Euro 2020 (21)

[mikesiva]

Scottish player Billy Gilmour tests positive for coronavirus. He's self isolating now. England players Mason Mount and Ben Chilwell, who were congratulating their Chelsea team mate, now in self isolation as well.

[sussexpob]

Scottish player Billy Gilmour tests positive for coronavirus. He's self isolating now. England players Mason Mount and Ben Chilwell, who were congratulating their Chelsea team mate, now in self isolation as well.

England players are close contacts, but Scotland's manager, who can be seen kissing the guy on the cheek at the final whistle, apparently isnt a risk. Nor are any of his team-mates sharing rooms or spaces with him.

Scotland are going to say they have kept distance - meanwhile, Andy Robertson and McGinn scrambled to delete videos of their social media accounts they posted a couple of days ago joking around with him playing games in the hotel. If a single player from Croatia subsequently tests positive after tonight, as the croatian government/FA I would be demanding an investigation and a International football ban for Scotland. This cannot be right?

I mean, you really trying to tell me Gilmour has had no close contacts? Because even on the evidence of the match ending the other day, quite clearly he breaks social distancing rules with a few of his team mates and managers.

[sussexpob]

Capello was a great manager but way past his best come 2009

In the 3 year period before taking the England job, Capello won three titles in a row in the world's top 2 leagues of the time.

Worth noting his dual titles at Juventus were against Carlo Ancelloti's Milan team that are widely seen as one of the greatest teams of all time, and who won 2 CLs and went to a losing final in this period. And he took over Real Madrid after Florentino Perez's first Galactico's era had end, acknowledged at the time as a very difficult time and the middle of a 15 year period Barcelona dominated Spanish football. This is Madrid's post-war slump and their least successful period of their modern history. Capello joined after Zidane retired, Ronaldo and Figo left, Beckham had signed a contract to go USA and was winding down the year....

How many English managers have won three titles in a row in the history of football..... Zero. Past his best?

and came for the money

Capello was desperate to be England manager and applied for the England job in 2001, speaking bitterly afterwards about not even being contacted back or interviewed for the job. In the same year, Man United offer him the job when Fergie picked him as his retirement replacement and Milan tried to get him back before hiring Ancelloti - something tells me if Capello wanted big money, he'd have found it anywhere. He rejected Milan, was disappointed enough to chunter about not getting the England job for years after, and accepted United, only for Fergie to personally call him when he decided not to retire and apologise for wasting his time.

His 3 year contract at Real was worth 9 million Euros a year. He'd not have struggle finding a top job at top money. I think you under-estimate the honour and prestige of leading England for foreign coaches, the creators of the game, the challenge of being the person to bring much needed success.

Van Gaal also wanted the England job in the 2010s. He spoke also bitterly about the fact he wouldnt get it because England wanted an English coach after Capello - he was Bayern Manager, got offered the Liverpool job, took a paycut to manage Holland (his second choice after England), then signed a massive contract at United.

Not everything is about money.

Hiring him is like us give Rafa Benitez the job now....

Because managing a lower league Chinese Premier League club is directly comparable to just winning a title at the world's most supported club? The comparison fails at every single level.

[sussexpob]

Capello stunk as our manager with both players and fans. The Football was dire as was the moral. The stories that have came out since have made the great Capello seem like a dictator.

Many people say Capello's style was old fashioned and out of date. The 4-4-2 was dead, why did England play it in 2010? Spain won that WC. They played 4-4-2 with Torres and David Villa up to for most of the tournament. Many teams, like Fergusons CL final team that lost to Barcelona among others, still played and were successful with a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 depending on how you want to define it. Its almost like English pundits dont watch football.... criticizing Capello for playing an out of date formation in a tournament won by a team using the same setup.

