McClaren Out !!!

[fatshaft]

nor has he particularly fixed anything.

He has improved Villa, they were bottom half under O Dreary.

He worked miracles at Leicester and turned Celtic around.

But like I say his most crucial quality is that he is strong enough to resist the media and public baying that goes hand in hand with England.

...and Wycombe. He was the obvious candidate last time around, but perhaps they were scared off the Ratboy tracksuit look?

[BWFC_Insane]

nor has he particularly fixed anything.

He has improved Villa, they were bottom half under O Dreary.

that's not difficult and he had a fair bit of cash

He worked miracles at Leicester and turned Celtic around.

so did Jewel at wigan for a season (not repeated it at Villa has he?) and he spent millions at Celtic in a 2-horse race during which one had a limp.

But like I say his most crucial quality is that he is strong enough to resist the media and public baying that goes hand in hand with England.

arrogance, beligerance and often nonsensical rambling may be signs of strength to you but not me, he just tries to copy Clough.

We'll have to disagree on this one. For me O'Neill is a very talented manager. He's been at Villa for just over a season. Give the man a chance because what he is trying to bring is long term success.

As for Leicester O Neill was successful there over a concerted period of time and actually won a trophy!

[bobo the clown]

McClaren's out if we fail to qualify, and we shouldn't start calling for his head unless this happens. His remit is to get us into the competitions and perform well once there; for me, he has yet to fail at this task.

Ask this question again after the tournament (if we qualify).

For what it's worth, I think the guy's an ass. Tactically he's a retard, he's got the leadership of a gimp, and I think he was the wrong choice at the time.

f'cough.

I'd call for his head if we won the fckg thing.

He doesn't manage the team ... a clique of 5 or 6 'senior players' do, as they did under Sven. It's no coincidence that Neville, Gerrard, Terry, Owen, Lampard & Ferdinand have been calling for him to stay.

He shouldn't be there. He's shite & I don't need lucky results to go for, or against, him to see what the obvious outcome is.

[WhiteArmy]

McClaren's out if we fail to qualify, and we shouldn't start calling for his head unless this happens. His remit is to get us into the competitions and perform well once there; for me, he has yet to fail at this task.

Ask this question again after the tournament (if we qualify).

For what it's worth, I think the guy's an ass. Tactically he's a retard, he's got the leadership of a gimp, and I think he was the wrong choice at the time.

f'cough.

I'd call for his head if we won the fckg thing.

He doesn't manage the team ... a clique of 5 or 6 'senior players' do, as they did under Sven. It's no coincidence that Neville, Gerrard, Terry, Owen, Lampard & Ferdinand have been calling for him to stay.

He shouldn't be there. He's shite & I don't need lucky results to go for, or against, him to see what the obvious outcome is.

Couldn't agree more, if he had the balls to pick his best TEAM instead of picking his player-power-media-influenced selection we'd be home and dry by now.

Look what happened against the ruskies at home when he was forced to leave the clique out.

[BWFC_Insane]

nor has he particularly fixed anything.

He has improved Villa, they were bottom half under O Dreary.

He worked miracles at Leicester and turned Celtic around.

But like I say his most crucial quality is that he is strong enough to resist the media and public baying that goes hand in hand with England.

...and Wycombe. He was the obvious candidate last time around, but perhaps they were scared off the Ratboy tracksuit look?

Aye but he buys expensive spectacles.

[Backgammon]

McClaren's out if we fail to qualify, and we shouldn't start calling for his head unless this happens. His remit is to get us into the competitions and perform well once there; for me, he has yet to fail at this task.

Ask this question again after the tournament (if we qualify).

For what it's worth, I think the guy's an ass. Tactically he's a retard, he's got the leadership of a gimp, and I think he was the wrong choice at the time.

f'cough.

I'd call for his head if we won the fckg thing.

He doesn't manage the team ... a clique of 5 or 6 'senior players' do, as they did under Sven. It's no coincidence that Neville, Gerrard, Terry, Owen, Lampard & Ferdinand have been calling for him to stay.

