[Archived] The Italian Mafia

[Eddie]

Well in terms of a squad, I think Gerrad would certainly make it, as would Rooney and probably Owen. I imagine Ashley Cole, Ferdinand and probably Terry would get in. Beckham last year would have, we really don't know how well he's playing anymore, but he was certainly up there with the best last year in la liga.

[Eddie]

Why have you rated Hargreaves below Lampard.

When has Lampard ever performed like a world class player?

Lampard has shown himself to be a world class player for several years in the premiership. For the England team there have been few good performances, but he has been fantastic for Chelsea.

[bellamy11]

So what you're saying Eddie is that England are a world class team? You listed an awful lot of our players as world class there. Because it certainly doesn't seem that way. If we were World Class, we would have qualified for Euro 2008.

I know TNR's theory on World Class is that it means you have to be able to get in the starting line up to repsresent Earth when the Martians invade. This is as good a criteria as any. IMHO, only a band of maybe 20 or 30 people can be called 'World Class'. England certainly do not make up more than a few faces in this band.

[Eddie]

My criteria for world class is would any side in the world be happy to have you and are you in the best 5-15 players in your position (depending on what position that is). England have a decent number of players who match that for me, as do Argentina, Brazil and Spain. France and Italy are a little behind those others, but the quality of play their sides produce is better than that of either England or Spain. Good players don't always make for a good team, in any sport, and the fact that England have yet to find a balance to their side means that the quality of players they have has yet to be properly used.

[bellamy11]

My criteria for world class is would any side in the world be happy to have you and are you in the best 5-15 players in your position (depending on what position that is). England have a decent number of players who match that for me, as do Argentina, Brazil and Spain. France and Italy are a little behind those others, but the quality of play their sides produce is better than that of either England or Spain. Good players don't always make for a good team, in any sport, and the fact that England have yet to find a balance to their side means that the quality of players they have has yet to be properly used.

I see what you're saying Eddie but when we're looking at these English players we're seeing them in their own little micro-climate of the Premiership. They have been brought up in the league and excel in it because the style suits them. Therefore players like Gerrard and Lampard are always going to do well in that environment.

A true test of a player's ability is when he is taken away from that comfort zone. Cesc Fabregas has said that he thinks more English players should learn their trade abroad. Who knows how well Steven Gerrard would do in Serie A? It's all very well him being one of the best players here but he could be an also-ran there.

The proper test of a player's ability on the World stage is in International competition. In international matches we have our good players and our bad players. Put Luka Modric in the Premiership and he most likely wouldn't be as influential as Gerrard. But he sure showed up our 'world class' players at Wembley. So what makes Steven Gerrard better than him?

BTW as a disclaimer I actually think Gerrard is a fantastic player so he might be a bad example to use here, but the point remains the same.

[thenodrog]

I know TNR's theory on World Class is that it means you have to be able to get in the starting line up to repsresent Earth when the Martians invade. This is as good a criteria as any. IMHO, only a band of maybe 20 or 30 people can be called 'World Class'. England certainly do not make up more than a few faces in this band.

16...... 11 + 5 subs

Eddie I'd edit/delete your earlier posts if you want to maintain any sort of credibility. World class and can't get into the Euro finals!

[bellamy11]

16...... 11 + 5 subs

Eddie I'd edit/delete your earlier posts if you want to maintain any sort of credibility. World class and can't get into the Euro finals!

In my system we have to have enough players to squad rotate. It means that within our solar system we will struggle, but in inter-Galaxy competition we will still have players fresh.

On a slightly more serious note, IMO (of course), you can't limit 'world class' to a team. Are there really only two world class goalkeepers in the World at any one time?

[thenodrog]

Right, I'm ready for people to disagree with me as usual, but...

Ferdinand and Terry are world class central defenders.

Ferdinand certainly thinks he is whilst milk turns quicker that John Terry.

Ashley Cole is a world class left-back (at least he was before his injuries and for now I will assume that he will get back to his best).

Good going forward but can't defend for toffee.

Gerrard, Lampard and probably even Hargreaves are world class central midfielders.

They aren't even the best midfielders in England..... good sat aft club pro's who are unable to step up to international level..... btw this isn't conjecture we've all witnessed it many many times over..... no arguing with that at all

Beckham is (at least for the time being), Joe Cole has the ability to be and probably sneaks in.

