I'm sure England players have even said that maybe they need to learn about how to win at all costs (whatever that means).

Perhaps Jurgen can help there. His dive following Monzon's foul in the WC final of 1990 is a technical feat in itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB7Y33VteME

Well, his team are out but they gave it everything against Belgium.

That's the greatest dive in football history.

Arjen Robben, Robert Pires, Didier Drogba, Ashley Young, Luis Suarez, Francis Lee, Emile Heskey etc that's how you dive!

He's German and you could do better.

This is the very reason the English team is in such a poor state. Dont create our own success, just buy it from elsewhere.

So name an English Manager who could do the job, AND wants the job AND can make the team perform better than Costa Rica or USA.

Harry Redknapp, who should have been the manager just now. Glenn Hoddle as well an impressive England record. The problem isn't really a lack of good managers. The whole country was waxing lyrical about England after the Italy game so the best thing to do is either let Roy get on with the job or bring in Redknapp.

The old adage goes you never sign a player off the back of a good World Cup never mind appointing a German manager because he got USA to the last 16 or because Costa Rica won on penalties. That's knee-jerk.

Some people in this thread grossly underestimate the role of the manager, which is an absolutely vital role.

A manager needs to have the guts to leave big stars at home or on the bench, to implement a game plan, to outsmart the opposition, to understand the game in order to make good tactical changes, to instil harmony in the squad and to have the respect of his players, just to name a few of the qualities the current English manager does NOT have. He is absolutely useless.

Harry Redknapp, Yeah......OK. The only people who were screaming for his appointment were his Tabloid friends.

And Hoddle who still thinks Gerrard and Lampard should play together in midfield?

You might want to look at the career history of Roy Hodgson.

You can't keep using one hypothetical tactical decision from Hoddle for one game to rule out a guy with one of the best win rations as England manager. Like he said Pirlo is of a similar age to Lampard and still the most dangerous man on the pitch.

As for Redknapp he would have been a good appointment and more suited to working with that group of players I think. Roy seems too cautious but the Italy game did show he can get a very high level of performance from his team.

It's a pretty significant black mark against Hoddle. I was flabbergasted when his big idea going into the World Cup was to stick Lampard and Gerrard together in a midfield two. It says that he has all the wrong ideas for the future. I just couldn't believe that given everything we've seen from those two together for England and the obvious decline especially in Lampard over the last season and a half he STILL thought that was a good idea. Oh and comparing Lampard to Pirlo is just so bizarre I don't know where to start.

And I don't see how Redknapp could possibly work at international level when his first question would be 'how many players can I sign on deadline day?'. He isn't a coach, wherever he goes he buys in as many players as he can until the club run out of money.

He's hardly going to play every game with those two, stop focusing on one comment about one game. He has a 60% win ratio with England. Hoddle wouldn't be the first choice as he's been out the game a while. Redknapp would have the whole of England to choose from. It's ludicrous to suggest he would need to sign players to be successful. If an England player got injured he could call up some of the best English players in the Premier League. The trick for all England managers is to get them to perform for their country as they do for their clubs.

The Pirlo/Lampard/Gerrard example was used by Hoddle to show that retiring in your mid 30s to let the 'future' in needn't be the case when the best player on the pitch is 35 year old Pirlo. He's right as well.

And how did Italy get on exactly?

They managed more points than England. I thought Italy were unlucky overall as Uruguay should have had Suarez sent off and the Italy sending off was debatable. That doesn't take away the fact that Pirlo is 35 and still dangerous just like Gerrard or Lampard could be.

But it completely misses the point that Pirlo is almost the polar opposite player to Lampard. To such a degree that Pirlo's ability to function at a high level at his age is irrelevant to the question of whether Lampard could succeed. Plus it ignores the actual reality that Lampard has in fact declined massively in the last season and a bit. The fact that Hoddle can't see that and would have played him (and worse played him with Gerrard) in the World Cup is not something you can just brush off. It wasn't some off hand comment, he was asked to sit down and think about the team he would pick and that is what he chose.

Pirlo is a much better player than Gerrard or Lampard at international level.

I'm saying this as a Liverpool fan too.

I like Hoddle but he really let himself down with those comments, he'd still probably do a better job than Hodgson though.

Harry Redknapp? On what basis does Redknapp make a good England manager?

He's not a coach or a tactician. He's a reasonably good club manager who can throw money around and put a team together. Redknapp cannot improve a team through coaching or tactics. He has relegated two teams from the premiership for precisely those reasons. He had plenty of time to save QPR and Southampton and he failed miserably.

His style of football would also be suicidal at international level. It would be like Kevin Keegan all over again.

If anything we should try a young manager. The last few England managers have all been ageing men with the job looking like some kind of lucrative semi-retirement position. Let's get someone in there who has actually played the game in the last few years.

I think Brendan Rogers would be a good candidate for the England job in a few years time.

Only time will tell. A manager's stock can quickly fall as well as rise. Just look at the aforementioned Harry Redknapp!

The worry about Harry Redknapp would be his rather complacent attitude towards other countries and their players just because they aren't as high profile or hadn't done well in England...

I have got the impression he is one of those people who thinks the England squad are better than most and simply only have to turn up to win.

Then again didn't Hodgson say something about Suarez needing to prove himself before the Uruguay game?

Maybe we just need a manager who doesn't shoot himself in the foot by giving motivation to the opposition.

Henderson and Gerrard the preferred option didn't work did it? England still lost the game against Italy and Uruguay so the popular theory of Henderson aka 'the future' was tried and tested and failed, so how is that any better?

Gerrard as a pivot in midfield is what Hoddle said and it's a position he could do well in given he's a top player like Pirlo. All of this 'future' talk just means younger players and that isn't always the answer. Just because you're younger doesn't mean you're better than guys in their mid 30s.

They are all great players, it's not like you become an inferior player due to what colour of shirt you put on.

Suicidal at international level? How did Roy get on in Brazil? If anything the attacking verve that Redknapp employs would have benefitted England in this World Cup given how many goals have been scored. A lot better than Danny Welbeck running about like a dog retrieving the ball and losing anyway. Even the Costa Rica game they went out with a whimper.

You don't stay in the game as long as Redknapp if you're no good. I don't know what he thinks about the England squad but I could guess that he thinks they are underperforming given their huge talent.