The clue is in the teams he played
The Dutch
The Spanish
Ze Germans
Who were all decent
Whereas cockwomble played an averagd dutch side and err Spain
And lost.
The Spain team against us in 96 were robbed, 2 goals ruled out and a pen not given.
The clue is in the teams he played
The Dutch
The Spanish
Ze Germans
Who were all decent
Whereas cockwomble played an averagd dutch side and err Spain
And lost.
Venables also had the luxury of two years without playing a single competitive match, as he took over after England had failed to qualify for the World Cup, and didn't have to go through the Euros qualifiers as England were hosts. He had plenty of time between his appointment and the start of Euro96 to experiment with players and get his team right. Nobody else has had that - it's always been straight into the tournament qualifiers.In comparison to Taylors hoof ball spell, then yeah, Venables was a decent manager, I can see why we romanticise this era as the Home tournament of 96 clouds the reality of what we were like.
The biggest problem is that it is clear in Southgate's head that those teams he considers a 'threat', which turned out to also include Iceland, he puts 99% of his eggs in the defensive basket and 'invites' teams to attack, and, often, with their one and only excursion into the England area they score, and we come out of our defensive shell and chase the game. Have we ever started on the front foot against a team with the intention of getting in their area and making them defend! The Dutch, Germans, and Spanish all seemed to have the reverse philosophy to Southgate. When you consider the attacking capabilities in the England squad it's just dereliction! The Southgate mindset will win nowt!We also played decent stuff under Robson. Both VENABLES and Robson played to our attacking strengths. They came close. Waistcoat has never looked like beating a good side.
Not really clouded fella we played attacking wingbacks and other systems english managers never thought of before, venables was an excellent attacking forward thinking coach, we lost on penalties to a very very good German side. That's not romance it's actually how it was.In comparison to Taylors hoof ball spell, then yeah, Venables was a decent manager, I can see why we romanticise this era as the Home tournament of 96 clouds the reality of what we were like.
Being hosts is an advantage but not playing competitive games is a disadvantage.Venables also had the luxury of two years without playing a single competitive match, as he took over after England had failed to qualify for the World Cup, and didn't have to go through the Euros qualifiers as England were hosts. He had plenty of time between his appointment and the start of Euro96 to experiment with players and get his team right. Nobody else has had that - it's always been straight into the tournament qualifiers.
I can't be arsed looking back on individual decisions and if they were right or not. This would hardly compare with 4 tournaments of piss easy draws though would it?The Spain team against us in 96 were robbed, 2 goals ruled out and a pen not given.
I can't be arsed looking back on individual decisions and if they were right or not. This would hardly compare with 4 tournaments of piss easy draws though would it?
What other manager gets 4 tournaments of failure whilst playing shit football?
You think southgate even compares to Venables?
You think his team play better football?
If you do football isn't your sport my friend.
If you don't base results on the opposition then there is really no need to continue further, it's a level of football stupidity that one can never come back from.I've not said Southgate compares to Venables, Nor have I said that Southgates football is "better"
Suppose it all depends on what you consider "better" though. Results based Southgate wins hands down, no one has come closer than him since 66, "piss easy draws" or not.