England Soccer Team

England are out. What to do? I was very disappointed. I didn't think it would happen.

Sven Goran Eriksson is definitely one of the top 5 managers of England. Alf Ramsey was the greatest, and there are other names like Bobby Robson and Terry Venables. England reached the quarter finals of every major tournament under Eriksson, but I would say that the World Cup 06 was the low point of his reign.

People questioned his decision to stick with David Beckham, but I don't understand that. It contradicts other things that have been said about England's World Cup, like how he was playing badly and yet had a hand in most of the goals England scored. Most you can say was that he was not up to the standards that was set 5 years ago.

It is true that Beckham should not have been the England captain. The armband should have been given to John Terry or Steven Gerrard.

When Eriksson came in, he had "the left side problem". I don't really remember how he solved that problem but it was a good England side.

The manner of England's exit left much to be desired in WC 2002. If they had beaten Brazil, who knows what might have happened? But of course beating Brazil is always a big big "if", evne though Brazil was down to 10 men. But they would have faced Turkey in the semi finals, England would have beaten them, and got into the finals vs Germany.

(You could say the same thing at Euro 96, where they lost to Germany on penalties after a very close match. I can still remember Gasgoigne, playing the best tournament of his life, making a lunge for the ball at the goalmouth - and failing to connect. After Germany, it would have been the Czechs, and it would have been a real prospect to beat them and claim their first Euro title.)

That team deserved to go to the finals. It was extremely fortunate that so many of the big powers - France, Argentina, Italy, Portugal, Spain, fell by the wayside so early. But they had to get out of their group of death, with Nigeria, Sweden and Argentina, and they did well to do so.

In the 2006 world cup, England had an easier trip. They had an easier group (it was Trinidad, Sweden and Paraguay). They then faced Ecuador which was not to be underestimated. And then went out to Portugal.

Eriksson had been criticised for his unimaginativeness. Perhaps, or perhaps his options were really limited. At the club level, players like Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney and Terry are the equal of Beckham. The defence of Cole, Terry, Ferdinand and Neville was solid. But outside of this small first team there were few pickings. Aaron Lennon and Stewart Downing are not Ryan Giggs and Cristiano Ronaldo. Theo Walcott was a big mistake. His strikers were all unfit.

McLaren's big problem was the Gerrard and Lampard axis. Eriksson couldn't solve that, and apparently the solution was Barry and Gerrard. Heskey and Owen are still a great pair, but he lost them.

Gerrard did speak up for the coach, but when players have to speak up for the coach, it's always suspect.

I'm wondering why nobody blames anything on Venables. The 3-5-2 that was against Croatia was probably Venables' idea, and it didn't succeed. It is possible that he had a hand in the Owen -Heskey pairing, as well as the Barry - Gerrard pairing. Not so sure about the Richards - Phillips pairing on the right.

I don't know enough about the England team to be criticising his selections for the Croatia match. But I'll have to ask questions about why Wayne Bridge was played instead of Ashley Cole. As for having Scott Carson in goal, it was a mistake. In crunch matches, you want experienced hands for the job. On one hand you could say this vindicates his standing by Robinson all along, but there could have been 2 other solutions. One was to have replaced Robinson with Carson earlier on, so that he would have had more experience going into the Croatia match. Maybe against smaller teams. The other solution was David James.

Of course when people talk about matches, there is only team selection. They wouldn't talk about training and tactics. How you organise your team, and how you plan things. Teams who are good at passing have a good understanding about how their team mates are going to make runs. Teams that are good at defending understand their opponents well.

McLaren should go. (ed: this was written just before he got sacked). It doesn't matter how people plead for him to stay. After Keegan left, Eriksson was able to make a great impression almost immediately. It isn't really disruptive when you change a coach after 2 years. His selections were even criticised in public by his opponent coaches, like Slaven Bilic turned into salivating Bilic after hearing about the 3-5-2 formation which nobody uses anymore. Or how Guus Hiddink was talking about how he focused Russia's attacks on England's weak flank.

But the prerequisite for him to go is that you have to have a good coach waiting in the wings. Somebody who is willing to coach England. Now England's personal problems are not merely about players, they are also about coaches.

Sure, Sven Goran Eriksson is a top coach, and he won the Serie A with Lazio, for the first time in eons. But he was bankrolled by an exceptionally generous chairman, the most generous one until Abramovich came along. He made some small Swedish and Portugese sides play above themselves in Europe. But he's not in the same class as Hiddink, Wenger, Scolari, Ferguson, Lippi, Rechagel. The press against him was so bad that it took him 1 year to get another job with Man City, where he is currently enjoying a rehabilitation of his reputation.

Who are the good English coaches? None of the big 4 in the premiership are coached by Englishmen. Sam Allardyce has yet to prove himself at Newcastle, but he's a contender if he does. Martin O'Neill is Northern Irish. Mark Hughes is Welsh. David Moyes is Scottish. Alan Curbishley did well with Charlton, and avoided relgation with West Ham, but I don't see him being a top manager. In any case, both Curbishley and Allardyce are better than McLaren.

As for why Harry Redknapp has never been considered is something I don't completely understand. After all, he spotted and developed a lot of people who are in the England squad, like Joe Cole, Ferdinand, Defoe, Lampard. And Michael Carrick, what's happened to him now?

Steve Coppell had a wonderful last 2 seasons, but England would be a big big step up for him. Paul Jewell is a real prospect for the future, but we have to see what he's capable of achieving with a top club.

As for foreigners, maybe the renumeration is generous, a few million pounds a year. But let's face it, the England job is fairly unattractive. You have people with massive expectations. You have rich and spoilt players who won't necessarily do their best for you. You have the media watching your every move. You have a really small talent pool to work with. If you're foreigner there will be people who will be willing to see you trip and fall. I think Eriksson did pretty OK under the circumstances.

After seeing what happened to Eriksson, which foreigner is going to want the England job? Scolari backed out. Hiddink made some excuse about the FA not giving him sufficient respect. Mourinho ruled himself out of the job in the near future. Can you imagine a Carlos Ancelotti? An Otto Rechaghel?

That's why the job attracts people like Kevin Keegan, Graham Taylor and Steve McLaren who are otherwise mediocre managers, but would gladly do the England job because it's a job above their station, something that normally people of their capability would not be able to touch.

As for talent, maybe England does have young talent. Just because people do well in the U 21s it doesn't mean that they'll always shine. I can name you Peter Taylor, Stuart Pearce and David Platt as coaches who did well for U21s but were rubbish elsewhere. You have youngsters like Gabriel Agbonlahor, Theo Walcott and James Milner coming through, but it remains to be seen whether they will blossom at a more senior level, and in any case they aren't ready now.

Edit: since this long spiel was written, Fabio Capello, Louis van Gaal and Jose Mourinho have declared themselves in the running (even if van Gaal quickly clarified that he would only available in 2 years' time - duh. Probably his chairman told him to shut up.) That's encouraging, even though none of them are synonymous with attractive football. (Capello, after delivering Real Madrid's first trophies in 3-4 years, was sacked for playing ugly football.) Van Gaal is abrasive and not successful at the national level. Mourinho for all his achievements is unproven because, like Eriksson who won the Serie A with a blank check, he won his EPL titles with a blank check. Benitez is trying to get into a war of words with the Liverpool owners so that he can get fired? I think that of the big 4 clubs in EPL, Liverpool is the most stressful because they have never won the EPL. Next comes Chelsea because Avram Grant has to fill in Mourinho's shoes. Ferguson and Wenger have to screw it up really big time in order to be fired.

So maybe what I said about the England manager being an unwanted job is wrong.