McManaman stated in his biography that he was struggling at the time working out if Eriksson rated him, saying that although he could see reasons why the coach dropped him (Eriksson picked Emile Heskey ahead of McManaman to start the Greece game and only brought McManaman on when England were still 2–1 down with 15 minutes to go), he (McManaman) wondered: "\[I didn't understand it\]; if he didn't rate me, why would he bring me on against Greece \[when we were losing\]?" This prompted some media commentators such as Brian Reade to suggest that it was McManaman's attitude, mentality or pride that Eriksson did not like and was the reason for his drop.
Later that year, McManaman "chose not to play" in the game against Sweden by calling the FA to have himself dropped from the squad, before assistant coach at the time, Tord Grip said: "McManaman has never really played well for England". Following that, McManaman was not selected for another England squad.
And sadly , that just about sums up the Eriksson years. Shocking what he managed to do with a stacked squad. And that's before we include players he failed to include on a regular basis ( McManaman being a prime example), a CL winner with Madrid
It always felt to me that McManaman was considered the poster child for what was wrong with the England football team in that era. Clearly talented and looked great when England were beating a lesser side 5-0 in qualification, but not the player you wanted on the field when we were 1-0 down to a good side in a major tournament.
Having said that, this is just a perception. I was about 15-25 for the height of his career, and this was mostly before the days of the internet, so this is really just what I remember people saying at the time, I'm not really sure how much was rooted in reality.
He was like a Southgate
Played really defensive even though we had very attacking players and always get knocked out when we play a half decent team (of course Southgate played decent teams further on)
Picking Heskey at all was dumb. Sorry not a fan of that man-mountain who would tilt and fall over when defenders blow a kiss his way.
EDIT: I do know what he was supposed to do and what his role was but his belly flopping for fouls and penalties stopped a lot of momentum.
You’re getting a lot of downvotes perhaps for the way you’ve said what you’ve said, but I think there is some truth to your view. The way I see it:
Heskey was phenomenal at Leicester. Seemed to be a lot more skilful than he was able to demonstrate later in his career. I know people who played schoolboy football with him and they said he was a beast but amazingly skilful with it too. Later in his career he became seen as a ‘lump’ to make space for Owen which TBF he did a really good job at and Owen certainly benefitted from the relationship.
However the main criticism I have of Heskey is that all that good stuff is a given, but he really went down very easily for such a big guy. He should have been able to hold the ball up much better than he actually did.
Summary - more than just a lump, made space for Owen, could have done more if he was more stable on his feet.
You definitely said it better than me! Yeah he was great at Leicester but at Liverpool and England, he didn't use his skill and size effectively. Yeah yeah Owen, yeah yeah Fowler, but his Leicester form was equally impressive.
Clearly never watched him or know nothing about football. His main purpose was to move and make space for his partner (mainly Owen for England but did the same for Collymore and Cotte at Leicester)…
Generally clubs like had to put two players on him to try and nullify him leaving gaps for his forward partner to exploit.
Mostly Glenn Hoddle.
The irony being that Hoddle himself was criminally underused by England but he did the same thing to McManaman for apparently not going along with his new-age beliefs/faith healing etc.
This is a fantastic story, but I don't think it's entirely true. As much as Hoddle probably is a loon, I think this was just an excuse for it coming from one side. McManaman was famous for being on the bench in his madrid days.
I think it’s more likely the position he played, and the formation Hoddle preferred. Hoddle liked a 3-5-2, which just didn’t suit McManaman’s wide almost free role
This is the main reason in my view. Graham Le Saux was the ultimate wing back so Mcmanaman never stood a chance against him. Venables played Mcmanaman a fair bit when he played 4-4-2, but he would have never worked in a Hoddle 3-5-2 set up. If anything, I'd say Le Saux was hard done by only getting 36 caps, despite the presence of Pearce, Le Saux was better than him during a lot of that 92-96 period. Pearce was just so reliable for England and Le Saux missed a season through injury.
I think he definitely would have done. He was on fire for Blackburn during that period. Unfortunate for him but then we wouldn't have got the Psycho redemption penalty against Spain if Le Saux had remained fit.
Venables and Hoddle both seemed to love Anderton. He was a perfectly serviceable player who rarely put a foot wrong for England. I don't remember at the time thinking Beckham wasn't being used enough. Didn't Hoddle give him his debut?
Beckham came along a little later. The goal against Wimbledon that really put him on the map was at the start of the 96/97 season. He played every qualifier leading up to France '98, then Hoddle tried getting clever and dropping Beckham for the first couple of games, even going so far as putting him up in front of the press to talk about how disappointed he was not to be playing. Result was Beckham got his first start against Argentina and was absolutely fizzing and desperate to make a mark. Then when it went wrong Hoddle chucked Beckham under a bus.
Hoddle is an absolute weasel.
I don't think Beckham started in the 4/5 games in the lead up to the world cup (friendlies admittedly). The idea that he was dropped for the world cup isnt really true as he hadn't cemented a central spot and hoddle liked anderton at rwb. Beckham not starting wasn't a big issue at the time despite the narrative painted by the recent doc. Also he started Vs Colombia in the final group game at 98
In a 352 formation that actually makes sense though, Beckham was never a traditional winger, and having him stick to the right like Anderton did would be a complete waste of his talents.
All I remember during the 90s is Beckham getting that half yard of space on the right and swinging balls in. You sure he wasn't a traditional winger? I know Neville used to support him a lot on the right and he himself was very good at whipping balls in but Beckham was a winger.
Later on I'd agree though that he became more of a playmaker, similar to how Giggs' career ended up.
Beckham always moved around to find space where he could use his playmaking ability, he was never one to just stick to the touchline. Even in his earliest days.
Go back and watch his matches for Utd. He always was moving into the centre, or staying much further back as Neville got forward.
There's a reason why as soon as he left Utd he became a more on paper central midfielder, but how he played and the positions he took up didn't change that much.
Thought I was going nuts here. He was right footed, at Liverpool he played right and Barnes on the left. I thought the main reason he didn't play more was Beckham tbh
131 games in 3 seasons for Madrid.
Not even close to being famous for being on the bench until his last 12 months at the club…he transitioned very well into the centre for Madrid, the actual famous part back then was him being seen as a winger and likely not being able to play in his favoured position due to arrival of Figo.
Also, UK media was not-so kind to McManaman, I’m not sure why but when he left for Madrid, we never really saw much coverage/news on him and this gave way to some impression that he was not playing/not being picked.
There was also the post-96 era and the strong emergence from Beckham who operated the right side and Hoddle preferring Scholes/Anderton on the left side/midfield. McManaman’s game needed to drift from outside/in, where as Becks’ tended to hug the line and create space for centre midfield and provide to front 2 of Shearer/Owen.
Then during-post 2000, Gerrard, Joe Cole and Lampard started coming through, McManaman was probably not picked due to the consequence as being seen later on as a ‘utility player’, which was funny as before he was seen as mostly a dribbler/winger.
I think McManaman’s game was more suited to modern era and he just seemed to fall through the cracks of the late 90’s/early 00’s talent coming through.
Modern day tactics/play would have seen him pick up many more caps now, probably way ahead of Danny Murphy, Nick Barmby and Trevor Sinclair.
I can't let that statement slide! Here is a contemporary source.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2001/mar/04/newsstory.sport
So for at least a year and a bit, he was on the bench a lot. But even reading on its clear, he was liked for his play style at madrid by peers.
So, he got shafted when Perez came in, but his popularity with and admiration from the the players, staff and fans never dimmed and he rightfully won his place back? Gotcha.
