I don't believe that. England will never be world beaters but they'd be better than they have been in the last two tournaments with a manager with a coherent plan, who picked and played players according to that plan.
True but that isn't setting the bar that high.
Since Italia 90 England have had 8 managers and have qualified for 11 tournaments and in those tournaments their record is:
Played 44 Won 16 Drawn 18* Lost 10
* includes 1 win and 4 defeats on penalties
If you look at their record in the knockout stages:
Played 11 Won 2 Drawn 6 Lost 3
As these ties are knock out games you need to correct the drawn games to wins or losses on penalties as ultimately the only thing that matters is whether you go though or go out taking this into account:
Played 11 Won 3 Lost 8
The 3 wins being:
- win on pens after a 0-0 draw with Spain in Euro 96
- 3-0 win against Denmark in WC 2002
- 1-0 win against Ecuador in WC 2006
EDIT: in fact you could go back to 1968 and the number of wins in the knockout stage would only increase to 6 from 18 tournaments.
Regardless of the manager or the players there is a consistent record of failure, and every tournament they go in with unrealistic expectations. You can make various justifications or excuses; too many games in the season, the heat, bad luck ... The team is able to look good in qualifying and varying levels of success in the group stages (recently they have scraped through despite some fairly easy groups on paper, they just aren't able to compete in high pressure games, maybe because they don't play enough meaningful games against decent sides, maybe they don't play the correct way or play together enough, maybe they don't really care enough about international football maybe the players aren't good enough or maybe they are just mentally weak. Who knows, but I doubt that any of the managers linked with the jobs will make a difference. I could be wrong I guess only time will tell.
Leave a comment: