Apropos the rant about how bad McClaren was, some discussion of stats may be in order.
Since he was only in for 18 games, each result affects the stats by about 6%, so his Won 50%, Loss 27% is not too bad - it just seems like he lost the wrong 5 games. Prior to the other night his loss rate was 4/17 (23%). McClaren seems to be coming at an unfortunate time as Beckhams star is waning (although he does seem to have gained determination to prove everyone wrong) and there seem few quality midfield and forwards to replace him.
It seems running England is a dream job no one wants. From 1946 to 1974 we had 2 managers in 28 years. Now you seem to be doing well if you can hang on for 3 years.
Does it help that we don't have a large selection of players to choose from nowadays?
With all the shit he got from everyone, tabloids especially, I'm surprised Eriksson stuck it out for so long. Still, a large paycheck is a large paycheck...and the fringe benefits package seemed quite good.
The question appears to not be who is best suited for the job, but who can we find willing to take it?
|< A Day in the Life | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >|