Page 1 of POLL: So who is ultimately to blame for England`s poor World Cup performances?

Now we`ve all had time to sit back and reflect on what a sheyite tournament England had, what do you think was the prime reason?

Sorry, I`m not giving a cop-out `all of the above` option. Just pick the one you blame the most.

PAULL IS TO BLAME FOR THE DEMISE OF THE ENGLISH TEAM IN GERMANY

Choagy FFCUK The SPL :D

Without a doubt it`s Manchester United ;)

No seriously it`s got to be Sven. Give the squad he had to a few other managers (Big Phil, Jurgen, Lippi) and England would have got further.

Gordy

Well I don`t know that much about football, but at the end of the day I`d say it was the players. Lets face facts - as a team, they just weren`t good enough. Regardless of whether Rooney should have been sent off (which I think was a correct decision, btw), they never looked like a team capable of going any further than the quarter finals. The hope was there (as always), but the talent was not. People can come out with all the "excuses" they want, but we lost. And we deserved to lose. Oh well - life goes on... :)

This item was edited on Wednesday, 5th July 2006, 03:29

IMO thats almost a rhetorical question,.

S.G.E should take most of the blame. He and Crozier targeted 2006 World Cup as a tournament to win, in 5 years he managed to take possibly the best crop of players we had and progress them the sum total of no where.

He was and is tactically lacking, from his squad selections right through to team selections and substitutions. He had no bottle to make the big, tough decisions, basically he plundered approx £25 million quid for doing nothing but putting on a very big act

Good riddance to bad rubbish




SHEPHERDS PIEEEEEEEE
Y.N.W.A
"TIGHT"

SGE got it wrong, but the s***e performace from the (over paid prima donnas) players has to be a major contributing factor.

But I think it`s been a trait of England teams right from 1970 to underperform.

As far as managers go, Sven hasn`t been the worst. In fact if you want to see a manager take a team that had done well (1990) and then finish bottom in the Euros two years later and not even qualify for the 94 WC look at Grahame Taylor.




This space for sale





. <--- Except this bit, its mine.

Dont you think that even a good manager (let alone a world class one) would have got that group of players playing better football and being more likely contenders to win the thing??

For example - Owen Hargreaves has spent 3 years being pilliaried by all and sundry for being crap, for producing naff performances and for being a liability to the squad. As soon as the manager actually chose to play him in his proper position he plays his tits off.

I know its back to the Owen Hargreaves thing but I think it shows hugely what effect poor management can have on the ability of a player to produce his best


SHEPHERDS PIEEEEEEEE
Y.N.W.A
"TIGHT"

it all comes down to sven.

he didn`t have the balls to pick the best team and to drop some of the bigger named players in order to have the best team.

you can have all the best players in the world you still got to play them in the right formation and in the positions they are best at.

tailz,

the words nail, hit, on, the and head (in a specific order) spring to mind mate. spot on!

SHEPHERDS PIEEEEEEEE
Y.N.W.A
"TIGHT"

I would say Sven too. Probably 85% Sven and 25% down to the long season.

His squad selection rightly raised eyebrows and now, post tournament, he more or less said that he basically blooded Walcott in the squad for `the future`. Well, to be honest Sven, I would rather you took a fit, form forward than taking up a place with an unproven 17 year old who may or may not play in the next World Cup.

Then there is the tactics, which is almost a direct knock on from the above. He clearly didnt fancy Walcott or Crouch, so why the f*** did he take them? He would certainly have played 4-4-2 had owen been fit, regardless of form, so why cant you fit crouch in that formation, playing on to Rooney? Plus, as has been said, he constantly plays everyone out of position. Neville had quite a good tourney, as did ashley cole and we all know why.

Hargreaves, who a lot of hypocrites have been praising was superb. But had owen not gone home, he would have been playing out of position, again, and probably would have pulled on his last england shirt.

And finally, Lennon. He gave the team, the crowd and the nation a boost when he came on. Yeah, beckham scored and set up a few goals, but had lennon started he arguably would have created MORE chances with his excellent running game.

I know people say `Its easy to manage in hindsight`, but this isnt hindsight. People have been saying it almost since sven took over. Negative substitutions, players out of position and a lack of tactical nouse to change games have been hallmarks of his reign. I for one am glad to see the back of him.

At least with McClaren, we stand a chance of going out of tournaments in spectacular fashion, rather than just a whimper.

---

What im listening to (if youre interested)

This item was edited on Wednesday, 5th July 2006, 11:10