What's more important??

I've heard numerous top level managers say they couldn't hack international management because they didn't have enough time with the squad. I think Capello suffered the same fate from having minimal contact time with his squad.

Hiddink did well with South Korea, Australia and Russia (although not so well with Turkey). With South Korea and Russia his demands were for the domestic season schedules to be altered so he could spend extra time with his squad. Needless to say, he won't get that liberty with the premier league.

The problem with England is that we expect instant success, instead of creating a 4 year plan aimed at peaking when it really matters. One loss and we all want the manager sacked.

The only manager who I think could turn our squad into a team of winners by the summer is Mourinho. He knows all of the players inside out and already has an affinity with the british game and press. The way he handles the media also takes the focus away from individual players.

I honestly don't think there are any English candidates for this summers Euros. After that, I'd be more inclined to give the job to a manager who plays football in an attractive way, with the plan of playing that way for 4 year years until we get to the next world cup. I think the FA are a big part of the problem though, when you employ a manager you should back his methods 100% - not shoehorn him into the mould of an unsuccessful team.

 

I can sort of understand it with the developing and weaker football nations but certainly not for teams in the FIFA top 30 world rankings. What did Sven or Fabio actually do that a good English coach couldnt have done aside from lining their pockets with a shed load of money for doing very little.

 

Let Harry do it part time.

 

Mourinho won't be England manager.

 

Why not?

 

I reckon there is a fair chance the FA will hire a big name just for the duration of the tournament.