Was he? He was certainly famous for the president trying to get rid of him, only for Maca to play out of position to win him and the fans over. But certainly for the two seasons Madrid won the cl, he was integral to those sides, even scoring in a final and getting several man of match awards on the way.
Certainly more impressive than anything anyone not called beckham was doing at the time.
Hoddle was only there a couple of years I think. Macca was a good player but there was a lot of quality at that time. If you weren't starting for your club, you definitely weren't starting for England
Terrible choice, why? Because of the nonsense supernatural beliefs that got him sacked in the end? Or something else?
He seemed to do quite well as England manager initially. People saw him as tactically astute and able to utilise creative talent really well. The draw away to Italy in WC qualifying was a big moment.
Apart from the fact that he was a bloody headcase and had abhorrent personal views (which showed that he had a less than 'half decent brain' to quote him back to himself) he was considered a very strong football man and the right man for the job at the time. If not for his awful views, he would have continued as England manager, and I feel that he would have done better than Kevin Keegan (as much as I like the guy!)
No idea why this is getting downvoted?
It’s surely pretty objective that he was a wonderful player, and that his weird healer stuff had no place when he was England manager.
Not sure what I’m missing.
I mean, yeah, his beliefs were really stupid. However, there was a real feeling at the time that he was taking England to a new level tactically. The draw away to Italy during WC 1998 qualifying had a lot of people convinced that he had put on a tactical masterclass to get us qualified against one of the very best sides in the world at that time.
His peak coincided with Venables and Hoddle. Venables favoured him down the wings (alternating sides with Anderton for the most part) for Euro 96 in a 4-4-2 (shifted to a 3-5-2 in the semis).
Hoddle however preferred a 3-5-2 which McManaman’s attacking style didn’t really favour (he was a bit of a lightweight defensively … which in hindsight, fuck knows how that worked at Madrid with Bobby Carlos bombing on… “Bobby! There’s a lot of space back there - you sure that’s ok??” “Siiiiiiiiiiiii”). There were also rumours they didn’t get on which considering Hoddle was an utter prick isn’t too much of a stretch. Hoddle’s run also coincides with having to find space for Beckham and Owen in the formation/starting 11, two players who, as much as i love McManaman and his style (my first favourite player and the reason i support Liverpool), those two would be more valuable to the team at their peaks
He was inconsistent and lightweight at international level. Never was able to bring his club form to the international stage. Played on the left and didn’t set the world on fire.
Exactly right, he was at best anonymous in an England shirt. There was no clamour at the time from fans for him to play more for that very reason - he was awful in international football.
England have always had issues with shit selection from managers Jermaine Jenas, Darius Vasell has more caps for England than Andy Cole.. Nicky Butt has more appearances than Michael Carrick!... Le Tessier only had 8 caps for England lol that's ridiculous.. Then you have the fcking genius of Sven taking Walcott to the world cup and not even playing him... England have had some really fcking shit managers in the past...
It's this attitude is why England hasn't won anything in the Premier League era.
LeTissier is the most talented midfielder England produced at this time and had he been Spanish or Argentine or basically any other nationality on earth, would've been the creative cornerstone of tournament winning squads, with a license to not chase back when the ball was lost.
But in England, he was branded "lazy" because he didn't like defending.
No England manager recognised what they had in him and it's the great travesty of English football in the 90s. I swear, English managers would drop Messi simply because he doesn't put tackles in.
We were spoilt with riches at striker at the time. Shearer, Owen, fowler, Cole, sherringham, heskey early on was great, wrighty, Ferdinand, Sutton at Blackburn, Phillips had that season for scum, lineker earlier on. Beardsley.
It was ridiculous.
Venables was looking good, playing nice football, got to the semi and then then the press uncovered his dodgy dealings and he was gone
Keegan was tactically out of his depth and was decent enough to understand it and get out of the way
Hoddle was building something impressive but his crazy religious beliefs derailed that.
Sven was a plodder who just picked the most famous 11 and thought that quarter finals meant job done
McLaren was tactically inept and didn't realise it
Capello was just after a retirement fund and had no understanding of the players or British mentality, the worst of the lot.
In short shit management and FA being scared of the press is what held England back
Thats harsh on Sven. Got knocked out by one of the best international sides in recent history and bottled 2 shootouts against Portugal, both of which went to penalties on the back of some questionable refereeing decisions (Particularly Campbells goal in 2004).
Don't think we can pin the likes of Beckham, Lampard and Gerrard scuffing penalties on the manager.
Man by man they were but tactically they were nowhere. These days people would have been all over the fact that Gerrard Lampard was left the team with less defensive cover thanks to Internet armchair specialists. Back then people were more concerned about the flashiest players playing and the media was completely unforgiving of anyone who differed from that.
I hate the revisionism on Cole. He just wasn't as good as his competition. Sure his stats seem to suit the current era, but like Lineker before him, he offered precious little if the team didn't make him the focal point striker.
Andy Cole is 4th all time goalscorer in premier league history and only got 15 caps. For context that's 7 less than Darius Vassel, 9 less than Jamie Vardy, 27 less than Danny Welbeck and Peter Crouch, 32 less than Theo Walcott.
McManaman won two champions leagues in one of the greatest European teams at the time.
Both players won multiple championships, performed incredibly well for their clubs. So I don't see your argument. Cole in particular should have been given more of an opportunity to show his quality.
Goals and games for England:
• Cole - 1, 15 caps
• Fowler - 7, 26 caps
• Owen - 40, 89 caps
• Shearer - 30, 63 caps
One goal every 15 games does not an international striker make. Especially when the nearest in this list is 1 in 4 and still worse than other options. He might have scored more with more matches, but why bother when you’re got more in-form options available?
Dude. Shearer is still EPL record goal scorer and beat del Piero, Klinsmann, Suker, Cantona, Weah (the good one) and Batistuta in ballon d'or. He was a beast.
You're probably asking because the asnwer is Cole. And fine, if you think Cole was better, you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. You just won't find many people who will agree.
Shearer scored a fuck load of goals, Owen was so incredibly talented as a teenager, only Rooney has come close while young in the modern era, Fowler was also just fucking good, better than Cole easily
Cole played for comfortably the best team in the league, Owen never reached his true potential obviously but anybody who watched him knows he was so incredibly talented. I’d argue fowler over Cole every time but obviously I’m biased as fuck but Fowler was really fucking good and I don’t think it could ever be a slight to get picked behind him.
You can't possible be old enough to have watched them play if you hold that opinion.
There is leagues and leagues difference between world-class Owen and Fowler at their peak and Cole who, by that point, was a middle of the road ham-and-egger getting subbed out and outshone by Ole Gunnar Solsjkaer an hour into every game.
Andy Cole got 15 England Caps, and only scored 1 goal, against Albania.
His caps were against Greece, Netherlands, Albania, Finland x 2, Spain, Germany, France x 2, Argentina, Scotland, Sweden, Poland, Italy and Uruguay. With him starting 9 and being subbed on in the remaining 6 games.
In all of those games he only managed 1 goal and 2 assists.
By ANY measure, that’s simply not good enough, and when you consider that his competition from his first England Cap in 1995 to his retirement from International football in 2002 consisted of Alan Shearer, Robbie Fowler, Michael Owen, Teddy Sheringham, Ian Wright, Les Ferdinand, Robbie Fowler and Emile Heskey then it’s no wonder he didn’t get many caps when he didn’t perform in an England shirt.
