Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach
Sorry but,.. give over you tart...
Whats your hang up with being English, what's that got to do with it, why would you mention that, it's your hang up not anyone elses.
And last weeks capitulation at Chelsea had everything to do with bad attitude, **** all to do with tactics, please tell me otherwise. It's your forum to prove me wrong as I clearly am with your victriotic reply.
Ok here goes:
English football over many decades has often had a mistrust of using players who have skill, vision and the ability to use both whilst beating a player: often seen as 'fancy dans', 'luxury players', 'those who probably can't do it on a wet Tuesday night in Stoke'.
Examples:
Glenn Hoddle, Matt Le Tissier, Gazza (in the end, ironically by Glenn Hoddle); players who were above the ordinary but not trusted, whilst those who were often medicore but 'ran about a bit more' showing 'passion', 'guts' etc were getting multiple caps: Ince, Gerrard (to an extent), Robson ('Captain Marval') were often continually lauded and seen as first names on the team sheet whilst they always failed to dictate tempo for England or create out of nothing like the previous players mentioned could. I have always believed if more of the first types of players mentioned were trusted by the English game at international level England would have done better than they have done since 1966. But alas, it's what most England fans demand: 'blood and guts' etc.
Go to your average Hackney Marshes type leagues and you see the emphasis all the time is on 'strength', 'passion' etc. Guile, creativity, tactical nous are NOT valued as they are in many other countries.
Sherwood - a very 'passionate' player but one who most will remember was semi-mediocre for us, though I did like him more than most - is another in that typical mantle who values 'guts', 'blood and thinder' etc and probably has the same attitude in the game as those who valued the Robsons and Inces over the Hoddles and Gazzas (and quite frankly I struggled to bring those names into it, so few have there been and so few are promoted in English football generally).
Our capitulation at Chelski was down to a poor mistake by Verts, following shortly on from slack defending that led to the penalty situation...the rest again poor individual errors that were more likely imo due to Chelski tiring us by making us chase their shadows.
Put it this way, did you think TS had a plan to combat them if they went a goal up?
Did you think TS had/has a plan for when we go a goal down AND a man down?
In fact, Dnipro still looked dangerous to me when THEY were a man down
- the Ramos factor (and btw we often looked good with ten men with him imo)
Now since TS's show of 'passion' what have we seen? Two big games and two defeats where yes we showed good 'passion' but next to no tactical nous or creativity.
So basically the players 'showed some balls' and more 'running about a bit' but due to not having the tactical nous, system or plan instilled by the manager or creativity still got dingdonged. The fact that you were happy to see all this 'passion' even though tactically/creatively we are going backwards is why I used your post as an example of people who watch English football always think players showing 'passion' are 'good players.'
