I’m sure I read somewhere that the FA said they weren’t going to get anyone which involved compensation. Seems a bit weird, they must have pots.
Well at some point we have to surely ? Not just hope there are people good enough out of contract/work ? Or have they always done that ..
It's ridiculous when you see the price of tickets at FA cup finals, semi finals, etc. Etc. Where's the money going when you have 90,000 fans spending 60 quid minimum Same with England games, unless you're in ESTC thr lowest is probably 45 quid.
I see that the thread title changed AH is fuming in hell in rage. What he couldn't achieve 80plus years ago has done a nerdy looking guy from a small town somewhere in the darkest bavaria. He gets England without even yet in job. It's already his England Why is 60 a full circle? 360 is a full circle
Nobody would really consider him an option if he wasn't English. I doubt it was a compensation issue.
OK, you're excused then. Shut it ...you? you what? As for the German translation: Do you have @The Unbeliever on ignore? He just answered this one or 2 days ago in this thread Was? AFAIK is Rod still sailing edit: Service for SJ: Here's the post: Thomas Tuchel's England. I don't write it myself in German because Germans don't talk or write about it, we simply bring it home (4 times already)
I didn't take it seriously otherwise I wouldn't have liked the post . btw: Just read that Carlo Ancelotti congratulates the english FA for getting Tuchel. He (Carlo Ancelotti) congratulated the Three Lions on signing Thomas Tuchel. "They have chosen a very good coach who is very strong tactically. I wish him all the best."
True but I think as he is would be thought of if the FA wanted to go down that line. Going by the press reports it does seem they didn't want to have to pay for a manager though.
I struggle to believe that the federation wouldn't pay the comp if they really wanted a manager. It almost feels to me as if they're looking to save the blushes of Howe actually, they are essentially overlooking the top coach we have to offer right now.
But if we take your position to its logical conclusion, the purpose of international football was also defeated when Berti Vogts became the manager of Scotland or when the Republic of Ireland appointed an Icelander to be their manager recently. When it comes to players, there are ample examples of where rules on representation are nowhere near as cut and dried as "purists" might like them to be and that's been the case for a very long time. In that context, I struggle to see why this appointment is apparently so wrong. The only thing that I think gives credibility to those who are unhappy with it is that we're not in the kind of state that we were when either Sven-Goran Eriksson or Fabio Capello were appointed previously. Clearly, the length of Tuchel's contract suggests he has been hired with the specific aim of winning the next World Cup and I'd agree it would be unfair to consider him a failure if he doesn't do so. Anybody who watched the European Championship this summer with even a hint of objectivity would recognise that Spain were by far the best team in the tournament and it's conceivable they could dominate for a while with the players they have. But whether they do or not, the suggestion that England have only done as well as they have in the last few tournaments on the basis of favourable draws feels like it is based more on bias than on reality.
I didn’t want Berti Vogts and wouldn’t want another foreign manager for Scotland. My point wasn’t about Tuchel in particular just the wider issue of foreign managers at international level defeating the purpose of international football. If there aren’t any managers good enough then that’s the same dilemma as not having good enough players. I would scrap it altogether maybe with the exception of allowing a manager who had coached in that country for a certain amount of years. Someone like Mourinho for example who will know the English game inside out. I think Capello was an absolutely ridiculous appointment as he didn’t even speak English and had never managed in England before. As for your final point I don’t think it’s biased to point out their favourable draws in recent competitions. It’s a massive elephant in the room when talking about their 2 euros finals and World Cup semi when assuming the next logical step is winning a tournament. 3 of the last 4 tournaments they couldn’t have had a better run of it and I get the argument you can only beat what’s in front of you but do you think England would have got past both Germany and France like Spain did at Euro 24? Considering they made very difficult work of Slovakia and Switzerland i highly doubt it. Tuchel will no doubt strengthen their side however so I don’t think there’s much between them and France (who really should have changed management after euro24) Germany, Brazil and Argentina at 26 with Spain being the team to beat. I’d like to see them up against one of the above at the round of 16 with another one waiting for them in the quarters, not because I want to see them horsed out but because I think it will actually be an intriguing contest and much better entertainment. They’ll no doubt get drawn against Fort William though.
