forward (but better than folk give him credit) he's a much better defender than him (but if you meant Phil, then fair enough!!)

 

Lampard and Gerrard are the tricky ones, can't play both at the same time, I think everyone bar the pundits and Mclaren can see that, and whichever one does get picked, and I don't think there's to much between them, they should be played behind the front two.

 

 

[Guest alex]

I'd love to know who'd play with all those out of the equation James. Last night demonstrated, amongst over things, how little strength in depth we have.

[James]

To be honest, I would now replicate McClaren's Beckham treatment on all of England's senior players probably excluding Beckham, Rooney, Crouch, Ferdinand and Neville.

 

That is to say, I wouldn't even have Robinson, Terry, Cole, Bridge, SWP, Gerrard, Lampard, or Owen in the squad.

 

These players would then only be recalled based on how well they respond while playing for their clubs and achieve some objectives that are set for them. For example, Owen will be told that he has to be available for a certain percentage of matches between now and the end of the season, Gerrard Lampard Terry and Cole have to play well in Europe, Robinson has to become a good keeper, SWP and Bridge need to get regular first team football.

 

Then I would reintroduce these players one or two at a time if they respond well. They will be shown the TEAM, told the roles and objectives of the TEAM, told their role and expectation within the TEAM, and told that they better fulfil the role the TEAM requires straight away, otherwise they are straight back out again.

 

Drop the underachievers, not the whole bloody squad. We'd be having people like Smith and Agbonlahor upfront at that rate.

 

The likes of Gerrard, Lampard, Ferdinand and Neville need the wake-up calls. Neville's finally been replaced as far as i am concerned anyhow, and i honestly can't see Beckham featuring much after he gets his 100th.

 

Drop Rooney, Cole, Owen, Wright-Phillips? Eh? They're the only ones that actually produce on a fairly consistent basis.

 

Nevertheless, i do agree with the incentive to tinker with the squad. Time is available now, after all. I just don't think doing it to such an extent is a wise decision.

 

I never said I wanted to drop Rooney, and the Cole I refer to is Ashley, not Joe - Ashley just hasn't been as good since leaving Arsenal. Wright-Phillips needs to find some consistency. Owen needs to prove he can play more often, as we can't build a team around his talents if we can't rely on him featuring. Its the same for England as it is for Newcastle.

 

My team vs France would be:

 

Foster

Neville Richards Ferdinand LB

Hargreaves Barry

Walcott J.Cole Rooney

Crouch

 

with Beckham making regular second half cameos.

 

We attack like Manchester United - Cole Rooney and Walcott have no fixed position when we are on the ball.

 

You are wrong to count out Neville, Yorkie, as he has never let club or country down, Richards is a CB playing at RB for England, and we'd need someone with experience to defend the right flank when he has got a drifting player in front.

[Dave]

Glenn Hoddle made a good point on the Sky highlights last night I thought (and him and Wilkins piss on Hansen/Wright/Shearer as pundits btw) when he said we're too static in our formations. Look at Croatia, Arsenal, most foreign teams; when they have the ball it's difficult to see what formation they are actually playing as the focus and emphasis is on pass and move, pass and move. We have two static banks of four and fucking nowhere to go. That's why there's never any options and the ball ends up being humped up to the big lad.

[James]

I'd love to know who'd play with all those out of the equation James. Last night demonstrated, amongst over things, how little strength in depth we have.

 

In the end of the day, these are just friendlies we are looking at. Lets follow how the clubs do it, build a team, and then spice it up with some individual quality, but only if these players aren't going to disrupt the harmony of the team. There are players like Osman, Agbonlahor and Young who are all good team players that would play a good role in the squad.