He shouldn't be there. He's shite & I don't need lucky results to go for, or against, him to see what the obvious outcome is.

Couldn't agree more, if he had the balls to pick his best TEAM instead of picking his player-power-media-influenced selection we'd be home and dry by now.

Look what happened against the ruskies at home when he was forced to leave the clique out.

What I'm saying is that the FA should not look to get rid of him unless he's failed at something. If he qualifies England for the tournament then he's done his job. The manner in which we qualified is almost irrelavent; a feasible 2 - 0 on Wednesday means we top the group.

You'd call for his head if we won the tournament? Do me a favour. I didn't realise that the FA should be adopting the Real Madrid style.

I'm no great fan of the guy, but I refuse to get swept up into yet another England manager witch hunt where, at the moment, there is no real good reason to replace him.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

He (Martin O'Neill) was the obvious candidate last time around, but perhaps they were scared off the Ratboy tracksuit look?

The FA wanted to cover populist bases by installing Stuart Pearce as MO'N's assistant, with the idea of grooming Psycho to eventually take the top job (y'know, like Bryan Robson was groomed to replace Venables). MO'N, who despite his touchline energy and tracksuit is not a training-ground regular, has a very close relationship with his assistant John Robertson (echoes of Clough and Taylor), and refused.

So the FA appointed the man commonly known as Second Choice Steve, a nickname which is debatable, and somewhat depends on whether you believe that Brian Barwick tipped off the press about flying to Portugal to chat up Scolari, knowing the ensuing kerfuffle would scare Big Phil off. I'm not quite sure whether Barwick is so conniving - and I'm not necessarily being kind, given that the alternative is bumbling buffoonery - but I think there was a strong streak of truth in the recent piece posted hereabouts which described the hiring of McClaren as being what you get if you appoint by committee. The various would-be kingmakers all seemed to have their own ideal men (David Dein - remember him? - was the Scolari advocate; some fancied MO'N, while many were impressed by BSA's laptop presentation) but McClaren was the safety candidate appointed by default.

[fatshaft]

Ah good stuff Dave, didn't know the story surrounding O'Neill, very interesting.

[BWFC_Insane]

He (Martin O'Neill) was the obvious candidate last time around, but perhaps they were scared off the Ratboy tracksuit look?

The FA wanted to cover populist bases by installing Stuart Pearce as MO'N's assistant, with the idea of grooming Psycho to eventually take the top job (y'know, like Bryan Robson was groomed to replace Venables). MO'N, who despite his touchline energy and tracksuit is not a training-ground regular, has a very close relationship with his assistant John Robertson (echoes of Clough and Taylor), and refused.

So the FA appointed the man commonly known as Second Choice Steve, a nickname which is debatable, and somewhat depends on whether you believe that Brian Barwick tipped off the press about flying to Portugal to chat up Scolari, knowing the ensuing kerfuffle would scare Big Phil off. I'm not quite sure whether Barwick is so conniving - and I'm not necessarily being kind, given that the alternative is bumbling buffoonery - but I think there was a strong streak of truth in the recent piece posted hereabouts which described the hiring of McClaren as being what you get if you appoint by committee. The various would-be kingmakers all seemed to have their own ideal men (David Dein - remember him? - was the Scolari advocate; some fancied MO'N, while many were impressed by BSA's laptop presentation) but McClaren was the safety candidate appointed by default.

DSB, Allardyce never stood a chance, because the FA had got wind of the forthcoming Panorama program.

It is a little sad that the FA were stunned by Allardyce's "multimedia presentation". Because, as impressive as I'm sure it was, you'd think every fooker who could get the England job would be able to do similar. Its not like they don't have plenty of people working for them.

O'Neill didn't take the job as you point out DSB because he is his own man, but the FA don't want that. Therefore we'll never get the strong single minded candidate we really need.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

yeah, of course that's why Villa have been so good since he arrived - not at all like the previous years of mediocrity at all.

As I keep telling my frustrated Villa mate, they'd be alright if they had a highly-respected manager and a billionaire owner. Oh...