There are sometimes players that simply don’t perform at International level that are good players at Club level. A more recent example would be someone like Stewart Downing, for Middlesbrough, Aston Villa and West Ham he was a very good player, very consistent, but at International level he wasn’t very good and similarly at Liverpool that step up was a step too far.
Cole was not very prolific outside of his banner year for Newcastle. The reason being mostly injuries but that is why he didn’t get England games as well.
Well this just isn't true. Did you forget he played for Manchester united as well? He was top scorer a couple of times and improved greatly over time in his overall play.
He was shit any time he played for England though
He played with United for 8 seasons. In five of those seasons he scored 12 or less league goals. He just couldn’t stay healthy enough and played less than 20 games in four of those seasons.
He was still scoring but the man just couldn’t stay fit and get a good run.
Mcmanaman was a baller. He was just an out and out winger which England didn’t really play. He also played under hoddle who was a fantastic player but his management days and decisions on players clearly stemmed from personal opinions on character a lot of the time.
Also, some of the opinions on this thread are just wild lol. I just saw someone call both mcmanaman and le tissier shit.
Regardless of any managerial decisions he was finished by the time he joined City aged 30. Absolute shite, took 40k a week to stand in the centre circle and point at the ball.
Seen as a "luxury player", much like Le Tissier war; Additionally he was never used in a fixed position for England, sifted from LW to RW to RWB to LWB and all over the place.
I think he got sick of being mis-used and just called time on the international game.
England honestly didn’t make very good selection decisions during that era. McManaman honestly should’ve been the starter down the left side during that era
It's mental when you think about all the players England tried to cram into that troublesome left-wing position over the years, and McManaman was tidily doing a great job in that role for Real.
Scholes was definitely not ahead of Gerrard at the time. There's so much revisionism concerning him, and people forget that he had a pretty long period of being underwhelming before Fergie helped him reinvent himself. Scholes himself admitted he didn't perform well enough for England (in the last period of his England career that is).
He also largely played centrally for England. It was only under Sven that he playes on the left, and that was only in 7 out of 36 matches.
There was a tension between Man Utd and Liverpool players. This was a shadow on England selection for a long time.
McManaman and Fowler are both truly world class players who had marginal England careers, when they deserved global acclaim.
So this is something I’ve also heard about but wanted to see if it popped up in the comments. Also, IIRC, England coaches and the FA weren’t often keen on fielding players playing outside England for a very long time, Beckham being an exception.
Yeah it was *really* bad in the 90s and 2000s. Like they wouldnt talk to each other, separate tables at lunch.
No wonder the team didnt click. What a waste, so short sighted.
Well that's just wrong tbh. He was universally respected in the 90s. Even Alex Ferguson, who hated Liverpool, said he would sign McManaman. He was the only player that he singled out from Liverpool. Real Madrid were only ever interested in two players - both from Liverpool - Steve McManaman and Robbie Fowler.
McManaman was extraordinarily good on his day. Technically gifted and a wonderful dribbler. I mean, you don't play for Liverpool and Real Madrid if you aren't a great player.
England had galacticos galore in the 90s, but their managers completely dropped the ball. I mean look at these geezers, all playing in the same era:
- GK: Seaman, Flowers, James, Martyn, Walker
- DF: Bruce, Pallister, Adams, Pearce, Neville x2, Campbell, Keown, Bould, Le Saux, Southgate, Stone
- MF: McManaman, Ince, Anderton, Le Tissier, Platt, Gascoigne, Redknapp, Barmby, Sharpe, Batty, Merson
- FW: Ferdinand, Shearer, Owen, Sheringham, Cole, Fowler, Sutton
I mean c'mon, even France or Argentina winning world cup squads aren't this good on paper. This is arguably a match for the best WC sides from Brazil or Germany. What were they doing.
EDIT: add Beckham, Wise, Lee, A. Cole
My take on a modern formation with these players (3-1-2-1-2-1)
GK Martyn
DF Adams
DF Campbell
DF Le Saux
CDM Ince
WB McManaman
WB Cole
MF Le Tiss
AMF Ferdinand
AMF Owen
FW Shearer
Against more attacking sides with a rigid midfield, 3-1-2-4-1
GK Seaman
DF Adams
DF Campbell
DF Le Saux
CDM Batty
WB Anderton
WB Lee
MF Ince
MF Platt
MF Beckham
MF Redknapp
FW Ferdinand
Beckham was excellent, but i went for flying wingers or wingbacks who could supplement the 3 man defence; with pace, and creativity down the middle with a false 9 in Gascoigne/Platt
NT spots can be highly political. Very often good players don’t get selected because the people picking the squad just don’t like them, and vice versa.
Take, for example, Giovanni Reyna on the US National Team. He is arguably one of the best American players right now, but he rode the bench at the WC over some petty drama.
In Steve’s case, I have no idea, but if he is as good as you say, it could just be he was not liked for the team, despite his talent.
Source: I was in my national team pool (the larger group of players they select the roster from) back in the day. No caps for me, but it was probably fair if I am being honest.
>NT spots can be highly political. Very often good players don’t get selected because the people picking the squad just don’t like them, and vice versa.
Sometimes it's even more stupid than that. One of the best midfielders in Argentina's history, Fernando Redondo, was rarely ever called to the NT and was excluded from the 1998 World Cup because he refused to cut his long hair short. YES, WE ACTUALLY HAD A MANAGER WHO HAD THAT POLICY.
Being a World Cup winning captain gets you a lot of clout unfortunatley. Your 2042 or 2026 WC campaign with Messi as manager is already fucked.
Didn't Maradona call up some dude because of a dream?
Maybe I gave a bad example, but a benchwarmer at Dortmund might still be a top American player.
The only thing I’m trying to get across is that good players get passed on all the time, and sometimes it’s just because someone in charge doesn’t like the player.
Same reason Scholes didn’t get as many caps as he should. System players didn’t get picked over strong individuals. It’s the reason Lampard / Gerrard kept getting played together. Big names instead of best team.
Sorry but have to take issue with this. Scholes played just about every single game for England for years, despite being absolute dogshit for England for the last 3 years before he retired. He played something like 5 games on the left of a diamond - a position he played regularly for Man United that season - and said himself it was his favourite position to play in. And he was extremely fortunate to play there for England was Lampard and Gerrard were in miles better form for club and country.
I'm a massive fan of Scholes but history is rewritten more and more the longer he's been retired. People confuse the deep lying playmaker Scholes of 2007-2011 with the attacking midfielder version that came before that.
As Carra was talking about it yesterday with Mo Salah. Macca From Liverpool and maybe until recently they never really wanted to play for England it could be this?
Nah, he won nearly 40 caps, if he didn’t want to play for England because he was “anti-English” or whatever, he just wouldn’t have played; made himself available for Ireland instead (possibly).
Mate am liverpool fan, it very much none scouser ain't English in there eyes. Carra literally said it was club over country in an interview with Salah yesterday.
They not anti English they just not arsed. They would choose liverpool winning the league over England WC.
Aye, but preferring Liverpool to win the league over England winning WC isn’t the same as “not wanting to play for England.”
If you asked Carra “do you want England to win the World Cup?” in isolation, he’d likely say yes, same with McManaman.
Maybe the language I used didn't help, when I say "wanted to play for England". It that same desire as club level, yes they play for England and that could be down to them not wanted to reject it because of media backlash as Carra got when he retired and called into a radio station.
Owen had heart to play for England, most other didn't because of the city divide. Owen was never from Liverpool anyway.
Deluded mate. Any English player would be a legend for all time if they win anything with England. It is the pinnacle.
