Jump to content

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I just don't see why there's a distinction there. I've seen people say that there is, but not why. Not only are England players paid and bonused both directly and indirectly for playing for England, but it's also very easy to argue that managing England is an honour not done for financial reasons. 

 

I get what you mean about across the board with other countries. Maybe there could be a ranking or seeding system set up whereby countries who are deemed to be establishing their infrastructure get dispensation to hire coaching staff from outside. 

It could be too easy to find a loophole maybe. 

 

You could have Lee Carsley as the "Manager" then Tuchel could be the "Coaching Consultant" or some other title. Unless you made a rule that the whole backroom team had to be whatever nationality. See how active Jason Tindall is on our touchline, if you didn't know who was the manager and who was the assistant, I don't think someone could watch them and decide conclusively either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, macphisto said:

It makes you think about the job Ashworth did for England. A long-term plan should have been in place with coaches embedded within Southgate's set-up and Under 21s.

 

:lol: At this rate we could soon blame Ashworth for the atrocities in Gaza and global warming.

 

1. It's 6 years since Ashworth resigned from his position in the FA

2. It seems they had a plan in place, namely to promote Carsley same way Southgate was, and the FA decided to deviate from their plan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting away from the English managers for the England job - which is perfectly understandable in my view - I do think Tuchel is probably a far better fit for international management than club. His main problem at club level is that he's an arsey cunt who can get into fights with his own shadow given enough time. As an international manager he's not going to be seeing club officials or players that often so less opportunity for conflicts. Add to that, he's actually quite a brilliant coach when the personality stuff is out of the way. I don't really see a downside for England on the pitch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I just don't see why there's a distinction there. I've seen people say that there is, but not why. Not only are England players paid and bonused both directly and indirectly for playing for England, but it's also very easy to argue that managing England is an honour not done for financial reasons. 

 

I get what you mean about across the board with other countries. Maybe there could be a ranking or seeding system set up whereby countries who are deemed to be establishing their infrastructure get dispensation to hire coaching staff from outside. 

Managing England is a job. Playing for England isn’t. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, McCormick said:


In what sense?

In the sense the players job is to play for their clubs. The clubs pay their salary and are their literal employers. They are selected to represent their country and can be dropped at any time. There’s no obligation either way. 
 

The England manager position is a literal job. Employment rights and laws etc.  and obligations.  
 

Random:

I swear I saw Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink in the England coaching setup at the Euros.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the camp of we should have an English manager. 

 

It's the England team after all. 

 

If we don't have enough good enough English managers then tough shit. Nurture some better ones then. 

 

That said the rules are what they are. 

 

The appointment itself is a fascinating one. Proper crash or burn stuff. 

 

But if we did win the world cup I can't help but feel it would have a small asterix next to it as it wasn't an English manager. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the players have to be english, managers don't care camp.

Really think Tuchel is a great fit as he bases his team structure/system around the players and not the other way round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone remembers the asterisks against Greece winning Euros or Chile winning 2x Copa’s with foreign managers. 
 

Saying all this I do agree the England manager should be English.  But in reality, if not Howe or Carsley (just to promote the system), Tuchel is a good appointment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find myself a bit in the middle with this debate. 

 

Personally, I'm not that fussed if a manager is from the nation they're representing, there are plenty of examples of it working, Greece for instance. However I also think in an ideal world you would have an English manager, and the fact that we have had to go to a foreign manager is a reflection of how poor our coaching pathways are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about coaching pathways is great and all that, but if you’re talking about PL club managers then they’re always going to select from the best few managers in the world. At best a handful of those are going to be English. 
 

If we mean pathways to England manager that don’t come through top clubs, I guess that would point to people like Carsley. Who by all accounts seemed exactly the kind of candidate we want the system to produce. 

 

 

Edited by AyeDubbleYoo

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Carsley tbh.  Took some risks. Promoted lads did well for him at U21s.

 

But if you decide to go for the best coaches. The list of semi suitable English ones is short.  
 

In terms of cup wins. International FA System managers and old boys seems to win the most.  We don’t have a decent old boy option since the Redknapp era.  Carsley was the system option. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bizza said:

 

Funny how he didn't seem to mind foreign coaches back when Sven and Capello were picking him.

Not sure that's any kind of gotcha that he played under a foreign England manager. Maybe he didn't think it was right back then. Or maybe his opinion has changed over the last 15 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it ultimately boils down to do you consider the manager to be part of the team?

 

Given they're the figurehead of it, choose it, dictate the tactics, etc, etc, I do. 

 

And whilst they might not play in games most managers are ex players. Seems bizarre that you can be not eligible to play for a national team but you can manage them. A role I'd say is more impactful than one player of eleven. 

 

I've no issues with the appointment in the sense it's within the rules. It's the rules that need changing imo because it makes a bit of a mockery of it being a national side. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/10/2024 at 10:08, UncleBingo said:

I haven't dreamt anything up, the English media have a history of going after people that aren't pally with them, or who don't sing the national anthem with enough gusto.

 

 

 

 

 


it sells papers to / online clicks for idiots tbf. 
 

there’s little quality journalism It’s all about maximising ad revenue 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Random question, have we ever had four players in the England squad before (as we should do when it gets announced next week - no doubt I've cursed all four to get injured at the weekend!)?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...