Talk:England national football team manager

Image request

The Turnip back page from the Sun would be a valuable addition. --Dweller (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Media section

Kind of makes sense to me to deal with the smaller bits and pieces first, then the history, then the stats. However, it also makes sense to go into the detail of media reaction after having done the history. Both ways have logic - I'd prefer the former. Consensus? --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of all up for (a) talk about the role (b) its significance (c) its history (d) its controversies and (e) all the A1 tables I make. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the "Do I Not Like That?" documentary get a mention? Oldelpaso (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Funnily enough when I was thinking of all the bollocks our managers have gone through, Taylor suffered the worst (imho) and the major swearing doc came up in a pub discussion the other night. Taylor blew a gasket and swore like a mentalist and everyone said "ooooh no, you can't be like that as an England boss" and then Sven showed up and went "............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... hmm?" and got a kicking. Dead men's shoes.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless the description is direct from a ref, I'm not sure about calling the attacks on Taylor a "watershed", Robson got vicious treatment after Euro 88 and around the time of the "PSV OFF BUNGLER BOBBY" headlines. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Misc issues

• Suggest the win %s are reported without a decimal. Adds nothing, except width of column. --Dweller (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure the infamous Nazi salute belongs in this article. --Dweller (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done removed - not directly relevant to the managers article in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• The manager is now given a free hand in selecting his coaching ("back room") staff. Could do with rewording. While Capello was given a free hand, others have not, e.g. Keegan. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • hence "now" in the sentence? --Dweller (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Having "now" in the sentence is not that useful if we are not told what happened before. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To-do list

• knock off all outstanding {{cn}}s Done Dweller (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• ensure all outstanding claims are cited
• add {{main}}s where appropriate, consider See Also, review infoboxes at foot
• review all images, captions, licensing.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Consider need for extra/graphics
• Check formatting of all references
• c-e, 3rd party c-e
• PR
• FAC

Anything else, please add. --Dweller (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Eriksson and the "fake sheikh". Oldelpaso (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Damn, I knew I'd forgotten something there! Indeed. Good call. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Other tournaments, Rous Cup, Le Tournoi, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Interestingly the FA website categorise the Rous Cup fixtures as friendlies. Not sure about Le Tournoi. Their stats are included in the overall table. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

National significance

Just adding my two cents regarding the national significance particularly compared to the Prime Minister. A few years ago a book was released called the "Second most important job in the country", i.e. the England manager's position is second only to the PM. I also remember from college that the PM gets the most column inches in the nationals followed shortly by the England manager. I haven't got a clue how to word it in, but I think it adds some quantative substance to the "national significance" section. Peanut4 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary storage

A half-finished paragraph put here temporarily. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Pilloried from his appointment onwards, Steve McLaren received media criticism throughout his tenure... [need examples, where was it that called him "Second Choice Steve from the outset?] ...As failure to qualify for Euro 2008 looked increasingly likely, the headlines became more visceral, with football magazine When Saturday Comes describing the newspaper coverage of his final month as "relentless and remorseless". Both tabloids and broadsheets publishing critical pieces, The Times headlining an editorial "Fail and McLaren has to go".

Thanks. I'm gonna bung that in, finished or half-finished. It can all be mixed in with the rest of the material. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We're On Our Way to Wemb-lee - what to do

• Righty-ho then, there needs to be something in the lead right up at the 2nd sentence about what the mgr does. The current lead focusses too much on history. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see warning bells whenever I see a section marked overview. Now consider this. We have a lead which focusses on history, then we have a Scope bit under overview which has some history in it which is later exapnded at History 's first bit. Trying to think how this can go but it is tricky. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, not as bad as I thought. Be nice to add some bits to Appointment and Role though...I don't mind if we lose the circumflex....really. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Was musing on this today....I note that a stack of copyediting stuff has been left on the peer review so I'll sit that out... regarding comprehensiveness, there ain't no mention of dosh...salary/readies/etc. Any figures which can be added in or scandals/negotiations from the past. I'd expand the Role if possible amd then send it to WP:GAN which will show up some more stuff, then spit'n' boot polish and off ta FAC....(that'd be my game plan anyway..) [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 09:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cas, thanks for everything so far. I'm working through the PR. I'm very reticent to take it to GAN, the backlog there is usually astonishing and people are reticent to pick up an article of this size. I think once we're done with the PR, expanded the areas you've highlighted then I'm proposing we go to FAC with it... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see your point. I never used GAN much but I've been doing alot of mushroom articles and I find them harder to work up compared with the bird and dino ones so I've been using it as a staging point. They're generally pretty small though. But anyway, back on topic, take out the GAN step, but some beefing up of the first bit I think'd be good. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 09:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, only just seen this. Lots of changes made since these comments... all OK now, Casliber? --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Fine. I already supported on the FAC page. Di'nya see? [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 09:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did, but for any number of reasons, it was possible this had been overlooked along the way. After all, I did! Glad it's OK. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested title change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to not change the name of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

