Capello stays on

[Cronky]

One of the journalists on The Times' podcast suggested that Carragher would have fouled Klose in a way which made it look like he was the one being fouled. He may have a point TBH.

 

I'd agree. Carragher is tough and street wise and wouldn't have allowed himself to be muscled off the ball like that. He's also an organiser who's not afraid to open his mouth.

 

Capello fell to the temptation of picking an unchanged side after a win. Carragher was the better option and should have been restored to the team.

 

Aye, it's exactly the kind of decision you expect a manager as good as Capello to get right. I just wonder if, like every England manager before him seems to have done, he had one eye on how it would play in the press. If you change a winning team and the guy you put in makes a costly error, you'll get torn to bits in the papers.

 

All this is being said with hindsight. Before the game people were generally saying that Capello should retain Upson because he supposedly had a good game against Slovenia. In truth there is nothing much between Carragher and Upson, they are both pretty average and very slow.

 

It's not hindsight on my part, but yes, picking Carragher wouldn't have been a very popular decision.

 

Capello obviously rated Carragher to some extent, because he brought him into the squad from nowhere, and when King got injured, he put Carragher on, not Upson. The only reason that Carragher didn't play against Slovenia was that he'd picked up two yellow cards. Carragher was ahead of Upson in Capello's eyes, so why didn't he restore him to the team? He's had enough chances to weigh up the abilities of both players. One game shouldn't have changed things.

 

Carragher has lost a bit of pace this season, so there's not a lot to choose between him and Upson purely on the playing level. But Carragher does have more big game experience and looks very much the stronger character. That's what we needed against Germany.

[alpal78]

One of the journalists on The Times' podcast suggested that Carragher would have fouled Klose in a way which made it look like he was the one being fouled. He may have a point TBH.

 

I'd agree. Carragher is tough and street wise and wouldn't have allowed himself to be muscled off the ball like that. He's also an organiser who's not afraid to open his mouth.

 

Capello fell to the temptation of picking an unchanged side after a win. Carragher was the better option and should have been restored to the team.

 

Aye, it's exactly the kind of decision you expect a manager as good as Capello to get right. I just wonder if, like every England manager before him seems to have done, he had one eye on how it would play in the press. If you change a winning team and the guy you put in makes a costly error, you'll get torn to bits in the papers.

 

All this is being said with hindsight. Before the game people were generally saying that Capello should retain Upson because he supposedly had a good game against Slovenia. In truth there is nothing much between Carragher and Upson, they are both pretty average and very slow.

 

It's not hindsight on my part, but yes, picking Carragher wouldn't have been a very popular decision.

 

Capello obviously rated Carragher to some extent, because he brought him into the squad from nowhere, and when King got injured, he put Carragher on, not Upson. The only reason that Carragher didn't play against Slovenia was that he'd picked up two yellow cards. Carragher was ahead of Upson in Capello's eyes, so why didn't he restore him to the team? He's had enough chances to weigh up the abilities of both players. One game shouldn't have changed things.

 

Carragher has lost a bit of pace this season, so there's not a lot to choose between him and Upson purely on the playing level. But Carragher does have more big game experience and looks very much the stronger character. That's what we needed against Germany.

 

Regardless of the fact who played against Slovenia and how Capello rated them originally, he made a judgement call to go with Upson based on his observations in training, which none of us have access to. There is no way to say whether we would have performed better with Carragher. It's also ifs and buts.

 

Like you said the popular decision would have been put Carragher back in, that only shows that Capello made his own mind and did not bow down to external pressure just the way he dealt with the Joe Cole situation. Personally I think once we decided to go all out attack in search of the equalizer, including Terry going all the way up for a throw in, we were fucked coz none of our defenders (except maybe Cole) have the pace to cope with German's lighting quick counter attacks.

[Cronky]

One of the journalists on The Times' podcast suggested that Carragher would have fouled Klose in a way which made it look like he was the one being fouled. He may have a point TBH.

 

I'd agree. Carragher is tough and street wise and wouldn't have allowed himself to be muscled off the ball like that. He's also an organiser who's not afraid to open his mouth.

 

Capello fell to the temptation of picking an unchanged side after a win. Carragher was the better option and should have been restored to the team.

 

Aye, it's exactly the kind of decision you expect a manager as good as Capello to get right. I just wonder if, like every England manager before him seems to have done, he had one eye on how it would play in the press. If you change a winning team and the guy you put in makes a costly error, you'll get torn to bits in the papers.

 

All this is being said with hindsight. Before the game people were generally saying that Capello should retain Upson because he supposedly had a good game against Slovenia. In truth there is nothing much between Carragher and Upson, they are both pretty average and very slow.

 

It's not hindsight on my part, but yes, picking Carragher wouldn't have been a very popular decision.

 

Capello obviously rated Carragher to some extent, because he brought him into the squad from nowhere, and when King got injured, he put Carragher on, not Upson. The only reason that Carragher didn't play against Slovenia was that he'd picked up two yellow cards. Carragher was ahead of Upson in Capello's eyes, so why didn't he restore him to the team? He's had enough chances to weigh up the abilities of both players. One game shouldn't have changed things.

 

Carragher has lost a bit of pace this season, so there's not a lot to choose between him and Upson purely on the playing level. But Carragher does have more big game experience and looks very much the stronger character. That's what we needed against Germany.

 

Regardless of the fact who played against Slovenia and how Capello rated them originally, he made a judgement call to go with Upson based on his observations in training, which none of us have access to. There is no way to say whether we would have performed better with Carragher. It's also ifs and buts.

 

Like you said the popular decision would have been put Carragher back in, that only shows that Capello made his own mind and did not bow down to external pressure just the way he dealt with the Joe Cole situation. Personally I think once we decided to go all out attack in search of the equalizer, including Terry going all the way up for a throw in, we were fucked coz none of our defenders (except maybe Cole) have the pace to cope with German's lighting quick counter attacks.

 

I was saying that Carragher would have actually been the unpopular decision.

 

I doubt that you're right about the training performances. The simplest explanation is that he didn't want to change a winning side. Or rather, a side that had won a game.

[merlin]

Capello may have faults, but not as many as his employers OR the crazy PL system.

 

His record as a manager is beyond reproach except for the fact that he has nor managed at International level. In that respect, someone like Hiddink would have been a better choice but the FA didn't go for him when his Aussie contract was coming to an end as they should have done 4 years ago.

 

Until the International side takes a higher priority as it does in Germany and the bling is taken out of the PL, there will be no change in England's WC record ; even Hiddink would have had a tough job getting this team to the Semis, but his performances with Holland, S Korea and Australia proved that he would have at least made a better fist of it.

 

If Capello fluffs the changes needed to bring England up to a better standard, he should go after the Euro qualifying campaign.

[alpal78]

One of the journalists on The Times' podcast suggested that Carragher would have fouled Klose in a way which made it look like he was the one being fouled. He may have a point TBH.

 

I'd agree. Carragher is tough and street wise and wouldn't have allowed himself to be muscled off the ball like that. He's also an organiser who's not afraid to open his mouth.

 

Capello fell to the temptation of picking an unchanged side after a win. Carragher was the better option and should have been restored to the team.

 

Aye, it's exactly the kind of decision you expect a manager as good as Capello to get right. I just wonder if, like every England manager before him seems to have done, he had one eye on how it would play in the press. If you change a winning team and the guy you put in makes a costly error, you'll get torn to bits in the papers.

 

All this is being said with hindsight. Before the game people were generally saying that Capello should retain Upson because he supposedly had a good game against Slovenia. In truth there is nothing much between Carragher and Upson, they are both pretty average and very slow.

 

It's not hindsight on my part, but yes, picking Carragher wouldn't have been a very popular decision.

 

Capello obviously rated Carragher to some extent, because he brought him into the squad from nowhere, and when King got injured, he put Carragher on, not Upson. The only reason that Carragher didn't play against Slovenia was that he'd picked up two yellow cards. Carragher was ahead of Upson in Capello's eyes, so why didn't he restore him to the team? He's had enough chances to weigh up the abilities of both players. One game shouldn't have changed things.

 

Carragher has lost a bit of pace this season, so there's not a lot to choose between him and Upson purely on the playing level. But Carragher does have more big game experience and looks very much the stronger character. That's what we needed against Germany.

 

Regardless of the fact who played against Slovenia and how Capello rated them originally, he made a judgement call to go with Upson based on his observations in training, which none of us have access to. There is no way to say whether we would have performed better with Carragher. It's also ifs and buts.

 

Like you said the popular decision would have been put Carragher back in, that only shows that Capello made his own mind and did not bow down to external pressure just the way he dealt with the Joe Cole situation. Personally I think once we decided to go all out attack in search of the equalizer, including Terry going all the way up for a throw in, we were f***ed coz none of our defenders (except maybe Cole) have the pace to cope with German's lighting quick counter attacks.

 

I was saying that Carragher would have actually been the unpopular decision.

 

I doubt that you're right about the training performances. The simplest explanation is that he didn't want to change a winning side. Or rather, a side that had won a game.

