Yes, yes it is.
Yes, yes it is.
Because I'm English, think we should have an English manager for the England team, think the team needs a team motivator to perform, that Redknapp is the best one to achieve that. And if it fucks up spuds, all the better.Originally Posted by Master Splinter
Simples.
How long did they spend sucking 'Arry's cock on MoTD last night?
No wonder he's got a twitch
There is always a tendency for a collective group think in football where assumptions are made by a few and adopted by many others. This must explain why Capello, win ratio of 67% and all, is being described as though he was a failure and a bad manager, a bad man, even.Given he fucked up in South Africa where it counted, I'm not sure the stat is so significant. How does his qualification record compare with other managers - apart from McLaren most times we have qualified OK. What counts is the record in the actual tournaments. Even Erikson did better than Capello and it is English managers that have taken us the furthest in the finals, not the non-English managers. I think one of the factors is that when you are asking the players to perform and doing the 'England expects' bit, it must fall a bit flat if the manager is non-English.
It's been said before, but if these players really need motivating to perform in the world cup finals, then they shouldn't be there in the first place.
To Coney: I think it's more that when England come up against better opposition, they lose - England's record in knockout ties has been horrendous for decades. Also, there's this assumption that it's only English players that have pressure placed on them due to national expectations.
I think our players do underperform. The pressure thing is the media being twats - I'm not sure how much pressure is put on players from other countries by their own media - are they really as savage as our press? But a manager like Redknapp (and El Tel and Robson) is the kind to be able to help players deal with that shit.
I'm not sure our record in knockouts is 'horrendous' compared to most other countries. We've got to semis under English managers - while we might have screwed up at the last, I would not say it was horrendous. Robson (English) and Venables (English) lost in semi-finals on penalties to the eventual winners. While that was painful for English supporters, that is hardly horrendous. Under Erikson, when we got knocked out, it was because we played uninspired shit - he was no motivator. There were stories coming out of the England camp after the defeat against Brazil about Erikson's half-time talk which apparently was a non-entity. I think 'arry would do better than that. He does know how to talk to English players - GHELs if you like - and that motivational leadership is what I think has been missing from our performances in tournament finals. I've thought that for years - decades - and have never approved of having non-English managers for an English team. Teams are supposed to represent their countries and the manager is part of that team. Once we water down the idea by having non-English components, then we are heading away from the idea of internationals.
That is a completely meaningless stat. Of course they have because over all our history in World Cups there have been more English than foreign managers. I could equally say the last time we failed to qualify for a finals at all was under an English manager ergo we should always have foreign managers. That would be equally spurious.
There is no reason at all to think a good English manager would do better than a good foreign one. Right now I do agree 'Arry is a good choice but he's not a genius (by his own admission) and I don't believe England will suddenly be sweeping all before them under him. I think he'll do OK and then after a few tournament finals where we fail the press who now so laud him will turn against him and round we go again.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
