I don't see the need for an English manager. If anything, the English style of playing route 1 football is outdated and as many posters have pointed out, there isn't a suitable candidate at this point. Every since Bobby Robson took England to the semi-finals of the 1990 World Cup, other English managers have come in and failed to find similar success. England played good football under Robson but he wasn't your typical English manager having coached before in Holland, Portugal and Spain. His English team played a more continental brand of football and in the likes of Chris Waddle, Peter Beardsley, Gary Lineker, Paul Gascoigne and John Barnes, he had the players with the skill and ability to do so. After him England became a really boring team to watch. If anything I do think they need to play a more creative brand of football and I don't see any English manager who does at the moment. Alardyce? Has anyone watched Bolton play? (before he moved to Newcastle of course).

I don't care who comes in but it's time to give the U-21 lads a go.

I hate to think that the new manager will opt not to move forward and select younger players for the future. England will have a couple of friendlies lined up before the World Cup qualifiers. They are out of Euro and will therefore have even more time to prepare. They should bring in younger players to blood them with the World Cup in view. Beckham is not a long term solution and with there being no crucial games in the near future, why continue to play him? Play the likes of Bentley, Milner or Lennon instead.

I think Beckham and some of his peers have received enough adulation. England have failed to qualify for Euro, something that is almost inexcusable. I think playing someone for statistical purposes should be the last thing on their minds.

Dude, that was years ago. I'd hate to think that England would have to recall Alan Shearer to solve their woes in front of goal.

This isn't the point I was trying to make. I don't doubt he was and to a lesser extent still is a good player.

This is.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Dec 14 2007, 05:03 PM

I still stand by my belief that this is the time to omit Beckham and try out new blood given the next round of matches for England will be friendlies. Why still play Beckham now when there aren't any crucial games coming up? By the time the next World Cup comes about, he'll be what? 36? Surely England have to look to the future now?

As a Man Utd fan I can understand why it is you want Becks to play. I was addressing the posters who are asking that Becks be included in the new squad because he has been a great servant. I countered this by saying that if anything, England should be looking to the future and playing younger players to give them international experience, especially since they only have a host of friendlies coming up.

If they choose to play Becks just for the sake of giving him his 100th cap against Austria, so be it. I think the new manager has to come down hard on the English players and not play them just so they can get some personal glory. The team above the rest if you ask me. I'm looking at this issue from a bigger perspective, and am using Becks as an example.

Sadly not too many posters share our sentiments. All I hear is how good Beckham is and how he single handedly led England to the last World Cup. Stop living in the past I say. He isn't going to be around for the next World Cup so it's time to look to the future. Many people have slated McClaren but then they adopt his same approach of looking back in the past by suggesting Becks should still be playing? For what? So England can win a few more friendlies? It's time for Capello to build a squad that will play in the next World Cup. What is the point in playing Beckham and maybe even recalling Sol Campbell, getting to the World Cup, only to stick in inexperienced players in their place during the tournament? Best to groom them now.

So retire and be a coach. Understand this; I'm not against pro-Beckham people, I'm against the notion of having him start for England under Capello. What purpose will it serve? Answer this question please.

Passing on his experience? How so if he's to continue playing? Theory is one thing but until you are on the pitch playing against top level competition, you have no practical experience. Book smarts vs street smarts?

I think it's more a matter of pride than it is of reason. How can any current English manager match Capello's credentials? Surely in today's globalised environment, success should not be at the expense of a few xenophobic individuals?

TBH I don't give a crap about England All I know is I don't see an English manager with similar credentials.

Gerrard's a pretty good crosser of the ball as well and he isn't one-dimensional. Sure people say he plays best in the middle but if there comes a time when he needs to fill the apparent void on the right, I'm sure he's more than up to it... if you can keep him from straying in-field.

The problem with the English team is that they now play more like a team of individuals rather than a tight unit. Players tend to interact only with their club teammates rather than with one another. Young players coming into the squad are also ostracised by more senior players. In short, there isn't any camaraderie. I read this in Fowler's biography and it all started when Glen Hoddle was appointed manager. Both he and Sven kept a distance from their players preferring instead to watch from afar and have their assistants talk to the players. Hoddle in particular was a strict disciplinarian that allowed the players little freedom. Keegan was a good people manager but tactically naive. England's last notable bit of success was at Euro 96, when Terry Venables was manager. If anything he was close to the players and treated them like people and not machines. He was also not a long ball merchant unlike Hoddle who preferred players with pace up front, like when he continuously paired Owen and Vassel together for a number of games. Unlike Venables who preferred his players to pass the ball about, Hoddle wanted it played up the park as quickly as possible. Capello will have to address the issue of the team playing like a bunch of individuals. The barriers between the players have to be removed.

Not too long ago, teams like Holland, Italy, Spain and Germany selected mainly home based players.

I really do hope he drops Gerrard. Who cares about England?

Not quite the response you expected eh?

Agreed. There is no long term benefit in selecting him.

I have no problems with Terry being chose as captain actually. I think he's a good player and he leads the line well. Ferdinand would not be my choice mainly because of disciplinary problems. I think captains should set a good example on the pitch but more importantly, off it.

Far as I can tell, only Carra has a blemish free record but he's not in the squad is he?

If you ask me, hardly anyone has performed for England which is why they aren't in Euro. As I said though, my reluctance to select Ferdinand is purely down to his discipline. He is known to be a party animal and you don't want players, especially the younger ones to follow his lead. His latest Christmas exploit has already led to yet another hair dryer treatment from Ferguson. If anything I believe that whoever captains England should be a model pro on and off the pitch, something like what Bryan Robson used to be or even Alan Shearer for that matter.

Of course it matters. Please put forth a logical argument that suggests otherwise. Are there captains that have disciplinary problems off the pitch? Perhaps. Would it be better if they hadn't? You be the judge. I think the answer is pretty straight forward, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

It may not matter to you but clearly my thoughts are that it's better to be a model pro off the pitch especially. You have a variety of captains with different lifestyles but if there's one thing they have in common, it's that they are great leaders, and they take responsibility for their actions. Take Tony Adams as an example. A model pro on the pitch but an alcoholic off it. At least he had the sense to seek help and get himself sober. He took responsibility for his actions and acted upon them. Paul Ince may have been an arse on the pitch but he was a decent bloke off it. I do think there is a strong relevance between how you conduct yourself on the pitch, and how you do so off it. I find it hard to believe that a person who focuses on training each day and works hard at his profession will be worse off than someone who has more distractions, like partying, photo shoots, attending social functions, etc, given they have equal amount of skill. Being a captain, you have to have strength of character and if you can't discipline yourself, how are you to discipline someone else?

Obviously our opinions differ whether it be down to logic or biasness. My standing however is that I firmly believe captains should be model pro's on and especially off the pitch. I find it hard to believe that many would disagree.

Are you talking about being a role model or a captain now? It's not nearly the same thing. You don't choose who looks up to you as a role model, but you can choose who you want to captain your side.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Dec 27 2007, 11:37 AM

Correct but to me knowledge, his off-the-pitch problems only began after he retired from the game. His bout with Cocaine and his addiction to food came about after his retirement. I may be mistaken but this is what I know. I don't think other great captains like Franz Beckenbauer, Johan Cryuff, Eusebio or Pele made the headlines for the wrong reasons during their tenures as captains of their national sides.

huh? i don't follow.