The same pundits saying 4-4-2 was dead proclaimed Spain the greatest WC side ever, and the tactics the best ever. The same pundits who say Capello was a dictator for not allowing players to eat crap, will credit Arsene Wenger for introducing strict player diets into football. The same pundits who say Capello was impossible to work with due to being combative, romantically joke about Ferguson being "the hairdryer" and credit his discipline and high standards for his success. The same people who faulted Capello's Italian style of cautious play were proclaiming Mourinho a genius for basically playing the Catenaccio style and leading Inter Milan to that years CL title.

Its almost like the press wanted a fall guy. Far easier to blame the foreigner than admit the English players were just not good enough. He then left and everything got better didnt it? Well no. We didnt win a game in 2014, not even v the mighty Costa Rica. We lost to Iceland in 2016. Hodgson was a decent manager too... but an international manager has to work with what they have. If they have nothing, then they win nothing.

And there is the underlining difference.... Southgate is the first manager since Sven to have a team that can (and should) achieve something. Give this current side to Roy, Terry Venables, Capello, Hoddle.. they wouldnt draw with Scotland.

[Arthur Crabtree]

So why did he not excel with England? Can't just be because England players are uniquely egotistical, insecure and obstinate. Maybe the language was a factor and his lack of background in English domestic football.

My impression is that England managers take England teams about as far as their ability as a group can take them. Sometimes that's a little better than usual (semis) sometimes quite a bit worse (NQ). Everyone complains, but England get what they deserve, usually second round or quarters. There have been unusually bad managers (Revie, Taylor) but mostly they just get out what there is.

I suppose a difficult factor to quantify is how much they freeze on the big occasion. Maybe having a manager they felt comfortable with might have made them freeze a little less (if that's what what they did under Fabio).

A big what-if from my earlier days is if Clough got the job in the seventies. He made a career of turning ordinary players into winners. With Taylor of course.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Something that seemed to happen under many managers was that England would be prepped in big games and go out and dominate the first ten minutes. Then the opposition adapted and took control and England weren't able to change in return. When I could bear to do this sort of thing, listening to someone like Alan Shearer made me wonder if there's something about England players that makes them lack perception about the game. He was England captain for ages, but just seems to have a lot of fog in his head when trying to explain what he is watching. Maybe how they are coached at youth level.

Compare with say Michael Vaughan in cricket, who when he bothers to talk about his sport does so with an exciting clarity.

[Arthur Crabtree]

And there is the underlining difference.... Southgate is the first manager since Sven to have a team that can (and should) achieve something. Give this current side to Roy, Terry Venables, Capello, Hoddle.. they wouldnt draw with Scotland.

Fair enough.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Scottish player Billy Gilmour tests positive for coronavirus. He's self isolating now. England players Mason Mount and Ben Chilwell, who were congratulating their Chelsea team mate, now in self isolation as well.

And unavailable.

[sussexpob]

Something that seemed to happen under many managers was that England would be prepped in big games and go out and dominate the first ten minutes. Then the opposition adapted and took control and England weren't able to change in return. When I could bear to do this sort of thing, listening to someone like Alan Shearer made me wonder if there's something about England players that makes them lack perception about the game. He was England captain for ages, but just seems to have a lot of fog in his head when trying to explain what he is watching. Maybe how they are coached at youth level. Compare with say Michael Vaughan in cricket, who when he bothers to talk about his sport does so with an exciting clarity.

I could write a whole book on that question. There a lots of factors in play; like class, coaching, culture of football in Britain being so resistive to change and being left behind the times. When Germany beat England in 2010 the press asked how could Germany be that much better than us; they had something like 1000 times more qualified grassroots coaches. Professionals with full UEFA coaching badges working with kids aged 8, while the English equivalent was Stan's dad coaching his son's team because he scored a few goals in Sunday League matches 20 years before. Potter at Brighton is the first English coach ever to lead a team in professional football who studied the game professionally - the Italians have been doing that since the 1950s.

Without that sort of scientific view of things, English football trusts its own misguided instincts - devoid of being able to explain the game on an intrinsic level, English pundits just waffle on about the importance of nebulous concepts like effort, pride, team work or what not being important. Without wanting to sound harsh, I see that here in the following pages in this discussion. Two posters admitting the England manager has no clue about tactics, but that hes good for the team because he "wants it" and "he actually cares". Not only do none of these concepts have anything to do with success, are we really suggesting Gareth Southgate is unique in wanting to win? Or that the majority of teams are super fit and super motivated?