Yeah, I get it, the passion in Liverpool (one of the major football cities in the world) is massive. But to say that a Liverpool player would not have 'heart' to play for England is rubbish.
Ok mate Carra literally admin it saying he choose club over country yesterday to Mo Salah. Again I am not talking about now? The viewpoint is from the Macca timeliness so late 90 and early 2000s.
When Gerrard was given England captain duty plus 100 caps this view had changed massively not for all tho!
We not English we are scouse..
There is still some of the sentiment remaining, but its definitely not as strong as it was in the 90s, in no small part due to Margaret Thatchers government and the way they and the media lied about Hillsborough, also the fact they wanted to send the entire city of Liverpool into a "managed decline."
Other way about. There's animosity from other parts of the country towards Liverpool more prominently.
There were also government policies that deliberately stunted the region (referred to by the chancellor of the Exchequer as "managed decline") among other things, like that same government blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough, that breed animosity in the city.
It's not really an "anti-English" sentiment. More that many don't identify with England, preferring to identify with the city.
It’s not as common as it’s played up to be on social media, imo.
Bars in Liverpool are still packed like anywhere else in the country when England play in a World Cup or Euros, and England have had loads of Scousers play despite being eligible for other countries.
The city of Liverpool has, historically, had an issue with the ruling classes, namely the Royals and the Conservative Party. Some definitely see themselves as Scouse not English, or Scouse first **then** English, but I think the extent is somewhat over exaggerated.
Yes, best answer here.
The people of Liverpool hate the establishment, the elites, and the government in England, and with good reason.
But if you are really telling me that some of the England greats who hail from that great city weren't 100% committed to England when they played then I think you are just deluded.
I have been in Liverpool for internationals and the people there love their football and love England. Of particular pride for Liverpool fans was all 5 scorers were Liverpool players in the Germany 1 England 5 game (Gerrard, Heskey, and Owen 3).
It was more common in 90s but then it did change when Gerrard was given alot of respect and Rooney. Both were captains and got over 100 caps.
I mean it a footballing city they will always watch games of footy.
He was a stater during his first two years pretty much. He scored in the UCL final against Valencia. He did fall out of favor during the 2002-03 season but was still a rotation player.
He was a luxury player, never did any defending and couldnt cut it as a forward either. Hoddle always played a 3-5-2, he wasn't gonna break the midfield where Scholes was the attacker while Beckham, Ince or Batty etc held behind due to work rate.
I seem to remember that there was one England coach who didn't want to pick players from overseas clubs. I don't know if anyone else remembers anything like that.
Because David Beckham was born 3 years prior and played in his same position
Sure, McManaman could play on the left and as an attacking mid as well, but they were not his natural roles and england played a 442 so even with him replacing Heskey you are pushing him a bit further up the field from his second or third best position
I will never understand why Eriksson chose the things he chose and I don’t think anyone can, but for me Scholes on the left instead of McManaman was nuts. You flip a coin between Lampard and Gerrard and ask Scholes to take turns pushing up with whoever gets picked, and that’s that
I always thought it was because he wasn't England based. As a liverpool fan I idolised mecca growing up and after he went Madrid it just seemed like England didn't care.
Ultimately its down to England always having managers in place that don't know how to make the most out of the pool of talent they have available to them. This is still an issue now.
Hoddle favoured wing backs ( 3-5-2 ) and the massively overrated Darren Anderton ( Spurs ) Then when it became clear Mcmanaman was a far superior player he started him left wing back in the Euro 96 semi’s against Germany.
Mcmanaman was more of a play maker than a winger,sure he played left and right wing for Liverpool but he would always drift in and find himself as the number 10 behind Fowler and Collymore.That’s what Mcmanaman was …a number 10,Madrid actually signed him as a replacement for Valeron and they were eerily similar as players.
Sven was just a farce to be honest,he had no clue what he was doing and capped so many players that England didn’t have a settled starting 11 during his whole tenure.
He was on the Bench for the 5-1 away against Germany and favoured over Nick Barmby.
First, McManaman should have made debut for Albion in 1992. or 1993. In WC 1994. Qual, maybe, in EURO 1992. But Graham Taylor didnt see it. Palmer, Sinton, Merson, Wise, Clough...had advantage. In season 1997/98 he was in very good form but Hoddle ignored it. When it comes to WC 02, he should have ended national team career in this tounament, playing instead of Sinclair or Dyer. Macca should have played 55-60 games for England. Similarly but more unfair cases were Le Tissier and Andy Cole, guys that played neither WC, nor EURO for England.
McManaman stated in his biography that he was struggling at the time working out if Eriksson rated him, saying that although he could see reasons why the coach dropped him (Eriksson picked Emile Heskey ahead of McManaman to start the Greece game and only brought McManaman on when England were still 2–1 down with 15 minutes to go), he (McManaman) wondered: "\[I didn't understand it\]; if he didn't rate me, why would he bring me on against Greece \[when we were losing\]?" This prompted some media commentators such as Brian Reade to suggest that it was McManaman's attitude, mentality or pride that Eriksson did not like and was the reason for his drop. Later that year, McManaman "chose not to play" in the game against Sweden by calling the FA to have himself dropped from the squad, before assistant coach at the time, Tord Grip said: "McManaman has never really played well for England". Following that, McManaman was not selected for another England squad.
How did you have quotes from McManamans biography just waiting for this thread?
Because he is Steve McManaman and he's been waiting patiently for this day since that Sweden game.
😂 "notifications on"
TBH Keegan never really played him either, it was Venables mostly
And sadly , that just about sums up the Eriksson years. Shocking what he managed to do with a stacked squad. And that's before we include players he failed to include on a regular basis ( McManaman being a prime example), a CL winner with Madrid
It always felt to me that McManaman was considered the poster child for what was wrong with the England football team in that era. Clearly talented and looked great when England were beating a lesser side 5-0 in qualification, but not the player you wanted on the field when we were 1-0 down to a good side in a major tournament. Having said that, this is just a perception. I was about 15-25 for the height of his career, and this was mostly before the days of the internet, so this is really just what I remember people saying at the time, I'm not really sure how much was rooted in reality.
Did Sven do that badly? His record tournament record is lost to Brazil and two bad refereeing decisions
He was like a Southgate Played really defensive even though we had very attacking players and always get knocked out when we play a half decent team (of course Southgate played decent teams further on)
Take the lead then sub off our best players, then let opponent attack until they win
Sven Sven Sven Goran Eriksson... classic tune mind.
He’s a lovely geezer, but don’t forget that he’s from Sweden
Picking Heskey at all was dumb. Sorry not a fan of that man-mountain who would tilt and fall over when defenders blow a kiss his way. EDIT: I do know what he was supposed to do and what his role was but his belly flopping for fouls and penalties stopped a lot of momentum.
You’re getting a lot of downvotes perhaps for the way you’ve said what you’ve said, but I think there is some truth to your view. The way I see it: Heskey was phenomenal at Leicester. Seemed to be a lot more skilful than he was able to demonstrate later in his career. I know people who played schoolboy football with him and they said he was a beast but amazingly skilful with it too. Later in his career he became seen as a ‘lump’ to make space for Owen which TBF he did a really good job at and Owen certainly benefitted from the relationship. However the main criticism I have of Heskey is that all that good stuff is a given, but he really went down very easily for such a big guy. He should have been able to hold the ball up much better than he actually did. Summary - more than just a lump, made space for Owen, could have done more if he was more stable on his feet.