Beckham? Can't run fast, dribble, tackle, head a ball, or kick it with his left foot. A good right foot but that is not enough. Cole best midfielder that we have..... played wide to accomodate those two above

Rooney most certainly is and Owen, despite some limitations, has to be simply because of his goalscoring ability.

Injury toll means that Owen is now past it. Rooney OK

On top of that you have a host of players who are more than good enough for international play.

Eh? Who? The likes of Dyer / Jenas / Carrick / Smith / Brown and the keepers would not even make Brazil / Argentina / France / Italy 'B' squads.

The squad is there, if anyone doesn't think so then actually cast your eye over the French squad and ask yourself how many French players would make the England team, particularly the starting line-up.

French dream generation is now ageing but if you'd asked the question 5 years ago I'd prob have said 7/8 of them.

Eddie stick to ICBINF .

[thenodrog]

In my system we have to have enough players to squad rotate. It means that within our solar system we will struggle, but in inter-Galaxy competition we will still have players fresh.

On a slightly more serious note, IMO (of course), you can't limit 'world class' to a team. Are there really only two world class goalkeepers in the World at any one time?

Obviously.

btw doesn't need me to point out that none of em are English

[Eddie]

I see what you're saying Eddie but when we're looking at these English players we're seeing them in their own little micro-climate of the Premiership. They have been brought up in the league and excel in it because the style suits them. Therefore players like Gerrard and Lampard are always going to do well in that environment.

A true test of a player's ability is when he is taken away from that comfort zone. Cesc Fabregas has said that he thinks more English players should learn their trade abroad. Who knows how well Steven Gerrard would do in Serie A? It's all very well him being one of the best players here but he could be an also-ran there.

The proper test of a player's ability on the World stage is in International competition. In international matches we have our good players and our bad players. Put Luka Modric in the Premiership and he most likely wouldn't be as influential as Gerrard. But he sure showed up our 'world class' players at Wembley. So what makes Steven Gerrard better than him?

BTW as a disclaimer I actually think Gerrard is a fantastic player so he might be a bad example to use here, but the point remains the same.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'd say most of them have shown themselves to be more than capable of playing in the champions league, so they have shown that they can adapt to different styles. Some of them wouldn't suit playing abroad, but then I'm not sure how well Ronaldinho would do if he came to England and he is certainly a world class player (take a look at someone like Ballack for example). The problem isn't something that is exclusive to English football. Why those players don't perform for England I don't know, I'm not sure anyone does. I think part of it is possibly a slight fear that they don't have at club level, the fact that they take club football more seriously, the fact that they don't have as much passion when they play for England, the system doesn't work; there are hundreds of reasons why it might be. My point really is, the team at the moment is bad, the side is very good.

16...... 11 + 5 subs

Eddie I'd edit/delete your earlier posts if you want to maintain any sort of credibility. World class and can't get into the Euro finals!

You made a point about France's golden generation, well let's go back to when that generation was probably at it's best: 2002. That year France went to a World Cup as clear favourites, they didn't have to qualify for it as they had won the previous one, so who knows what would have happened had they had that challenge. What we do know is that they had a very easy group and a fantastic bunch of players, they didn't even manage to score a goal. Sometimes teams blow it, sometimes good players don't make up a good side. Going into the 2006 World Cup very few thought that France or Italy would go particularly far, certainly not both, but because they played well as a team (the same is true for Germany), they made it further than more gifted sides (Brazil, Argentina, England and Spain).

Spain always have a fantastic bunch of players, but their record in international football is pretty much as hopeless, maybe even more-so, than England. I don't know why some English fans seem unable to accept the fact that the team is bad and the players are good, it's really not that comlpicated. You seem to think Gerrard is hopeless, would you mind if we signed him then?

[broadsword]

As\ I thought Eddie, he's never put in a World Class performance for England.

Good interview with Harry in today's Mail. He's basically saiung that you don't need a World Class coach as a manager, how much time would he get to coach international players? Beggar all, really.

But still, we're now spending more on a coach than on grass roots football, which says to me the next 2.5 years is more important than the long-term future. On that basis, he has to win teh World Cup, it really is that simple.

[broadsword]

One or two quibbles with what Theodrog has put (Terry needs someone fast alongside him - don't think he should be captain any more). Carragher should be in there instead of Ferdinand. Owen, I'm praying he can still do it, but Newcastle want shot of him, which doesn't bode well.

Out of teh current team, I like Owen, Hargreaves and J Cole, that's about it.