And the same will be said when England lose. Just didnt want it. Looked half-arsed. Ian Wright will suggest once again that the team be forced to live with Afghan vets with leg blown off to understand sacrifice. As if its a lack of effort and not skill, tactical nous or style that is the reason.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Team spirit is an illusion glimpsed in the aftermath of victory.

Yet the same mentality has brought big success at club level, even when all the teams were made up of British players.

I think things like team spirit and desire to win are significant factors. But maybe at the top level, desire to win should be a given. But this motivation has to have discipline and direction otherwise it could even be a negative thing, contributing to the team freezing.

[Gingerfinch]

Chilwell and Mount spent 20 minutes with Gilmour in the tunnel after the game. Why 20 minutes? If the maximum is 15 then why wasn't there someone around to tell them, and why didn't the players know? The Scottish players would have spent longer with each other I'm sure, but no proof of course.

[sussexpob]

So why did he not excel with England?

He took over an England team that finished level on points with the mighty Israel in Euro 2008 qualification. We had been soundly beaten by Croatia, lost to a terrible Russia team, couldnt beat Isreal and I believe we drew twice to the even mightier Macedonia. The team had been a total shambles after the 2006 WC and Sven left.

England had declined significantly from 1998 and 2002. Sure there were a few players around here and there, but zero depth especially up top. Owen was crippled by then, and Rooney was England's star, but blew hot and cold all the time.

I would say between 2008 and 2016, England's national team and player pool was pretty rubbish. Its improved very quickly since then.

Can't just be because England players are uniquely egotistical, insecure and obstinate. Maybe the language was a factor and his lack of background in English domestic football.

You have to remember that England's footballing culture operates in a totally isolated domestic bubble. Out of all the big footballing cultures in the world, English players leave their domestic game the least, to the point I can name in the whole of my lifetime only a very few select number of players who did it; there are probably more Frenchmen in Chelsea's academy team right now then English players who have played in Europe's top leagues somewhere near their peak in the last three decades. So English pundits, fans and players have so little exposure to other leagues and players.

Given this situation, English players also operate in a sort of biased comfort zone. When an English player makes it in a top side full of foreigners in the PL, its often about them and their reputations are inflated. Their drawbacks are also never exposed to other interpretations; I mean, look at someone like Rooney. Suarez was the cheat, Rooney the good old fashioned gritty striker who always stayed on his feet.... was there a bigger diver than Rooney? Probably not, he dived all the time. But the English like to see themselves as better than that, so they just lied to themselves. Rooney never dived. He was as pure as snow.

I cant think of a better example than Steven Gerrard generally. Liverpool won the CLs league and it was all about him. Xabi Alonso was the side cast, a decent player but nowhere near as good. Alonso left and won Spanish player of the year, 2 Euros, a world cup, German player of the year,loads of Bundesliga's, a champions league and plenty of cups..... Gerrard won nothing else. The closest he got was falling over and costing Liverpool a title one year. Yet for English people Alonso was merely a decent player playing alongside the unstoppable legend of Gerrard, who retired with GOAT tags..... the truth is, Alonso was miles better than Gerrard could ever hope to be.

But that doesnt matter. Gerrard ran a lot. Gerrard tackled hard. Gerrard shot from 40 yards and once out of every 100 shots one flew in and he won goal of the month - Alonso ripped people apart with vision, control, passing ability. But he didnt run a lot or throw himself into tackles. English people find that all a bit bourgeois. Sadly, its also what tends to win football matches.

People say as a joke now Messi has scored 900 goals or what not, but originally it wasnt a joke - the whole "yeah he's good, but can he do it v Stoke on a Tuesday night" rubbish was a real criticism Yes Stoke fans - I am sure he would tear you apart on a Tuesday night if you had ever been good enough to play him.