By that logic, though, someone like Mourinho could conceivably coach several different nations, as could Tuchel or others and I don't really see how you could look at the rules on coaches without re-examining the qualification rules for players too. The fact that players can be capped by one nation and then switch to another seems somewhat problematic in terms of seeking to preserve the apparent purity of international football. As for the whole "favourable draw" chat, I do think there is a danger of overhyping the point and re-writing history in the process. After all, Iceland was supposed to be a favourable draw at Euro 2016 and we all know how that turned out. In that context, nobody expected England to go anywhere near to winning the 2018 World Cup and the idea of a favourable draw then when we faced nations of similar pre-tournament ranking in the knockout stages is pretty absurd. Even if the notion that Italy and Spain had harder runs to the finals of Euro 2020 and 24 is accepted, England still faced and beat top 10-ranked sides in the semi-finals of both tournaments in the shape of Denmark and the Netherlands respectively. This summer, Switzerland comprehensively outplayed the defending champions before we met them in the quarter-finals while Spain's first knockout tie was against Georgia, the lowest ranked side in the competition. Was that not a favourable draw? I don't know if we'd have got past France, though I do think we'd have beaten Germany. What matters in these discussions, though, is perspective and the favourable draw jibe severely lacks it.
Well I’d rather rule out foreign managers in international football altogether tbh but would maybe make an exemption if that manager had worked long term in that country and was familiar with the FA. You must admit Capellos appointment was a nonsense when he didn’t even speak English and had never managed in the country? Players can play in the youth teams for one country then switch, they can’t just chose countries Willy nilly. I think your clutching at straws a bit by saying Switzerland were a tough draw, they couldn’t beat Scotland who were the worst team at the tournament, i think Scotland should have won that game tbh and not weren’t for an awfully timed equaliser I think they would have. Spain were lucky to get Georgia to some extent but Germany in the quarters was definitely the two best teams of the tournament up against each other and then they had France who were the favourites going into the tournament. I think England would have got past France if they’d met in the semis as England had gained a bit of momentum by then and France were flat as a pancake all tournament. I would fancy Germany over England just now though. Overall I’m not saying England wouldn’t beat the best teams en route to the final but in the last 3 out of 4 tournaments they have avoided the best teams in the round 16/quarters/semis and in the one tournament they had a top opponent they lost to France at the quarters of Qatar 22.
It might be tempting to view the Fabio Capello appointment as a mistake now, particularly bearing in mind the manner of both its end and the let-down of the 2010 World Cup campaign. But neither he, nor Sven-Goran Eriksson, had managed in this country prior to taking on the England job so it seems somewhat selective to view one appointment as a "nonsense" and not the other, particularly on grounds of experience. Certainly Capello's English was not as fluent as Eriksson's but I don't recall that being a major problem really until the fallout over John Terry losing the captaincy that triggered his exit. As for players, Declan Rice was capped at senior level by the Republic of Ireland before he first played for England, just to give one example. I'm not suggesting that is right or wrong, but it does seem to be something of a double standard to be more concerned about one than about the other. I have to say I am also genuinely struggling to see how you could possibly accuse me of straw clutching with regards to Switzerland, particularly when I did not describe that game in the manner which you claim. Switzerland may not have been very good against Scotland but their performances across the tournament as a whole showed they were a far stronger team than you're apparently prepared to give them credit for. If they were really as bad as you suggest, then them beating England would have been as much of an upset as the Iceland defeat in 2016 was and that just doesn't seem to have any basis in reality given what we know about them. Now you clearly took issue with my original suggestion that the "favourable draw" jibe is based more on bias than reality and I recognise that I have my own bias in this debate as well. But, if I'm being absolutely frank, I have seen nothing in your subsequent comments which has given me cause to question that judgement.