---

England national football team manager or England national football team management Buc (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The current title seems perfectly suitable to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It sonds like a like with it being "managers" and not "manager". Buc (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Current name works for me too. Obviously, cos I chose it... :-) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the name. The article is about the England national football team managers. "It does exactly what it says on the tin." Peanut4 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it pleural then? It sounds like a list. The titles I suggested wouldn't change what the article is about. Buc (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have the word "list" in the title does it? I don't see what the problem is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need the word list in it to sound like a list. It sounds like a list because it's plural. Buc (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The current name is fine. There's so much to do in this Project, why spend time fixing what ain't broke? --Dweller (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's plural because the article is about all the England managers, not just one. I really can't see any problem with the article title. Peanut4 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not really. It cover the concept and role of the team's management not every individual one, there own articles will cover that. It even starts "The rôle of an England national football team manager"

Right everyone, back to expanding Wikipedia please... nothing to see here. Move along! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Buc, this really doesn't need this many people and this much effort to make you realise you're trying to fix something that isn't broken, does it? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is broken. My first thought when I saw the list was,"that's a list" but no it is an article so the tile is misleading. Buc (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I had to check the title of this article as I was sure it did not have the word "List" in it......and it doesn't. If something doesn't look like a list, doesn't walk like a list and doesn't talk like a list then it isn't a list. So suggest you give it a rest as you are the only one who seems confused here.Tmol42 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. Buc (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ok if you not willing to change the title can someone at least explain to me why it titled "England national football team managers" and yet begins "The rôle of an England national football team manager" Buc (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

2 questions

Why is there a hat on the "o" in "role" in the lead and the first section? And I actually think that the article should be moved to "England national football team manager", as the "s" implys that the article is about all of the people who have held the position "England national football team manager" when it actually is about that position itself. Any thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

a) No reason, I'll remove, b) it's about the position, the people who have occupied it, their track records and more. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I still think manager would be a better title for the article. Obviously the President of the United States article includes information about the men who have held that office, and there are a million other similar examples, but the article is mainly about the position itself, and should be titled appropriately. This is different from the AFC Wimbledon issue because the Wimbledon issue was that the article was titled in a patently untrue way. Sticking to convention is what is most important, IMHO. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well see the discussion above. It's been talked over and consensus was to not try to fix something that wasn't broken. It's such a minor point, in my opinion, if you wish to spend time on it then by all means start another discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, England national football team manager already redirects here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why the inverse couldn't be true, in which case we'd have the article titled according to convention, and all the current links would still work. Everybody wins. I fear that the previoud discussion was not particularly fruitful because the change proposed was not a particularly good one, and the advocate of that change didn't do a very good job articulating his point. I think I could do better and I will do. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