I can see BWFCi's argument for MON's improvement of Villa, they have a core of promising young English players and many of them are local. However, it can hardly be claimed that he hasn't spent much money when he spunked £8.5m on Reo-Choker and a sparrowfart short of £10m on Ashley Young. What would worry me far more is that despite the money, manager and club history, they don't seem to have a full-back at the club, which seems a bit of an oversight. So can he not see the problem, or can he not spot the replacements, or can he not persuade them to come?

What might seem a minor quibble could have big ramifications if he suffered similar blindspots at international level, like say for instance a blind devotion in the idea of Lampard and Gerrard working together in central midfield despite dozens of games proving the opposite and a few recent examples of a much more balanced midfield without the Chelsea man. I certainly think MON's touchline passion and engaging interview persona (when he assents to the buggers!) would be well received by press and public, and I'm also impressed that he hasn't tried to shoehorn Villa into his previously favoured but largely outmoded 3-5-2 formation, but I think it would be unfair to sack McClaren if we squeak under the wire to Euro 2008 - a tournament for which he'd have to raise his game considerably and immediately, given that unlike the World Cup you simply don't get a dolly-nation in the groups to warm up against. If we got there, we could quite reasonably expect to share a group with Spain, France and Holland, and which of those would we be confident of beating at the moment?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

O'Neill didn't take the job as you point out DSB because he is his own man, but the FA don't want that. Therefore we'll never get the strong single minded candidate we really need.

...which again carries heroic echoes of Brian Clough, the man MON patently loves despite the fact that the cantankerous owd sod saw fit to "inspire" O'Neill by constantly and unremittingly doing him down in front of his peers. Paging the psychoanalyst...

[BWFC_Insane]

yeah, of course that's why Villa have been so good since he arrived - not at all like the previous years of mediocrity at all.

As I keep telling my frustrated Villa mate, they'd be alright if they had a highly-respected manager and a billionaire owner. Oh...

I can see BWFCi's argument for MON's improvement of Villa, they have a core of promising young English players and many of them are local. However, it can hardly be claimed that he hasn't spent much money when he spunked £8.5m on Reo-Choker and a sparrowfart short of £10m on Ashley Young. What would worry me far more is that despite the money, manager and club history, they don't seem to have a full-back at the club, which seems a bit of an oversight. So can he not see the problem, or can he not spot the replacements, or can he not persuade them to come?

What might seem a minor quibble could have big ramifications if he suffered similar blindspots at international level, like say for instance a blind devotion in the idea of Lampard and Gerrard working together in central midfield despite dozens of games proving the opposite and a few recent examples of a much more balanced midfield without the Chelsea man. I certainly think MON's touchline passion and engaging interview persona (when he assents to the buggers!) would be well received by press and public, and I'm also impressed that he hasn't tried to shoehorn Villa into his previously favoured but largely outmoded 3-5-2 formation, but I think it would be unfair to sack McClaren if we squeak under the wire to Euro 2008 - a tournament for which he'd have to raise his game considerably and immediately, given that unlike the World Cup you simply don't get a dolly-nation in the groups to warm up against. If we got there, we could quite reasonably expect to share a group with Spain, France and Holland, and which of those would we be confident of beating at the moment?

DSB O'Neill didn't agree with the inflated prices over the summer. He did in fact want more players (and full backs he most definitely mentioned) but the ones he wanted were too expensive to prise away and he said he did not want to "waste" the owners money. He is developing something there. Villa are never likely to be top 4 so if he gets them into the top 8 then he's done very well.

I think O'Neill (after Mourinho) is as good as England will get and he has the right qualities. As I said before being successful at club level means little on the international stage and sometimes looking a little past the obvious and looking at a managers qualities helps. Both O'Neill and Mourinho are great planners aswell as being great motivators. The England team often (due to lack of choice, injuries etc) isn't a hard pick. But what we need is someone who brings out the best in the players and perhaps is respected enough to get them to play any system/scenario required to get the job done. For me O'Neill and Mourinho could do that.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

DSB O'Neill didn't agree with the inflated prices over the summer. He did in fact want more players (and full backs he most definitely mentioned) but the ones he wanted were too expensive to prise away and he said he did not want to "waste" the owners money. He is developing something there. Villa are never likely to be top 4 so if he gets them into the top 8 then he's done very well.