Those sorts of character traits and technical qualities have a surprising effect on the English game. When Paul Scholes retired, the worlds best ever players around the globe lined up to praise him. Messi gushed about how he used to be glued to videos of him playing at La Mesia. Guardiola called him the greatest player. Zidane bemoaned the fact his biggest regret was never to play with him. Xavi and Iniesta, recognised as the best midfielders of their time, both said Scholes was better. The perfect player.

And in England? Scholes got dumped out of position, retired in his 20s from international football because he got sick of being mistreated by managers, and was told because he didnt run around like Gerrard he wasnt as good. Interesting that all the best football managers and players will tell you his skills were second to none, but to English people he was just another player who "didnt want it" because he didnt run a lot. Pirlo didnt run alot, but he tore teams to shreds. Do any deep lying playmakers run a lot?

The English media and fans ignore what happens abroad. When Steve McManaman was playing out of this world at Real Madrid in an era where they had all the top talent in the world, what happened to him in an England shirt? Didnt get picked in 2002. A situation that so enflamed his Real Madrid team mates, they all came out to criticise Sven. The spanish wondered out loud if England had lost their minds.

The English reponse? You guessed it. McMananaman "didnt want it". Never looked bothered. The usual rubbish. Didnt run around aimlessly enough. Ironically, he played in 3 matches in the lead up to that tournament.

.......

So you ask, it cant be English players? English players are hyped up to the point they believe they are indestructible. I guess having someone tell them they werent all that must have been a little hard to bear. In fact we like to think the English press are really harsh on players, but my god, try reading publications like la Marca in Spain. Try seeing the savage beating the French are dishing out to their team after the weekend. They won the WC and got told they were still not good enough. The current Turkey team all got death threats and told their family would be kidnapped if they didnt do better. English players get off relatively lightly.

At the end of the day, you have to ask - If these players were so good all the time, why do they always fail in the same way? At some point you have to conclude that maybe its not the endless list of managers who get it in the neck. The constant here is the same players failing.

I mean, it seems a bit of a bizarre conclusion to take a handful of great managers who win everything in sight their whole lives, put them with the same players, and the successful manager always fails -- then say they are the problem. Doesnt this indicate the counter?

[Gingerfinch]

Team spirit is an illusion glimpsed in the aftermath of victory.

Yet the same mentality has brought big success at club level, even when all the teams were made up of British players.

I think things like team spirit and desire to win are significant factors. But maybe at the top level, desire to win should be a given. But this motivation has to have discipline and direction otherwise it could even be a negative thing, contributing to the team freezing.

I'm big on team spirit. No evidence that it wins anything but imo it does help. The England team with the golden generation often get criticised for not bonding, whereas our current crop supposedly get on well. On the other side, Holland used to have problems in the camps, certainly in the mid 90's and despite having some fine/great players, struggled at times. Euro 96 coming to mind.

[Arthur Crabtree]

So why did he not excel with England?

He took over an England team that finished level on points with the mighty Israel in Euro 2008 qualification. We had been soundly beaten by Croatia, lost to a terrible Russia team, couldnt beat Isreal and I believe we drew twice to the even mightier Macedonia. The team had been a total shambles after the 2006 WC and Sven left.

A manager who knew more about English football, and assuming he was as gifted as Fabio might have been able to remake the England side. England were poor at that time but a lot of favourites just kept on playing. Terry Venables took over from Graham Taylor. Venables didn't go on picking Carlton Palmer and Geoff Thomas. He promoted and recalled others who had been around but hadn't really been fancied like Batty, Sheringham, Anderton, Ince. OK, not legends, but they were capable of better football than Taylor's favourites. Venables seemed to have an eye for a player. Who were Fabio's picks?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Alonso was a great player. Everyone I used to watch football with used to think he was Liverpool's best player. I'm sure at least the broadsheet press rated him. Gerard was good when managed right too. He needed someone to look after him (Alonso) much as Scholes needed Keane.