England national football team managers → England national football team manager — The title of this article does not follow the standard format of singular titles for articles about a position. For instance President of the United States, which is an article mainly about the position itself, though it does of course include information about the men who have held the office. There are numerous other examples. The main argument against the move is that "we have better things to do." I really don't think there's any reason other than that, and I don't think it is a particularly burdensome task to move the article, so we should move it. —-- Grant.Alpaugh 10:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nominator. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose the example given does not list every person that held that position. This article does. Hence the name. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think on reflection the s could go. It's true that when I originally created the article it was intended to be a list, but it kind of went out of control and became an FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, there seems no reason that Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns should not apply. The list is only part of this article; If it were split off into a list of England national football team managers article then the plural would be appropriate there, but it's not here. Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I originally suggested this. Buc (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment there's an ongoing debate in parallel at WP:FOOTBALL whose consensus is drawing towards an oppose to this move. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where, exactly? Because the only thing I've seen is one valid opposition to the move and you telling them to come here, which they've neglected to do. The only other comment was a long winded comment about how we should do other things first, which has been adequately argued against IMHO by the several people who have supported this move here already. Even you have withdrawn your opposition above. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, allow me to rephrase, there's no consensus to a move there. And as for them neglecting to come over here, I only reminded them this debate was being conducted an hour ago. People do have better things to do than worry about an "s" you know... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have such a problem with a small change like this being made if people are willing to make it? The whole project doesn't have to work on the same thing at once, and people are free to fix things that they see are wrong. That's what makes WP work. Ever hear of divide and conquer? -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would add to that, there is nothing stopping people addressing minor things like this and working on improving other articles. It's called multi-tasking. Buc (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Never said there wasn't, but this is another prime example of kilobytes of discussion on something utterly trivial. Man hours have been used up here instead of improving articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you or anyone else but I've not spent more than a few mins reading and putting comments here or even thinking about it. Buc (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless, the requisite time has gone by to make the move and I'm going to go about getting that done. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia:Requested moves a better place for this debate? Buc (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No. That page exists to direct people here, where the move is contested. If you look there is very little debate going on there. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is still, in essence, a list. It just has a rather long section of prose accompanying the list. See List of Manchester United F.C. managers for a similar situation. – PeeJay 07:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's a list then why is it not called List of x? Buc (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All but a few paragraphs of the text are about the role or the history of the role. Certainly there is information about the men who have held the role, but the inclusion of the list at the end of the article surely doesn't make the article the article just a list of managers with "a long section of prose accompanying the list." That's a bit daft, isn't it? -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support It just about makes sense, but might be the least consequential debate I have ever come accross on Wikipedia, so it deserves no more than a weak opinion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I don't think this is an issue of great contention. It makes sense and is in line with Wikipedia standards..cosme. (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The article is primarily about the position. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article contains every person to have held the position. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters. Marshal of France has every person to hold the rank, as does Chancellor of Germany, United States Secretary of State, and numerous others. I picked a bad first example, but the point is still valid. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The feeling to me is that if you have "National Team Manager" then you're discussing the role and maybe the history of the role. "National Team Managers" suggests you're discussing the actual men to have been in charge. The article currently crosses both boundaries so...--Koncorde (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the dozens of articles similar to those provided above about government positions and the like. Of course these articles contain information about the people who have held and shaped the position, but these articles are primarily about the role, so they should be named as such. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Zz more hours being wasted. Come on guys, let's do something else. Someone toss a coin, this isn't worth it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're wasting just as much time. You bitch more than anyone I've ever seen. There is consensus to move so if you want to end this then move. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat out of order there methinksTmol42 (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The continued whining about how there are "better things to do" is not productive. The WikiProject should not serve as a reason to naysay the improvement of articles, no matter how small those improvements might be. I fear the only reason for Rambling's repeated moaning is that he is claiming ownership of the article, as he created it. Regardless, there is consensus to move and we should carry that move out quickly, thus ending the discussion that is purportedly causing all this obstruction to "real work" by the rest of the Project. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I really don't like the way this has been conducted. Someone starts off an inconsequential move request, it gets identified as inconsequential, and because of its inconsequential nature, the move is made purely because no one actually gave enough of a crap about the actual title of the article to make a decent argument against the move. Pretty much every list of managers of a club of reasonable size could have this amount of information, and yet I would bet that if they did have this much info, they would remain at their current titles. The fact of the matter is that the people who have held the England manager's post are the crux of the article, rather than the role itself, which is the exact reason why this article should remain where it is. – PeeJay 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, and consensus at the moment is against you. Unless consensus develops not to move, I see no reason not to move. The article is mainly about the position, and WP prefers singular titles for articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge proposal