I think that's rather underestimating their ambition. Randy Lerner didn't get involved to be in with a 50-50 chance of scraping into the Uefa Cup. Neither did MON, unless his sights are set pitifully low, or he's just treading water until Alex Ferguson is dragged screaming from Old Trafford.

There also aren't many teams aiming for 5th to 8th that spend £18.5m on two players. And here there seems to be a conflict in what you're saying. Either he didn't sanction the signings (which makes him powerless) or he's refusing to spend money on a glaringly obvious shortfall in his team (which makes him pointless). Transferring that to England, would he be powerless enough to let the players pick the team or pointless enough to ignore an area of his team which needs fixing?

[BWFC_Insane]

DSB O'Neill didn't agree with the inflated prices over the summer. He did in fact want more players (and full backs he most definitely mentioned) but the ones he wanted were too expensive to prise away and he said he did not want to "waste" the owners money. He is developing something there. Villa are never likely to be top 4 so if he gets them into the top 8 then he's done very well.

I think that's rather underestimating their ambition. Randy Lerner didn't get involved to be in with a 50-50 chance of scraping into the Uefa Cup. Neither did MON, unless his sights are set pitifully low, or he's just treading water until Alex Ferguson is dragged screaming from Old Trafford.

There also aren't many teams aiming for 5th to 8th that spend £18.5m on two players. And here there seems to be a conflict in what you're saying. Either he didn't sanction the signings (which makes him powerless) or he's refusing to spend money on a glaringly obvious shortfall in his team (which makes him pointless). Transferring that to England, would he be powerless enough to let the players pick the team or pointless enough to ignore an area of his team which needs fixing?

No he did what a manager should do and took a long term view coupled to a short term risk (that he had players that could cope at full back in the meantime) that the players he really wanted were all valued at far too high an economic cost by their clubs and therefore decided it was in the best interests of Villa to wait.

Villa were relegation candidates till O'Neill took over. Yes they weren't going down with Lerners money, but O'Neill has steadied the ship. Anyone who thinks that with that cash you can suddenly go from bottom 8 to top 4 in 3 seasons is kidding themselves. Sven has perhaps done something like that at City but how long term the transformation is remains to be seen.

Realistically Villa are talking 5,6 plus seasons before they're knocking on the door of Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd and even that would be good going.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Oh I don't doubt that he's building a good young foundation. In fact I don't doubt it so much that I said it about four posts ago.

Instructive comparison with Citeh there, though. Yon mon at the Council House looks like a good manager. I reckon he could regularly take England to the quarter-finals. And if he did that via qualification three successive times, it'd be something no other England manager had achieved.

[BWFC_Insane]

Oh I don't doubt that he's building a good young foundation. In fact I don't doubt it so much that I said it about four posts ago.

Instructive comparison with Citeh there, though. Yon mon at the Council House looks like a good manager. I reckon he could regularly take England to the quarter-finals. And if he did that, it'd be something no other England manager had achieved.

Sven did a good job as England manager. But he took it as far as he could. He also allowed himself to become a figure of public ridicule which is never good as England manager.

He has started well at City but lets see what the future holds for them.

Cherry picking some of Europes best players with a virtually open ended chequebook for me does not make you a great manager!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Cherry picking some of Europes best players with a virtually open ended chequebook for me does not make you a great manager!

Got full-backs though, hasn't he?
Must have been like a sailor on shore leave when he realised he didn't have to restrict himself to bone-headed ball-chasing Englishmen. Surprised he didn't buy four left-wingers!

[BWFC_Insane]

Cherry picking some of Europes best players with a virtually open ended chequebook for me does not make you a great manager!

Got full-backs though, hasn't he?
Must have been like a sailor on shore leave when he realised he didn't have to restrict himself to bone-headed ball-chasing Englishmen. Surprised he didn't buy four left-wingers!

Are you obsessed with full backs?