 

Ok take it easy. Nothing wrong with wanting to keep a winning side. It's not like we had Rio Ferdinand waiting in the wings to replace Upson. Given that there isn't much difference between Upson and Carragher, retaining a player whose morale/confidence must have been boosted after a crucial win is what most experience managers would do. The fact that we are sitting here after the game saying that it didn't work out and things may have been better with Carragher does not change that the quality of the decision at that point of time. Besides for me, aside from being outmuscled by Klose, Upson was not more liable than any of his other team mates. 

[OzzieMandias]

I'm really looking forward to a time when "how do we fit Lampard and Gerrard into the same midfield" is no longer an issue -- either because they're both finally past it (if they're not already) or because someone has the courage to choose one or the other.

[Colocho]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jul/03/england-skills-foreign-talent

 

When The Observer asked Fabio Capello why the English system is failing to generate young players of the calibre of Thomas Müller and Mesut Ozil the England manager swivelled in his chair and raised four fingers. An innocuous question had touched a nerve.

 

"They [Germany] play players with different passports. Khedira, Podolski, Ozil, Boateng," the England manager said. "Germany didn't produce good players for a long time. I spoke with Stuart [Pearce, the England Under-21 manager] and the Germans have players coming from U21. Technically they are very good. We hope to find the same in England but you have to understand in Germany there are 70 million people. In England there are 60 million but for me one of the reasons is that there are only 38% English players in the Premier League."

 

What a load of shit, weren't Boateng, Ozil and Khedira all born in Germany? We have ethnically non-white players too Mr Capello.

[Cronky]

I'm really looking forward to a time when "how do we fit Lampard and Gerrard into the same midfield" is no longer an issue -- either because they're both finally past it (if they're not already) or because someone has the courage to choose one or the other.

 

Me too.

 

After several years of watching them, I think it boils down to Lampard not being sufficiently adaptable. Unless you play him in that centre mid attacking role, coming from deep, then it's no good picking him. Gerrard has more ability to adapt, and is the one who is always asked to do so.

 

Trouble is, he's the better player and is the one who the midfield should be built around. He either ends up peripheral, or he drifts inside into Lampard's role. Either way, one of them is cancelled out.

[OzzieMandias]

Good article on what needs to change and why it won't:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-inquest-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-2017834.html

[Cronky]

Good article on what needs to change and why it won't:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-inquest-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-2017834.html

 

Lots of ideas there, some familiar, some not.

 

I can't see a winter break doing any good unless we reduce the number of games, which is the real issue. We play a lot of high-tempo, physical and competitive football, which means that the players need a lot of recovery time and aren't able to do much fitness work in the season. So they end up both tired and unfit at the end of the season.

 

I think Capello has more or less admitted that his long preparation period made the problem of staleness worse. He'll learn from that.

 

Capello prefers to be remote from the players, and allows his assistant Baldini to do the more pally stuff. I've read that Baldini was troubled by his father's illness and wasn't his usual cheerful self in South Africa. Capello has to create a happy working atmosphere and again I hope he's learned that. He will also have learned that if the players are spending weeks away with one another you can't afford to have any disruptive influences.

 

The technical development of players has been a long-standing problem. We're never going to play like Brazilians but we can aspire to be more like the Germans and the Dutch. I think our best players compare favourably with theirs, but they tend to have technical ability more spread throughout the side. Their defensive players usually look far more comfortable on the ball than ours, and that can make quite a difference when retaining the ball or taking advantage of an opportunity to support an attack.

 

Part of their training of young players is to give them experience in different positions, and they end up good all-rounders. I do wonder whether our players specialise too early and we end up with defenders who are technically limited.

[alpal78]

Good article on what needs to change and why it won't:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-inquest-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-2017834.html

 

Some good points made but I'm not standing for some of the tosh.

 

The argument on formation is disingenuous. There is no way an England manager can win unless he wins the game. When a manager tries something different other than 4-4-2, pundits will just claim that we are England and we have to play 4-4-2 because that's what our players are most comfortable with (this is what happened to Eriksson). When a manager plays 4-4-2, pundits will say that we have to try something different. You just can't win.

 

I agree that Johnson should have gone but people should give up on Cole. This is not the Joe Cole of 2006, he had a poor season at Chelsea and when he came on against Slovenia looked pretty ordinary. The decision to play Milner ahead of Cole was the best decision Capello made and I'm not even a fan of Milner.

 

The point on the Slovenia game is rubbish, sure another goal would have been nice and we did try to get a second goal in much of the second half. But the pressure in the last 5-10 minutes was crazy (I was shivering). Concede one goal and we were out, it was the difference between qualifying and going back early. To suggest that we should have gone gung ho attacking in the last few minutes in search of the second goal and potentially sacrifice qualification, instead of playing keep ball at the corner is idiotic!