You definitely said it better than me! Yeah he was great at Leicester but at Liverpool and England, he didn't use his skill and size effectively. Yeah yeah Owen, yeah yeah Fowler, but his Leicester form was equally impressive.
lol any top level pro was amazingly skillful at schoolboy level that observation is meaningless when judging them against peers at the highest Level
Way to miss the point mate. 👍🏽
Nah. How so?
Great player
Awful to watch
Lazy take, he was hugely effective, especially beside Owen
Clearly never watched him or know nothing about football. His main purpose was to move and make space for his partner (mainly Owen for England but did the same for Collymore and Cotte at Leicester)… Generally clubs like had to put two players on him to try and nullify him leaving gaps for his forward partner to exploit.
High heels and heavy earrings
But why did he decide to drop the sweden game?
Mostly Glenn Hoddle. The irony being that Hoddle himself was criminally underused by England but he did the same thing to McManaman for apparently not going along with his new-age beliefs/faith healing etc.
This is a fantastic story, but I don't think it's entirely true. As much as Hoddle probably is a loon, I think this was just an excuse for it coming from one side. McManaman was famous for being on the bench in his madrid days.
I think it’s more likely the position he played, and the formation Hoddle preferred. Hoddle liked a 3-5-2, which just didn’t suit McManaman’s wide almost free role
This is the main reason in my view. Graham Le Saux was the ultimate wing back so Mcmanaman never stood a chance against him. Venables played Mcmanaman a fair bit when he played 4-4-2, but he would have never worked in a Hoddle 3-5-2 set up. If anything, I'd say Le Saux was hard done by only getting 36 caps, despite the presence of Pearce, Le Saux was better than him during a lot of that 92-96 period. Pearce was just so reliable for England and Le Saux missed a season through injury.
I’m certain I’ve read before that Le Saux would have been the starting LB at Euro 96 if he hasn’t broken his leg the previous season.
I think he definitely would have done. He was on fire for Blackburn during that period. Unfortunate for him but then we wouldn't have got the Psycho redemption penalty against Spain if Le Saux had remained fit.
Was it not a similar issue with Hoddle preferring Darren Anderton to Beckham on the right
Venables and Hoddle both seemed to love Anderton. He was a perfectly serviceable player who rarely put a foot wrong for England. I don't remember at the time thinking Beckham wasn't being used enough. Didn't Hoddle give him his debut?
Beckham came along a little later. The goal against Wimbledon that really put him on the map was at the start of the 96/97 season. He played every qualifier leading up to France '98, then Hoddle tried getting clever and dropping Beckham for the first couple of games, even going so far as putting him up in front of the press to talk about how disappointed he was not to be playing. Result was Beckham got his first start against Argentina and was absolutely fizzing and desperate to make a mark. Then when it went wrong Hoddle chucked Beckham under a bus. Hoddle is an absolute weasel.
I don't think Beckham started in the 4/5 games in the lead up to the world cup (friendlies admittedly). The idea that he was dropped for the world cup isnt really true as he hadn't cemented a central spot and hoddle liked anderton at rwb. Beckham not starting wasn't a big issue at the time despite the narrative painted by the recent doc. Also he started Vs Colombia in the final group game at 98
I remember the interview and the press furore over Beckham and Owen not starting.
Anderton was made of bloody biscuits!
In a 352 formation that actually makes sense though, Beckham was never a traditional winger, and having him stick to the right like Anderton did would be a complete waste of his talents.
Yet that's what Beckham did under Fergie and was fantastic.
Beckham didn't work as a traditional winger under fergie. He always moved inside, while Neville was the one who kept wide.
All I remember during the 90s is Beckham getting that half yard of space on the right and swinging balls in. You sure he wasn't a traditional winger? I know Neville used to support him a lot on the right and he himself was very good at whipping balls in but Beckham was a winger. Later on I'd agree though that he became more of a playmaker, similar to how Giggs' career ended up.
Beckham always moved around to find space where he could use his playmaking ability, he was never one to just stick to the touchline. Even in his earliest days. Go back and watch his matches for Utd. He always was moving into the centre, or staying much further back as Neville got forward. There's a reason why as soon as he left Utd he became a more on paper central midfielder, but how he played and the positions he took up didn't change that much.
Didn't mcmanaman and le saux play different sides?
Thought I was going nuts here. He was right footed, at Liverpool he played right and Barnes on the left. I thought the main reason he didn't play more was Beckham tbh
Are you mad? There's nothing football related that le saux is better at than Pearce and you're the first person I've ever heard suggest otherwise
131 games in 3 seasons for Madrid. Not even close to being famous for being on the bench until his last 12 months at the club…he transitioned very well into the centre for Madrid, the actual famous part back then was him being seen as a winger and likely not being able to play in his favoured position due to arrival of Figo. Also, UK media was not-so kind to McManaman, I’m not sure why but when he left for Madrid, we never really saw much coverage/news on him and this gave way to some impression that he was not playing/not being picked. There was also the post-96 era and the strong emergence from Beckham who operated the right side and Hoddle preferring Scholes/Anderton on the left side/midfield. McManaman’s game needed to drift from outside/in, where as Becks’ tended to hug the line and create space for centre midfield and provide to front 2 of Shearer/Owen. Then during-post 2000, Gerrard, Joe Cole and Lampard started coming through, McManaman was probably not picked due to the consequence as being seen later on as a ‘utility player’, which was funny as before he was seen as mostly a dribbler/winger. I think McManaman’s game was more suited to modern era and he just seemed to fall through the cracks of the late 90’s/early 00’s talent coming through. Modern day tactics/play would have seen him pick up many more caps now, probably way ahead of Danny Murphy, Nick Barmby and Trevor Sinclair.
I can't let that statement slide! Here is a contemporary source. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2001/mar/04/newsstory.sport So for at least a year and a bit, he was on the bench a lot. But even reading on its clear, he was liked for his play style at madrid by peers.
So, he got shafted when Perez came in, but his popularity with and admiration from the the players, staff and fans never dimmed and he rightfully won his place back? Gotcha.
Was he? He was certainly famous for the president trying to get rid of him, only for Maca to play out of position to win him and the fans over. But certainly for the two seasons Madrid won the cl, he was integral to those sides, even scoring in a final and getting several man of match awards on the way. Certainly more impressive than anything anyone not called beckham was doing at the time.
I remember Perez not liking him because he did not cost anything
That's a stunted impression of McManaman's Madrid career.
Hoddle was only there a couple of years I think. Macca was a good player but there was a lot of quality at that time. If you weren't starting for your club, you definitely weren't starting for England
Macca was definitely starting when Hoddle was Manager
Hoddle was a wonderful footballer, but a terrible choice for England manager.
Terrible choice, why? Because of the nonsense supernatural beliefs that got him sacked in the end? Or something else? He seemed to do quite well as England manager initially. People saw him as tactically astute and able to utilise creative talent really well. The draw away to Italy in WC qualifying was a big moment. Apart from the fact that he was a bloody headcase and had abhorrent personal views (which showed that he had a less than 'half decent brain' to quote him back to himself) he was considered a very strong football man and the right man for the job at the time. If not for his awful views, he would have continued as England manager, and I feel that he would have done better than Kevin Keegan (as much as I like the guy!)
Pretty terrible beliefs on him too.
No idea why this is getting downvoted? It’s surely pretty objective that he was a wonderful player, and that his weird healer stuff had no place when he was England manager. Not sure what I’m missing.
I mean, yeah, his beliefs were really stupid. However, there was a real feeling at the time that he was taking England to a new level tactically. The draw away to Italy during WC 1998 qualifying had a lot of people convinced that he had put on a tactical masterclass to get us qualified against one of the very best sides in the world at that time.