And hasn't he been playing 2 centre backs as full backs ala O'Neill for most of the season anyways?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Y'know, maybe we shouldn't bother. We're almost always utter wank at the Euros, because we don't have an Egypt or summat to warm up against and justify o'ervaulting ambition.

France 60 did not enter
Spain 64 knocked out in preliminary qualifying round by France
Italy 68 qualified; knocked out in first finals round (the semis) - W0 D0 L1
Belgium 72 did not qualify (knocked out in final qualifying round by West Germany)
Yugoslavia 76 did not qualify (second in group behind Czechoslovakia)
Italy 80 Qualified with ease for newly-expanded eight-team tournament. Promptly bombed out amid hooliganism but at least we won one of our three group games (against Spain - we drew with Belgium and lost to Italy) - W1 D1 L1
France 84 did not qualify (finished below Denmark in group)
West Germany 88 qualified; lost all three group games - W0 D0 L3
Sweden 92 qualified; drew two group games, lost the other, went home - W0 D1 L2
England 96 avoided qualification as hosts. Drew with Swiss, beat the Scots/Scotch and battered the Dutch to top group; squeaked past Spain on penalties; lost to Germany on penalties in semis - W2 D3 L0
Holland/Belgium 00 qualified; did not get out of group stage after losing to Portugal (from 2-0 up!), beating Germany and losing to Romania - W1 D0 L2
Portugal 04 qualified; got through group (losing to France but beating Switzerland and Croatia) but lost on pens to Portugal - W2 D1 L1

Hardly confidence-building, is it? We only started qualifying regularly in 1988 and our record at the finals is W5 D6 L8. If we discount the Wembleycentric Euro 96, it's W3 D3 L8 - and two of those victories were routine circumnavigations of Switzerland and Croatia (aye, them) last time out. In other words, all we've ever done on Euros trips is beat Germany once, in a tournament remembered more for flying chairs, a clueless capitulation from two goals up and getting sent home via the worst attempted tackle ever (cheers, Phil).

So, good luck Steve... (sigh)

[BWFC_Insane]

Y'know, maybe we shouldn't bother. We're almost always utter wank at the Euros, because we don't have an Egypt or summat to warm up against and justify o'ervaulting ambition.

France 60 did not enter
Spain 64 knocked out in preliminary qualifying round by France
Italy 68 qualified; knocked out in first finals round (the semis) - W0 D0 L1
Belgium 72 did not qualify (knocked out in final qualifying round by West Germany)
Yugoslavia 76 did not qualify (second in group behind Czechoslovakia)
Italy 80 Qualified with ease for newly-expanded eight-team tournament. Promptly bombed out amid hooliganism but at least we won one of our three group games (against Spain - we drew with Belgium and lost to Italy) - W1 D1 L1
France 84 did not qualify (finished below Denmark in group)
West Germany 88 qualified; lost all three group games - W0 D0 L3
Sweden 92 qualified; drew two group games, lost the other, went home - W0 D1 L2
England 96 avoided qualification as hosts. Drew with Swiss, beat the Scots/Scotch and battered the Dutch to top group; squeaked past Spain on penalties; lost to Germany on penalties in semis - W2 D3 L0
Holland/Belgium 00 qualified; did not get out of group stage after losing to Portugal (from 2-0 up!), beating Germany and losing to Romania - W1 D0 L2
Portugal 04 qualified; got through group (losing to France but beating Switzerland and Croatia) but lost on pens to Portugal - W2 D1 L1

Hardly confidence-building, is it? We only started qualifying regularly in 1988 and our record at the finals is W5 D6 L8. If we discount the Wembleycentric Euro 96, it's W3 D3 L8 - and two of those victories were routine circumnavigations of Switzerland and Croatia (aye, them) last time out. In other words, all we've ever done on Euros trips is beat Germany once, in a tournament remembered more for flying chairs, a clueless capitulation from two goals up and getting sent home via the worst attempted tackle ever (cheers, Phil).

So, good luck Steve... (sigh)

Yeah but at least we'll give the Scots and Welsh sommat to cheer about!