 

[merlin]

Good article on what needs to change and why it won't:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-inquest-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-2017834.html

 

Lots of ideas there, some familiar, some not.

 

I can't see a winter break doing any good unless we reduce the number of games, which is the real issue. We play a lot of high-tempo, physical and competitive football, which means that the players need a lot of recovery time and aren't able to do much fitness work in the season. So they end up both tired and unfit at the end of the season.

 

I think Capello has more or less admitted that his long preparation period made the problem of staleness worse. He'll learn from that.

 

Capello prefers to be remote from the players, and allows his assistant Baldini to do the more pally stuff. I've read that Baldini was troubled by his father's illness and wasn't his usual cheerful self in South Africa. Capello has to create a happy working atmosphere and again I hope he's learned that. He will also have learned that if the players are spending weeks away with one another you can't afford to have any disruptive influences.

 

The technical development of players has been a long-standing problem. We're never going to play like Brazilians but we can aspire to be more like the Germans and the Dutch. I think our best players compare favourably with theirs, but they tend to have technical ability more spread throughout the side. Their defensive players usually look far more comfortable on the ball than ours, and that can make quite a difference when retaining the ball or taking advantage of an opportunity to support an attack.

 

Part of their training of young players is to give them experience in different positions, and they end up good all-rounders. I do wonder whether our players specialise too early and we end up with defenders who are technically limited.

 

Good post - In 1992, I spoke to KK at SJP just after SJH took over the club and asked him, as a former player with Hamburg, why German teams and players were often better than their English counterparts and he replied that they were more prepared, as individuals, to return for extra training in afternoons in order to improve their skills. They had a better work ethic about the game than the players in English football. There is no physical reason why Germans or Dutch players should be better than English ones but if anything, the ridiculous rewards available in the Prem has made players MORE lazy than they were before. They have a perception that they are above criticism and are isolated from the fans - also, there is a lack of decent coaching at school level, and many schools have sold off sports fields and facilities. Some teachers are also guilty of a Politically correct approach to sport which discourages individual success and encourages mediocrity.

All of these things - and more - will have to be tackled before there is any improvement in the English national side.

[Cronky]

Good article on what needs to change and why it won't:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-inquest-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-2017834.html

 

Lots of ideas there, some familiar, some not.

 

I can't see a winter break doing any good unless we reduce the number of games, which is the real issue. We play a lot of high-tempo, physical and competitive football, which means that the players need a lot of recovery time and aren't able to do much fitness work in the season. So they end up both tired and unfit at the end of the season.

 

I think Capello has more or less admitted that his long preparation period made the problem of staleness worse. He'll learn from that.

 

Capello prefers to be remote from the players, and allows his assistant Baldini to do the more pally stuff. I've read that Baldini was troubled by his father's illness and wasn't his usual cheerful self in South Africa. Capello has to create a happy working atmosphere and again I hope he's learned that. He will also have learned that if the players are spending weeks away with one another you can't afford to have any disruptive influences.

 

The technical development of players has been a long-standing problem. We're never going to play like Brazilians but we can aspire to be more like the Germans and the Dutch. I think our best players compare favourably with theirs, but they tend to have technical ability more spread throughout the side. Their defensive players usually look far more comfortable on the ball than ours, and that can make quite a difference when retaining the ball or taking advantage of an opportunity to support an attack.

 

Part of their training of young players is to give them experience in different positions, and they end up good all-rounders. I do wonder whether our players specialise too early and we end up with defenders who are technically limited.

 

Good post - In 1992, I spoke to KK at SJP just after SJH took over the club and asked him, as a former player with Hamburg, why German teams and players were often better than their English counterparts and he replied that they were more prepared, as individuals, to return for extra training in afternoons in order to improve their skills. They had a better work ethic about the game than the players in English football. There is no physical reason why Germans or Dutch players should be better than English ones but if anything, the ridiculous rewards available in the Prem has made players MORE lazy than they were before. They have a perception that they are above criticism and are isolated from the fans - also, there is a lack of decent coaching at school level, and many schools have sold off sports fields and facilities. Some teachers are also guilty of a Politically correct approach to sport which discourages individual success and encourages mediocrity.

All of these things - and more - will have to be tackled before there is any improvement in the English national side.

 

There was a good story in one of the Sundies, about Micah Richards - a player I'd see as a great talent, but who hasn't developed since he made the first team at City.

 

Patrick Vieira asked him what he wanted out of the game, and Richards said that he wanted to play for England. Vieira then asked him how he expected to do that, when he was always the last one on to the training ground, and the first one to leave.