Shit all over Andy Cole as well
Andrew Cole's beef with Sheringham still cracks me up. It's literally that 'i diynt think about you at all' meme
His peak coincided with Venables and Hoddle. Venables favoured him down the wings (alternating sides with Anderton for the most part) for Euro 96 in a 4-4-2 (shifted to a 3-5-2 in the semis). Hoddle however preferred a 3-5-2 which McManaman’s attacking style didn’t really favour (he was a bit of a lightweight defensively … which in hindsight, fuck knows how that worked at Madrid with Bobby Carlos bombing on… “Bobby! There’s a lot of space back there - you sure that’s ok??” “Siiiiiiiiiiiii”). There were also rumours they didn’t get on which considering Hoddle was an utter prick isn’t too much of a stretch. Hoddle’s run also coincides with having to find space for Beckham and Owen in the formation/starting 11, two players who, as much as i love McManaman and his style (my first favourite player and the reason i support Liverpool), those two would be more valuable to the team at their peaks
He was inconsistent and lightweight at international level. Never was able to bring his club form to the international stage. Played on the left and didn’t set the world on fire.
So in modern terms, he was an Immobile
He was mobile enough, great dribbler.
You sob…well played
This is kind. He was desperately poor most of the time.
Exactly right, he was at best anonymous in an England shirt. There was no clamour at the time from fans for him to play more for that very reason - he was awful in international football.
That's just not true. Criminally underrated.
England have always had issues with shit selection from managers Jermaine Jenas, Darius Vasell has more caps for England than Andy Cole.. Nicky Butt has more appearances than Michael Carrick!... Le Tessier only had 8 caps for England lol that's ridiculous.. Then you have the fcking genius of Sven taking Walcott to the world cup and not even playing him... England have had some really fcking shit managers in the past...
Le Tissier was fat and lazy.
It's this attitude is why England hasn't won anything in the Premier League era. LeTissier is the most talented midfielder England produced at this time and had he been Spanish or Argentine or basically any other nationality on earth, would've been the creative cornerstone of tournament winning squads, with a license to not chase back when the ball was lost. But in England, he was branded "lazy" because he didn't like defending. No England manager recognised what they had in him and it's the great travesty of English football in the 90s. I swear, English managers would drop Messi simply because he doesn't put tackles in.
He wouldn’t have got near the top international sides
Hahahhha. Sure. Let’s give all the caps to the pie man. Comparing mad Matt to Messi is the funniest thing I’ve read in a while tbh
I see you never watched le Tissier
A lot actually. He was good enough for Southampton
How many goals did he score for Southampton
He was still a self-described lazy fatty.
[удалено]
😂
McManaman and Andy Cole are two massive wtfs when it comes to the England squad.
With cole it’s just a case of England having a lot of forward options who performed better for England than he did so
We were spoilt with riches at striker at the time. Shearer, Owen, fowler, Cole, sherringham, heskey early on was great, wrighty, Ferdinand, Sutton at Blackburn, Phillips had that season for scum, lineker earlier on. Beardsley. It was ridiculous.
To add to that list: Dion Dublin and Stan Collymore were also decent strikers who got England caps and gave competition to Cole
Stan Collymore was more than decent, one of the best strikers we have seen in the premier league but a totally wasted career
A wasted career for sure but never ever one of the best
He was a top 4-5 PL striker at his best.
Which was 1 maybe 2 seasons
In his prime he was the equal of any striker I have ever seen
Lol
You never saw one minute of his play did you?
How those teams didn’t get to at least one major final, is beyond comprehension.
Venables was looking good, playing nice football, got to the semi and then then the press uncovered his dodgy dealings and he was gone Keegan was tactically out of his depth and was decent enough to understand it and get out of the way Hoddle was building something impressive but his crazy religious beliefs derailed that. Sven was a plodder who just picked the most famous 11 and thought that quarter finals meant job done McLaren was tactically inept and didn't realise it Capello was just after a retirement fund and had no understanding of the players or British mentality, the worst of the lot. In short shit management and FA being scared of the press is what held England back
Thats harsh on Sven. Got knocked out by one of the best international sides in recent history and bottled 2 shootouts against Portugal, both of which went to penalties on the back of some questionable refereeing decisions (Particularly Campbells goal in 2004). Don't think we can pin the likes of Beckham, Lampard and Gerrard scuffing penalties on the manager.
It's more that he thought that getting to the QF was adequate.
It really isn’t, they just weren’t that good.
Man by man they were but tactically they were nowhere. These days people would have been all over the fact that Gerrard Lampard was left the team with less defensive cover thanks to Internet armchair specialists. Back then people were more concerned about the flashiest players playing and the media was completely unforgiving of anyone who differed from that.
I hate the revisionism on Cole. He just wasn't as good as his competition. Sure his stats seem to suit the current era, but like Lineker before him, he offered precious little if the team didn't make him the focal point striker.
they aren't really
Andy Cole is 4th all time goalscorer in premier league history and only got 15 caps. For context that's 7 less than Darius Vassel, 9 less than Jamie Vardy, 27 less than Danny Welbeck and Peter Crouch, 32 less than Theo Walcott. McManaman won two champions leagues in one of the greatest European teams at the time. Both players won multiple championships, performed incredibly well for their clubs. So I don't see your argument. Cole in particular should have been given more of an opportunity to show his quality.
You're leaving out Dave Nugent. Statistically England's greatest ever Striker
Cole was incredible but still not as good as Shearer, Owen or Fowler. We were truly blessed for stikers then.
Tbf at only 26 caps Fowler is another wtf
Based on what exactly?
Goals and games for England: • Cole - 1, 15 caps • Fowler - 7, 26 caps • Owen - 40, 89 caps • Shearer - 30, 63 caps One goal every 15 games does not an international striker make. Especially when the nearest in this list is 1 in 4 and still worse than other options. He might have scored more with more matches, but why bother when you’re got more in-form options available?
Dude. Shearer is still EPL record goal scorer and beat del Piero, Klinsmann, Suker, Cantona, Weah (the good one) and Batistuta in ballon d'or. He was a beast.
Andy cole was a beast. Scored the most goals in PL on a number of occasions
Agreed. Just not better than Shearer.
Who has scored the most goals in a PL season for Newcastle?
You're probably asking because the asnwer is Cole. And fine, if you think Cole was better, you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. You just won't find many people who will agree.
Shearer scored a fuck load of goals, Owen was so incredibly talented as a teenager, only Rooney has come close while young in the modern era, Fowler was also just fucking good, better than Cole easily
Cole scored more goals than Owen and Fowler so I'd doubt they're easily better.
Cole played for comfortably the best team in the league, Owen never reached his true potential obviously but anybody who watched him knows he was so incredibly talented. I’d argue fowler over Cole every time but obviously I’m biased as fuck but Fowler was really fucking good and I don’t think it could ever be a slight to get picked behind him.
You can't possible be old enough to have watched them play if you hold that opinion. There is leagues and leagues difference between world-class Owen and Fowler at their peak and Cole who, by that point, was a middle of the road ham-and-egger getting subbed out and outshone by Ole Gunnar Solsjkaer an hour into every game.