I propose that the article England national football team assistant manager be merged into this article as the position of England assistant manager is not, in itself, notable, but it would be notable as a subsection of the England manager's page. – PeeJay 13:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a Featured Article. Merging in that much material about a related but not 100% relevant topic would be highly detrimental, even if it was good quality (which it isn't currently) and would lead to a strong case for FARC. Strong oppose. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well look, there are three options here:

1. The assistant managers article gets merged here at the risk of this article being demoted from FA to A, GA, or even B.
2. The assistant managers article gets deleted as a non-notable topic, which would be a shame as there's actually some useful info in there.
3. The assistant managers article remains as it is, which I don't believe is viable, as the topic is not notable in and of itself, IMO.

Out of those three options, I would go for #1 every time, even if it meant this article having to be reassessed. – PeeJay 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - why should the other article be deleted? It's notable and verifiable. What problem are you solving? --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

But my point is that it isn't notable on its own. I'm not denying that it's verifiable, but the position of England assistant manager is no more notable than any other assistant manager job. – PeeJay 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then your first move should be an AfD on that article. I disagree that it's not notable. I think it's notable, encyclopedic, "useful" and we both agree it's verifiable. I'll be arguing strongly for keep+improve on the AfD. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll withdraw this merger proposal then, for the time being. – PeeJay 19:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Parsecboy (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

England national football team manager → List of England national football team managers — With the exception of two articles, every single article in Category:Lists of football (soccer) managers is named List of Club X managers. Furthermore, this article is not about the role of England manager, but about the people who filled that role, so although the actual list portion of the article is very small, it is still a list of England managers. – PeeJay 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose This is an article which happens to contain a list, not a list in the WP:LIST sense. The article is not just about people who held the position; indeed "role" is the very first section. That this is a Featured Article and not a Featured List tells its own story. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In that case, perhaps I've gone about this the wrong way. Maybe what should be done is to follow the President of the United States model and have an article that covers the role of England national football team manager along with all its pitfalls such as media scrutiny, etc. and then have a separate List of England national football team managers, akin to the List of Presidents of the United States, which would have a prose chronology of each England manager along with a tabulated version. – PeeJay 02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I thought this was well and truly put to bed during the FA procedure. This isn't a list, it contains a list, but also contains an awful lot more information about the role, etc. In no way should this page be moved to "List of ...". Peanut4 (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Opposethe two chaps above me have put it well. But perhaps it'd be a good and helpful idea to create a redirect from List of...? --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops... I see Bucs did exactly that, nearly a year ago! --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm repeating what's already been said, but this is a fully fledged article, not a list, and does contain a large section about the role. I also oppose breaking out the list of managers into a separate "List of...". There have been far fewer England managers than presidents of the U.S., so leaving the list of England managers where it is doesn't give it undue weight. I can't think of a good reason for creating a separate list. --Jameboy (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I see the article was renamed before from plural to singular which is technically bad English. It really should be reverted back to England national football team managers due to the nature of the article. Govvy (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• But as has been said above it's not a list of managers, it's about the role of manager. So it should be singular for the same reason as coach (sport), referee (association football), defender (association football) are singular not plural. It is merely a more descriptive and exact title than any of those. Peanut4 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism

Hoddle's much-criticised diary portraying his version of events at the World Cup was subsequently published, drawing further criticism

Too much criticism for one sentence I think, maybe drop the first one? --86.173.140.91 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Anglocentric

I am sorry, but this dreadful article should NEVER have even been close to being an article of the day. It is steeped in Xenophobic clap trap such as 'Wembley, home fo football' - please, just because lots of English think their underperforming team and manager are great, because they take up many tabloid pages and other media output, does not mean there is any substantial need for a Wikipedia article of such a low quality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.23.22 (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The comment is referenced and is clearly there to explain why the job is so important in English culture. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Roy Hodgson

On both Roy Hodgson's personal page and the main England football team page, Hodgson's managerial record is 6-2-0, obviously the penalty shoot-out defeat to Italy at the Euro's has been counted as a draw. Is there an overall wikipedia policy on penalty shoot-outs? Perhaps either this page or those two should be changed for consistency? --81.109.72.78 (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)