[SouthAussieRover]

In fact apart from a certain sweaty ex manager of our aquaintance (who would prob be perfect) the only two that spring to mind are Gazza and Trevor Francis

You've obviously forgot about David Platt and his Sampdoria days.

[tony gale's mic]

As\ I thought Eddie, he's never put in a World Class performance for England.

Good interview with Harry in today's Mail. He's basically saiung that you don't need a World Class coach as a manager, how much time would he get to coach international players? Beggar all, really.

But still, we're now spending more on a coach than on grass roots football, which says to me the next 2.5 years is more important than the long-term future. On that basis, he has to win teh World Cup, it really is that simple.

It was an awful interview with Harry, I don't get the Mail as it's an awful paper for small-minded xenophobes, but I'm guessing these quotes were taken from the same piece:

"Do you have to be a super-coach to manage England? Does Steven Gerrard need coaching? Of course not. Or Ashley Cole, John Terry, Rio Ferdinand, Micah Richards, Frank Lampard, Wayne Rooney?

"You get them for three days before a game, what will you coach them? Would I get Gerrard and coach him on passing a football or Lampard on running on to the ball and hitting it in the top corner from 30 yards?

Did Marco van Basten need coaching? Did Cannavaro, Beckham, Del Piero, Totti, Ronaldo or any of the vast array of talents he's managed over the years need coaching?

"It's not about coaching! It's about picking the players, getting them organised, giving them belief, giving them a platform to play without fear and getting the best out of them.

That's exactly what Capello has been famed for doing! Look at his handling of David Beckham and how he got the best out of him last season. He's one of the best in the world at doing exactly that.

He added of Capello: "I'm not unhappy with his appointment. I just think the manager of England should be English."

Absolute rubbish.

[thenodrog]

Did Marco van Basten need coaching? Did Cannavaro, Beckham, Del Piero, Totti, Ronaldo or any of the vast array of talents he's managed over the years need coaching?

Most certainly they did.

[tony gale's mic]

Most certainly they did.

Yeah I'd agree, anyone can benefit from the right input, but for 'Arry to ask if Steven Gerrard needs coaching is ridiculous.

[DP]

It's a lot of sour grapes with the club managers whinging about a foreign England Coach. They should be pointing the finger at the big premiership clubs as they're as much to blame as anyone for having no faith in English managers themselves. No wonder there aren't any Englishmen out there with the "right pedigree" as all the top English clubs have foreign (include Scottish, Welsh, Irish in that) managers.

It's also interesting that some of the more successful managers of recent years weren't great players themselves (RFW, Wenger, Mourinho) but there's always a huge questionmark put on managers like Allardyce and Curbishly as to whether they'll get the respect of the players, should they manage a top club or England. The likes of Shearer/Pearce might get the respect of the England players because they are English legends, but there's an unquestionable high risk that we play like we did under Keegan. Plenty of passion but no clue.

I still think the FA have rushed into it though. The best man for the job was Mourinho. Capello has the CV but how simple are his tactics? How good is he at motivating players? What's his plan B? I don't know the answer to these questions but I do think international managers need to be more Mourinho and less Wenger, who I think is a better football coach and club manager but would never be able to transform a team which the short amount of time the England players get.

[broadsword]

It was an awful interview with Harry, I don't get the Mail as it's an awful paper for small-minded xenophobes, but I'm guessing these quotes were taken from the same piece:

Did Marco van Basten need coaching? Did Cannavaro, Beckham, Del Piero, Totti, Ronaldo or any of the vast array of talents he's managed over the years need coaching?

That's exactly what Capello has been famed for doing! Look at his handling of David Beckham and how he got the best out of him last season. He's one of the best in the world at doing exactly that.

Absolute rubbish.

A paper for small-minded xenophobes? Isn't that small-minded to assume what the readership is like?

I thought the point was that the players had been coached at their clubs, and the influence that a manger could have upon their p[erformance was limited to choosing the formation and the inidividual roles within the team, rather than attempting to teach them new tricks on the training pitch.

In that sense, I don't think we really needed to spend 6 mill on Capello. However, i don't necessarily agree with Redknapp, it's just food for thought, and so I thought it was a good interview. But obviously you choose to see something else.

[tony gale's mic]

A paper for small-minded xenophobes? Isn't that small-minded to assume what the readership is like?

I thought the point was that the players had been coached at their clubs, and the influence that a manger could have upon their p[erformance was limited to choosing the formation and the inidividual roles within the team, rather than attempting to teach them new tricks on the training pitch.