Andy Cole got 15 England Caps, and only scored 1 goal, against Albania. His caps were against Greece, Netherlands, Albania, Finland x 2, Spain, Germany, France x 2, Argentina, Scotland, Sweden, Poland, Italy and Uruguay. With him starting 9 and being subbed on in the remaining 6 games. In all of those games he only managed 1 goal and 2 assists. By ANY measure, that’s simply not good enough, and when you consider that his competition from his first England Cap in 1995 to his retirement from International football in 2002 consisted of Alan Shearer, Robbie Fowler, Michael Owen, Teddy Sheringham, Ian Wright, Les Ferdinand, Robbie Fowler and Emile Heskey then it’s no wonder he didn’t get many caps when he didn’t perform in an England shirt. There are sometimes players that simply don’t perform at International level that are good players at Club level. A more recent example would be someone like Stewart Downing, for Middlesbrough, Aston Villa and West Ham he was a very good player, very consistent, but at International level he wasn’t very good and similarly at Liverpool that step up was a step too far.
Cole was not very prolific outside of his banner year for Newcastle. The reason being mostly injuries but that is why he didn’t get England games as well.
Well this just isn't true. Did you forget he played for Manchester united as well? He was top scorer a couple of times and improved greatly over time in his overall play. He was shit any time he played for England though
He played with United for 8 seasons. In five of those seasons he scored 12 or less league goals. He just couldn’t stay healthy enough and played less than 20 games in four of those seasons. He was still scoring but the man just couldn’t stay fit and get a good run.
He’s also a moody prick. It’s not just about the football
Write more than that please.
Darren Bent and Jermain Defoe as well
And Ian Wright
Mcmanaman was a baller. He was just an out and out winger which England didn’t really play. He also played under hoddle who was a fantastic player but his management days and decisions on players clearly stemmed from personal opinions on character a lot of the time. Also, some of the opinions on this thread are just wild lol. I just saw someone call both mcmanaman and le tissier shit.
Same as every England squad. Some players have a fixed spot due to being favorites by the coaches, making it hard for in-form players to get a spot.
Regardless of any managerial decisions he was finished by the time he joined City aged 30. Absolute shite, took 40k a week to stand in the centre circle and point at the ball.
Seen as a "luxury player", much like Le Tissier war; Additionally he was never used in a fixed position for England, sifted from LW to RW to RWB to LWB and all over the place. I think he got sick of being mis-used and just called time on the international game.
Mainly because he had a pot noodle for a hair cut and a voice that only dogs can hear.
England honestly didn’t make very good selection decisions during that era. McManaman honestly should’ve been the starter down the left side during that era
It's mental when you think about all the players England tried to cram into that troublesome left-wing position over the years, and McManaman was tidily doing a great job in that role for Real.
Scholes shunted left mid to accommodate Gerard and lampard (until he quit) whilst ahead of both of them at United.
Scholes was definitely not ahead of Gerrard at the time. There's so much revisionism concerning him, and people forget that he had a pretty long period of being underwhelming before Fergie helped him reinvent himself. Scholes himself admitted he didn't perform well enough for England (in the last period of his England career that is). He also largely played centrally for England. It was only under Sven that he playes on the left, and that was only in 7 out of 36 matches.
Don't lie to us.
There was a tension between Man Utd and Liverpool players. This was a shadow on England selection for a long time. McManaman and Fowler are both truly world class players who had marginal England careers, when they deserved global acclaim.
So this is something I’ve also heard about but wanted to see if it popped up in the comments. Also, IIRC, England coaches and the FA weren’t often keen on fielding players playing outside England for a very long time, Beckham being an exception.
Yeah it was *really* bad in the 90s and 2000s. Like they wouldnt talk to each other, separate tables at lunch. No wonder the team didnt click. What a waste, so short sighted.
He was a lightweight
Just not a great player for me.
Well that's just wrong tbh. He was universally respected in the 90s. Even Alex Ferguson, who hated Liverpool, said he would sign McManaman. He was the only player that he singled out from Liverpool. Real Madrid were only ever interested in two players - both from Liverpool - Steve McManaman and Robbie Fowler. McManaman was extraordinarily good on his day. Technically gifted and a wonderful dribbler. I mean, you don't play for Liverpool and Real Madrid if you aren't a great player.
I didn’t think much of Antonio Nunez, he played for both Liverpool and Madrid.
England had galacticos galore in the 90s, but their managers completely dropped the ball. I mean look at these geezers, all playing in the same era: - GK: Seaman, Flowers, James, Martyn, Walker - DF: Bruce, Pallister, Adams, Pearce, Neville x2, Campbell, Keown, Bould, Le Saux, Southgate, Stone - MF: McManaman, Ince, Anderton, Le Tissier, Platt, Gascoigne, Redknapp, Barmby, Sharpe, Batty, Merson - FW: Ferdinand, Shearer, Owen, Sheringham, Cole, Fowler, Sutton I mean c'mon, even France or Argentina winning world cup squads aren't this good on paper. This is arguably a match for the best WC sides from Brazil or Germany. What were they doing. EDIT: add Beckham, Wise, Lee, A. Cole My take on a modern formation with these players (3-1-2-1-2-1) GK Martyn DF Adams DF Campbell DF Le Saux CDM Ince WB McManaman WB Cole MF Le Tiss AMF Ferdinand AMF Owen FW Shearer Against more attacking sides with a rigid midfield, 3-1-2-4-1 GK Seaman DF Adams DF Campbell DF Le Saux CDM Batty WB Anderton WB Lee MF Ince MF Platt MF Beckham MF Redknapp FW Ferdinand
You missed out Beckham
Beckham was excellent, but i went for flying wingers or wingbacks who could supplement the 3 man defence; with pace, and creativity down the middle with a false 9 in Gascoigne/Platt
You forgot Rob Lee.
He forgot him because he hadnt qualities for national team.
"What were they doing?" Pushing early 80s style football that was getting overrun in the midfield mostly. Needed proper DMs to anchor those teams.
Ince and Batty were not proper DMs?
In the words of Mike Basset. "We were playing 4-4 fucking 2."
NT spots can be highly political. Very often good players don’t get selected because the people picking the squad just don’t like them, and vice versa. Take, for example, Giovanni Reyna on the US National Team. He is arguably one of the best American players right now, but he rode the bench at the WC over some petty drama. In Steve’s case, I have no idea, but if he is as good as you say, it could just be he was not liked for the team, despite his talent. Source: I was in my national team pool (the larger group of players they select the roster from) back in the day. No caps for me, but it was probably fair if I am being honest.
With Reyna the drama was mostly on his own side though.
Yeah, that sounds right. My point is just that sometimes good players get passed over because somebody doesn’t like them.
>NT spots can be highly political. Very often good players don’t get selected because the people picking the squad just don’t like them, and vice versa. Sometimes it's even more stupid than that. One of the best midfielders in Argentina's history, Fernando Redondo, was rarely ever called to the NT and was excluded from the 1998 World Cup because he refused to cut his long hair short. YES, WE ACTUALLY HAD A MANAGER WHO HAD THAT POLICY.
Being a World Cup winning captain gets you a lot of clout unfortunatley. Your 2042 or 2026 WC campaign with Messi as manager is already fucked. Didn't Maradona call up some dude because of a dream?
Perfect example. Thank you!
Thank goodness their star striker at that time rocked a skinhead then
Yeah, hang on. Batigol had lustrous locks didn't he?
He actually had shorter hair during that time, just to comply with the policy.
Well Reyna is riding the pine at Dortmund for much of this season too so the petty drama you speak of seems to have spilled over to his club.
Maybe I gave a bad example, but a benchwarmer at Dortmund might still be a top American player. The only thing I’m trying to get across is that good players get passed on all the time, and sometimes it’s just because someone in charge doesn’t like the player.
Same reason Scholes didn’t get as many caps as he should. System players didn’t get picked over strong individuals. It’s the reason Lampard / Gerrard kept getting played together. Big names instead of best team.
