England were absolutely brilliant against Argentina in 98' even when we went down to 10 men.
I really do think we would've won it that year.

Thats like saying Chelsea play for a draw every game.

We will be here in 10 years time discussing how we have failed at a major tournament. That's if we qualify for them, which I really think is a real threat.

It's a recurring nightmare being England manager.

Every time we go out of tournament, there'll be a root & branch investigations into which lessons will be learned, which they never are, because if anyone dares to suggest any changes, we get up in arms about it.

We then we get an easy qualifying group for the Euros or the WC, think that we're potential world beaters again, then we get to the tournament & realise we're not quite as good as the big boys, get dumped out & the cycle starts again.

The England manager's job really is a poison chalice.

And the player's they might just get a draw then

I wonder how many other countries say that about their national team ?

Genuine question as well. Do we think this because it's a result of the amount of expectation that the media place on the national side ?

I think it's definitely the main factor.

The ironic thing is that the media have downplayed our chances much more this time around, but they have reverted to type as soon as we have gone out.

Roy took a bold & young side out there & was largely praised for doing so, yet, as soon as it's confirmed we're out, it's back to normal again.

We weren't perfect by any stretch, but we played a lot better than we did four years ago, despite not getting as far.

We were ultimately undone by the genius of Luis Suarez & you just cannot legislate for genius.

It pains me to say it, but we're not a World Cup winning nation anyway.

We might have the self proclaimed 'best league in the world', but the mainstay of the league is foreign players, so that's of no benefit to the England national team, which is ironic, as the Premier League was set up to help the England national side.

I don't mind Hodgson staying on. Yes he's too conservative but I think he's a good coach who can help bring belief back. But he needs a young assistants alongside him, who may turn out to be England managers of the future.

Why did the FA hire Roy Hodgson when he was fired from a big club like Liverpool?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ol/9350630.stm


If he's no good at Liverpool, one of England's most celebrated clubs, why would anyone, FA included, think he's right for manager of England? I accept most managers get the sack sooner or later (!) but the FA should have considered other managers, perhaps those with stronger Premiership records in recent years.

It was inevitable Hodgson was the wrong guy in the wrong job.

The warning signs were mentioned back in 2013:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...dgsons-1792059


Well he wasn't wrong!

It's possible the FA don't care if England flop because the FA is rich enough through the Sky Premiership deal and other endorsements. The FA, England manager included, rake in millions, even if we flop at the Euro and WC. Sadly, I sort of think this conspiracy theory may have some validity. There's too much money in the English Premier League. It doesn't matter if Wayne Rooney is terrible at the World Cup, if doesn't matter if Roy Hodgson is rubbish at the World Cup, the gravy train that is the Premier League keeps them all wealthy. Hodgson, like all the other failed England managers, gets paid millions. Millions for failure? Yep. You gotta admit it - it's a sweet racket!

Who is the right man though?

The FA previously hired Fabio Capello; one of the finest managers in football history & he couldn't do anything with England either.

In fact, England played worse in 2010 under him, even if they ultimately went further in the competition because of circumstances around them.

He won't continue after this debacle. He knows that Rooney and himself will take the brunt of the criticism.

l agree, Mandark, and nothing will be gained from sacking Roy Hodgson except to cause yet more disruption. It won't also address the fundamental, underlying issues such as the dominance and hostility of Premier League managers and owners, lack of England team training time, lack of high level experience for younger players, lack of motivation and drive to win and succeed (although bringing in expert sports psychologists might help there).

It's a complete indictment of the whole England team set up that England came bottom of their group below Uruguay (population 3.3 million) and Costa Rica (4.6 million).

That be a start, both of them going, then we can build a England team to be proud.

I am not a huge Roy fan but I honestly can't see who we could realistically bring in who would be any better?

He has massively flopped, to not even make it out of the group is terrible. Plus he sowed the seeds of our exit by dropping Terry and Cole. I wouldn't have the remotest problem sacking him, this World Cup has been embarrassing .

7 wins out of 20 games is a 35 percent success ratio. That's a poor record and why the FA thought that made Hodgson deserving of becoming England manager, who knows! When you consider how poorly he did at Liverpool it's no real shock to see what's happened to England during this World Cup. I think if we lose against Costa Rica, Hodgson should go. He won't go cos Greg Dyke said he'll stay on until after the Euro 2016 campaign but if we lose all three of our group matches he'll be a lame duck manager. The press will hound him for the next two years which won't inspire England to do well at Euro 2016.

I'd hazard a guess that their decision probably wasn't based on 20 games in charge of Liverpool.

He didn't drop Terry.