In that sense, I don't think we really needed to spend 6 mill on Capello. However, i don't necessarily agree with Redknapp, it's just food for thought, and so I thought it was a good interview. But obviously you choose to see something else.

Well i know many people read papers indiscriminately so I can't cast aspersions on them, but those who read the Mail because they agree with its principles and values are, in my opinion, small minded, as the very principles which the newspaper runs on are small minded.

The role of a manager in the Premier League or at international level is rarely to teach players new tricks on the training ground, especially when theyre of the calibre of some of the players Capello has managed. Additionally every club employs coaches to work with players skills more closely, but on a tactical level and a motivational level these players still need coaching for their roles within the team and this is what the manager needs to do whether at top club level or at international level. This is what Capello has done to a tee and if he can do as good a job with England as he has done with his previous clubs, we will be World Cup contenders. Whether he will or not remains to be seen as there's obviously various other factors at play here.

[American]

Only because he hasn't played a match

He won't......but for £6m a year your entitled to expect him to

While I don't care what happens to England I have some symapthy with waggy's view. There is a difference between employing an Italian manager with English support staff and employing an Italian manager and four of his support team plus Stuart Pearce. Capello has an opt out after the 2010 world cup. If England do badly we will be no further forward, there will be no English coaching staff with experience to pick up the pieces etc.

Capello is getting a 4.5 year deal worth £6m a year. That's £27m plus expenses etc. Then we have four of his support staff at say £1m a year, that's another £18m, plus Pearce who being a full-blooded Englishman will do it for pride!

This deal is going to cost the FA at least £50m over 4 years. For that money I say the only acceptable result is to win the World Cup. Anything less is a failure.

Wow, Paul, you really are more insular than most of the posters you criticise on other threads....

[thenodrog]

I thought the point was that the players had been coached at their clubs, and the influence that a manger could have upon their p[erformance was limited to choosing the formation and the inidividual roles within the team, rather than attempting to teach them new tricks on the training pitch.

I think the Jack Charlton effect on Eire is what Harry suggests that we need to emulate and I agree. Motivation, tactics and above all strong leadership. A leader of men ... a General for the troops to follow who will take on and defeat the press and all comers rather than a specialist in fitness and ball skills. Compare that requirement to the persona of the last incumbent!.... in fact the last two!

[Scotty]

I think Harry Redknapp and Gareth Southgate are spot on in this case. The England manager should be English. The job should be regarded as the pinnacle of any English manager's career, and to give it to a foreign manager simply demotivates any young English managers who have ambitions to manage their country in the future.

And Redknapp is right when he says that the England manager does not have to do much coaching. The main attributes the England manager needs are the ability to put a team together and organise them, to work out who can play with who and what the best system is to suit the players at the manager's disposal. He must be tactically astute and be able to influence a game with his substitutions. The only time the England manager will really do any coaching is when the squad are together for a long period of time before a major tournament, and even then I doubt he'll be teaching the players anything they don't already know.

There's also no doubt in my mind that England have good enough players to be successful in the future. We just don't play well as a team at the moment. Any decent mamanger should be able to sort that out.

I've said before that I'd have given the job to Roy Hodgson. He's highly experienced and has had relative success with two different international teams. But I also feel that any one of Redknapp, Coppull, Hoddle or Allardyce could have done the job successfully. They are all experienced managers who have a proven track record of relative success at club level.

The only consolation is that, if we had to get a foreign manager, we couldn't have got one much better than Capello. I've no doubt he'll do a good job - certainly better than the woefully under-experienced McLaren anyway - but I can't believe the amount of money that the FA are reportedly paying him. That's money that should be going to improve grass-roots football and ensuring that we have a good national team for years to come.

We may qualify for the World Cup in 2010 - hell, we may even win it - but I worry about the affect this appointment will have on the next generation of English footballers and managers.

[Paul]

Wow, Paul, you really are more insular than most of the posters you criticise on other threads....

The FA chose to invest £50m over four years in Capello and his team. Yesterday's reports say Capello is to receive £6.5m pa himself, making the total greater. There will be an additional member of the coaching team selected from (available?) English candidates. The FA have some stated aims, two of which I understand are:

- root and branch reform

- developing a system similar to those in Italy and Germany aimed at creating a supply of potential England coaches.

Apparently this £50m + is greater than the sum being invested in grassroots football. From this I presume the FA reason international success will have a greater influence on the game's development than supporting children and young people playing for enjoyment. I don't know if this is true, 1966 certainly fired my imagination but I'm unsure if it would have a sustained impact on today's generation.

