At the time of writing, momentum is gathering surrounding the impending dismissal of George Burley as Scotland manager. They were humbled by a young and far from full strength Wales side on Saturday, which followed yet another disappointing qualification campaign for a major tournament. I personally don't think Burley was ever the right man for the job. With the exception of Hearts, at every job he's had Burley has never come close to a 50% win ratio, he has only won 3 of 14 games in charge on his country, and is frankly nothing more than an average football league coach. However, following a disappointing qualifying campaign which included a horror 0-0 at home to Norway (Chris Iwelumo, take a bow son) and defeats to Macedonia, Holland and Norway, the SFA decided to stick with him. So in light of that what difference does an admittedly embarrassing 3-0 defeat to Wales really mean? For example Norwich got relegated last year and decided to stick with Bryan Gunn. First day of the season they get raped 7-0 by Colchester and Gunn is sacked in the morning. Now, no team likes to get beat and 7-0 is really quite a disgrace for a professional football team, but why, after the worst thing that can happen to a team - relegation - do the board stick with the manager, and then one defeat later they sack him?! If the SFA thought Burley was good enough after losing to Holland, one defeat in a meaningless friendly surely shouldn't change their minds. Graeme Souness (who has ruled himself out of the running) said this morning that 'if Arsene Wenger and Alex Ferguson were in charge of Scotland they would have the same problems and results as any other manager,' because the pool of Scottish players is not only lacking in numbers but crucially in quality. Is he right? Do the Scottish supporters just have to come to terms with the fact that they're team is a group of average individuals with one or two bits of quality, and expectations that you can qualify for a major tournament regularly should be reigned in? With Walter Smith's contract at Rangers up in January (weird, no?) he is the obvious choice, and he'll make the sensible decision to bring Boyd and Ferguson back in the fold.
Fabio Capello has raised doubts over the goalkeeping situation for England today, stating that at the moment David James can't train for 2 days following a match. The man is 39 so is there any surprise? If James is still struggling in March/April time then he probably shouldn't go to South Africa - England will play 4 matches in 15 days if they make the last 16 - for the same reasons that Ledley King shouldn't. Fab is a tough cookie and anyone who isn't 100% won't get a seat on the plane, simple. Ben Foster played against Brazil and did ok but his mistakes over the last few months have been well documented. He can't even make the bench for Utd at the moment so for me he's not a viable option - he'll probably squeeze on the plane as the 3rd keeper, maybe just for the experience at a tournament, but how often are both you're first choice keepers going to be unavailable? So that leaves Green who I like and will surely go, and I'd like to make a case for Chris Kirkland. I really like the Wigan stopper and I always notice him having good games against the Arsenal. He has a history of back problems but if he's stays fit I'd be perfectly happy to seem him get a shot. Robinson is probably the other choice, he's done ok for Blackburn despite playing in a team who concede a lot of goals.
Robin van Persie will have tests and scans at Arsenal today to determine how bad his ankle injury is. I've heard all sorts from ruptured ligaments, damaged ligaments to maybe even some broken bone in there, but the club are refusing to speculate until they know more. RvP himself has broken his silence claiming he'll be out for 4 to 6 weeks which sounds pretty optimistic, with other outlets claiming 2,3 or 4 months. Hopefully the man himself is right. Despite Robin's obvious quality, his goals and his assists, I'd rather have lost him that Fabregas, and I'd rather have lost him than Gallas or Vermaelan right now. The papers are calling it the end of Arsenal's title hopes, but we have Eduardo who will now move central, Vela waiting in the wings, and Eduardos wide berth will be filled with Walcott (soon), Nasri, Rosicky, Diaby can play there with Ramsey filling his void, not to mention Wilshere and Merida. The thought of Silvestre having a 3 month stint at centre back instead of Gallas scares the living shit out of me, having Eduardo playing up front instead of Van Persie doesn't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd rather have Joe Hart over Kirkland, because he will break his back just from sitting on the bench. Guess as a die-hard Hammer I can't say anything other than Green for no.1, although I can't really choose between him, Hart or Foster. It all comes down to whether the defence want to protect them or hit backpasses towards their top corner.
ReplyDelete