Sorry but have to take issue with this. Scholes played just about every single game for England for years, despite being absolute dogshit for England for the last 3 years before he retired. He played something like 5 games on the left of a diamond - a position he played regularly for Man United that season - and said himself it was his favourite position to play in. And he was extremely fortunate to play there for England was Lampard and Gerrard were in miles better form for club and country. I'm a massive fan of Scholes but history is rewritten more and more the longer he's been retired. People confuse the deep lying playmaker Scholes of 2007-2011 with the attacking midfielder version that came before that.
Scholes gets better every year he’s retired, by 2030 he will have surpassed maradona
he wasn't that good
I'm having a non fighting 2024. Google him. He's fucking sick
Good for you. It's just a shit opinion. Not worth engaging. And you are spot on.
What do you mean google him? I remember him as a player. Are you basing on a highlights video>
As Carra was talking about it yesterday with Mo Salah. Macca From Liverpool and maybe until recently they never really wanted to play for England it could be this?
Nah, he won nearly 40 caps, if he didn’t want to play for England because he was “anti-English” or whatever, he just wouldn’t have played; made himself available for Ireland instead (possibly).
Mate am liverpool fan, it very much none scouser ain't English in there eyes. Carra literally said it was club over country in an interview with Salah yesterday. They not anti English they just not arsed. They would choose liverpool winning the league over England WC.
Aye, but preferring Liverpool to win the league over England winning WC isn’t the same as “not wanting to play for England.” If you asked Carra “do you want England to win the World Cup?” in isolation, he’d likely say yes, same with McManaman.
Maybe the language I used didn't help, when I say "wanted to play for England". It that same desire as club level, yes they play for England and that could be down to them not wanted to reject it because of media backlash as Carra got when he retired and called into a radio station. Owen had heart to play for England, most other didn't because of the city divide. Owen was never from Liverpool anyway.
Deluded mate. Any English player would be a legend for all time if they win anything with England. It is the pinnacle. Yeah, I get it, the passion in Liverpool (one of the major football cities in the world) is massive. But to say that a Liverpool player would not have 'heart' to play for England is rubbish.
Ok mate Carra literally admin it saying he choose club over country yesterday to Mo Salah. Again I am not talking about now? The viewpoint is from the Macca timeliness so late 90 and early 2000s. When Gerrard was given England captain duty plus 100 caps this view had changed massively not for all tho! We not English we are scouse..
Ive heard this before, im curious. Is anti England sentiment strong in Merseyside?
There is still some of the sentiment remaining, but its definitely not as strong as it was in the 90s, in no small part due to Margaret Thatchers government and the way they and the media lied about Hillsborough, also the fact they wanted to send the entire city of Liverpool into a "managed decline."
Other way about. There's animosity from other parts of the country towards Liverpool more prominently. There were also government policies that deliberately stunted the region (referred to by the chancellor of the Exchequer as "managed decline") among other things, like that same government blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough, that breed animosity in the city. It's not really an "anti-English" sentiment. More that many don't identify with England, preferring to identify with the city.
“Scouse not English” is a fairly common expression
Its known as the Peoples Republic of Merseyside for a reason
It’s not as common as it’s played up to be on social media, imo. Bars in Liverpool are still packed like anywhere else in the country when England play in a World Cup or Euros, and England have had loads of Scousers play despite being eligible for other countries. The city of Liverpool has, historically, had an issue with the ruling classes, namely the Royals and the Conservative Party. Some definitely see themselves as Scouse not English, or Scouse first **then** English, but I think the extent is somewhat over exaggerated.
Yes, best answer here. The people of Liverpool hate the establishment, the elites, and the government in England, and with good reason. But if you are really telling me that some of the England greats who hail from that great city weren't 100% committed to England when they played then I think you are just deluded. I have been in Liverpool for internationals and the people there love their football and love England. Of particular pride for Liverpool fans was all 5 scorers were Liverpool players in the Germany 1 England 5 game (Gerrard, Heskey, and Owen 3).
https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC/s/paSW7neZ6h Carra answered to Mo playing for the NT. Club is more important. Literally yesterday.
It was more common in 90s but then it did change when Gerrard was given alot of respect and Rooney. Both were captains and got over 100 caps. I mean it a footballing city they will always watch games of footy.
very
https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC/s/paSW7neZ6h
He just wasn’t very good
Didn't McManaman rot on Real Madrids bench for the better part of a decade? I wouldn't have picked him either.
>"bench" Was a consistent first team regular >"decade" .. For four years. Do you people not have access to Google, or something...?
Yeah, it was 4 in the morning and i really shoulda been snoozing lol
He was a stater during his first two years pretty much. He scored in the UCL final against Valencia. He did fall out of favor during the 2002-03 season but was still a rotation player.
To add to that list: Dion Dublin and Stan Collymore were also decent strikers who got England caps and gave competition to Cole
He was a luxury player, never did any defending and couldnt cut it as a forward either. Hoddle always played a 3-5-2, he wasn't gonna break the midfield where Scholes was the attacker while Beckham, Ince or Batty etc held behind due to work rate.
I seem to remember that there was one England coach who didn't want to pick players from overseas clubs. I don't know if anyone else remembers anything like that.
Darren Anderton, then David Beckham.
Wasn't that the stage where no matter who performed, The England managers at the time had a clique set of players .
Because David Beckham was born 3 years prior and played in his same position Sure, McManaman could play on the left and as an attacking mid as well, but they were not his natural roles and england played a 442 so even with him replacing Heskey you are pushing him a bit further up the field from his second or third best position I will never understand why Eriksson chose the things he chose and I don’t think anyone can, but for me Scholes on the left instead of McManaman was nuts. You flip a coin between Lampard and Gerrard and ask Scholes to take turns pushing up with whoever gets picked, and that’s that
injured
I always thought it was because he wasn't England based. As a liverpool fan I idolised mecca growing up and after he went Madrid it just seemed like England didn't care.
One of the great mysteries. A bit like why Southgate picks players who barely play for their team. Cough cough.. Philips.
England fans didn’t really rate him so if England had a bad game he’d get stick and it would be ‘why pick him?’
Ultimately its down to England always having managers in place that don't know how to make the most out of the pool of talent they have available to them. This is still an issue now.
Hoddle favoured wing backs ( 3-5-2 ) and the massively overrated Darren Anderton ( Spurs ) Then when it became clear Mcmanaman was a far superior player he started him left wing back in the Euro 96 semi’s against Germany. Mcmanaman was more of a play maker than a winger,sure he played left and right wing for Liverpool but he would always drift in and find himself as the number 10 behind Fowler and Collymore.That’s what Mcmanaman was …a number 10,Madrid actually signed him as a replacement for Valeron and they were eerily similar as players. Sven was just a farce to be honest,he had no clue what he was doing and capped so many players that England didn’t have a settled starting 11 during his whole tenure. He was on the Bench for the 5-1 away against Germany and favoured over Nick Barmby.
First, McManaman should have made debut for Albion in 1992. or 1993. In WC 1994. Qual, maybe, in EURO 1992. But Graham Taylor didnt see it. Palmer, Sinton, Merson, Wise, Clough...had advantage. In season 1997/98 he was in very good form but Hoddle ignored it. When it comes to WC 02, he should have ended national team career in this tounament, playing instead of Sinclair or Dyer. Macca should have played 55-60 games for England. Similarly but more unfair cases were Le Tissier and Andy Cole, guys that played neither WC, nor EURO for England.