The FA have invested £50m+ in team management. Are you suggesting there should be no targets? If the FA feel the investment is justified, and Capello is probably the highest paid football manager in the world, surely the reasonable target is to win the World Cup? He has a 4.5 year contract, perhaps an alternative target should be to win Euro 2012?

Secondly the FA are concerned to develop English football and English managerial talent. How will having one English coach in a team of +/- six achieve this? Imagine Stuart Pierce is chosen. In 3-4 years Capello et al leave, do you truely believe English football would have made £50m of progress if the end result is Stuart Pierce? I like Pierce, he's a good honest guy, but he doesn't appear to be a potential England manager.

So if it's insular to question the likely benefits of investing £50m in the England management team I'm insular. I've suggested employing an Italian manager with English support staff differs from employing the all Italian team. The former could develop potential English candidates, as per the FA's aims, the later does not do this. For much of the year the England manager has relatively little to do, followed by bursts of intense activity. Wouldn't these quieter periods be ideal for the England management team to travel and work together learning from Capello? Surely this would represent tremendous value - four or five potential England coaches working side by side with one of football's best managers/coaches? Those candidates would learn a great deal, benefitting themselves, the England team and perhaps the PL if they moved on to club positons.

I think the appointment will at best deliver short-term gain at the cost of long-term development.

You chose the wrong adjective. Demanding would have been a better choice. For £50m England fans are entitled to expect some damn good results. Please explain why expecting results from and questioning the value of a £50m investment is insular?

[Paul]

Surely this would represent tremendous value - four or five potential England coaches working side by side with one of football's best managers/coaches? Those candidates would learn a great deal, benefitting themselves, the England team and perhaps the PL if they moved on to club positons.

Just to develop this further. A Five Live discussion last night suggested Capello faces several major tasks / problems one of which is England players live in the hurly burly of the PL. For many their game hasn't adapted / developed to match the international game. The question was posed how to prepare a player to move from high energy PL football on Saturday afternoon (which some say makes this the best league in the world, and it is certainly what the punters want) to the more subtle, slow and patient style of the international game by Wednesday night? The panel concluded Capello needs to bring the likes of O'Neil, Allardyce, Coppell etc. onside in order to see his (Capello's) thinking pushed through to club level if it is to have a lasting impact.

In answer to the insular accusation I'd say those expert opinions are supporting my arguement. For Capello to have a longterm benefit he needs to influence / change thinking at PL manager level. How better to do that than to work with four or five selected individuals as your coaching team for several years? One of whom might become England manager while others would return to the PL with a direct and close experience of this new regime. Perhaps the benefits of these ideas would then find favour at PL level.

So the inward looking insular view is thinking about the longterm - seems fairly broad to me. How though will this happen if the national game is managed by five foreign coaches?

[philipl]

I think the insularity argument fails on many levels.

Can anybody seriously argue the Premiership is insular?

- the search for an England Manager had to be for non-English Managers because the only English Managers in the EPL are at Newcastle, Boro, Wigan, Derby, West Ham and Portsmouth

- more than 50% of the players in EPL squads are non-English and most sides only have a small minority of English players in their regular starting XIs

Is the English game failing?

- apart from the obvious financial strength, the English paying public is still voting with its bums on seats in the stadia and with TV subscriptions and pints in places the games are being shown so there must be something right with the way the game is being played

- the huge boom in worldwide soccer rights is largely an EPL phenomenon. The EPL way of playing is admired and influencing soccer development globally

- is it two seasons running now that the only non-EPL team in the last 4 of the Champions League has gone on to win it? Hardly a sign that the EPL is producing a failing formula on the pitch nor are scores like Man U 7 Roma 1.

- is there a better pure footballing side in the world anywhere than Arsenal? (and look how young their first team is)

I think the issue is more akin to cricket where you need somewhat different players for Test matches and One Day Internationals exacerbated by the FA's gentlemen and players structure looking after the playing fields of England and the England national team. Oh and fiddling around badly with a bit of admin whilst all the real decisions are taken by FIFA, UEFA, the Premier League and the Football League.

All other successful sports have separated the professional game from the amateur- look at how cricket has changed its structures. Part of English football's huge success is that it has done the same. The problem is the England team is stranded with the amateur part. I bet if England's national side were run by the Premiership it would reach the semi-final of every major tournament every time. Let's get rid of the FA.