I can't believe I didn't put a bet on, 6-1 to be out of the job before christmas! Would have made a tidy profit on that.
So, I guess I'm going to look at things from an un-biased perspective(as un-biased as someone from Scotland can be, at least) since Scotland were in something a rut a few years ago.
First and foremost, it's no real suprise he was sacked. He underachieved, no doubt about it. England would have expected to qualify from their group that contained no world beaters. Yet they didn't and had a very below-par campaign, despite being thrown 2 or 3 lifelines by israel and getting back to 2-2, only to lose 3-2, against croatia. You look at Scotland and Northern Irelands groups, and you see some real quality sides(3 of the top 4 teams in the world cup, including the winners(Italy) and runners up(France) in Scotlands group and Spain, Denmark and Sweden in Northern Irelands group). And yet, It is Scotland and Northen Ireland who really lit up this Qualifying campaign with some sensational performances. Scotland and Northern Ireland can come away with real pride and a sense of achievement, despite not qualifying(both finishing 3rd a couple of points behind 2nd place). Nobody expected Scotland or Northern Ireland to perform as they did, and take their opponents down to the wire.
Secondly, for me, *some* English fans and most of the media tend to expect their team to win the World Cup and every tournament it enters. I suppose, thats fair enough. Expectations aren't damaging. What isn't fair and what IS damaging is the way they tend to write off opposition teams. I'm still hearing supposed football experts saying, "England should have walked this group". Sorry, but who did they pay off to be classed as experts? Croatia are not world heavy weights, nor are Russia(Who finished above them in the qualifiers). However, what they are is technical masters for football. They are physically sound and their technical ability and skill is far above that of Englands. There is a recurring theme; England losing to technically gifted teams. Russia and Croatias midfield have out played Englands in 3 out of 4 games between the two and England. Last night Modric made himself look like a 30million pound man, against supposed World Class footballers in the form of Lampard and Gerrard. It seems to be the whole footballing world that sees it, except some English fans and most of the media. The way the media tends to write off Englands opposition, to me, transfers onto the players from time to time. The sheer arrogance, to believe that they've already won a game before they've kicked a ball is transfered onto the players and it effects them on the pitch. At the end of the day, if you don't prove it on the pitch that you deserve to win the World Cup, then you don't deserve to.
Thirdly, what would a different manager have done differently? I'm not going to lie, I find it almost baffling that McClaren threw young Scott Carson in goal for only his second appearance in an England shirt in arguably one of the most important games of McClarens managerial career. But besides that and one or two other questionable decisions throughout his two years, is there really any other players that have been missed out in McClarens reign? I'm not so sure that there is much another manager could have done differently in terms of selection of squads.
Again, for me, the problem lies in Englands lack of technical ability, and their lack of understanding in how to overcome a technically better side along with the over-hyping of the team. I suppose, you could argue the manager should teach the players how to battle with technical players, but it's common sense really. It's been the success of Scotland and Northern Ireland this campaign, and the undoing of Englands.
Anyways, Berti Vogts for new England manager!
What a brilliant job he did with... Middlesbourgh?!
