England national football team managers

Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've seen it once before, I know, but it's evolved quite dramatically since then, almost doubling in size since I generated the original page, thanks primarily to User:Dweller. My initial concept was for a brief history overview and then a decent list of results, but the emphasis has somewhat shifted to rather extensive examination of the role, the characters and the media influence since then, and so much the better. This is arguably one of the most significant WP:FOOTBALL articles we could hope to have, so I'm bringing the article here again for as long as it needs to be here to satisfy the project that we've done the best we can. Then it'll be off to WP:FAC with it. So, as ever, I humbly submit the crumbs of our imagination to the scrutiny of the community and thank you all in advance for your time reading, considering and commenting upon it. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting a c-e, but really, I'm too "close" to it. Appreciate overview from others, especially if unfamiliar with the material. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Casliber on this is gratefully acknowledged. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pedant replies

• It is hard to overstate the national significance given in England to the England manager's job. or It is hard to overstate the national significance in England of the England manager's job.

  Done. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would drop the latter part of this sentence Passion for football as England's national sport is coupled with pride in England and moreover Wembley Stadium being the "home" of football. Wembley is no more the home of football than Old Trafford is a theatre or Goodison a science school: these are promotional motifs, not statements of fact. I would suggest Passion for football, usually regarded as England's national sport, is closely associated with national pride.

  Sorry. I disagree. I think most English fans do regard Wembley as the home of football, and we have a source to the analogy from no less an authority as FIFA! Sentence has also been slightly worked on by Casliber. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Large sums are wagered on England winning: unless they are odds on favourites, larger sums are wagered on them not winning; Large sums are wagered on matches and tournaments in which the team is involved.

  I don't understand this comment. You seem to be saying the opposite of what our source says. Can you elaborate? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The dependence (not dependency which means something totally different) on clubs' decision whether to release players is a given, not a negotiation, and it is not called "club versus country". Suggest whole new paragraph, to avoid speculation about likelihood or not of future change: The England manager is dependent on the consent of clubs to release players for friendlies, and "club versus country" <ref> conflict is said to arise when this is reluctantly given, or is withheld. The Premier League clubs typically play more matches in a season than other major leagues, and it is suggested that this is not conducive to the fitness of players in major tournaments. This combination of factors, coupled with England's mediocre record in major championships, has led to the England manager's job being described as the "impossible job".[3]

  Dependency fixed, thanks. I disagree about the negotiation. It did indeed used to be a given and clubs now negotiate, especially over friendlies, about how long a player will be used. Agree on expanding the club v country element. I've done a new version... see what you think. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Subtitles in the history section: I would prefer a simple, factual "1946-1962: Walter Winterbottom" etc.
  • Hmmmmm, that's a matter of preference and each section doesn't necessarily relate to a single manager, which would result in the headings becoming quite unpleasantly large... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Walter Winterbottom had originally been a member : delete meaningless "originally"
  • 'Done, removed... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason why, of all the matches in 1946-1950, one is noted?
  •  Doing... No, not really. It's a fair point, a couple of additional sentences wouldn't do any harm there...
    • I'm uncomfortable adding more. Individual matches should only be included if truly significant. I'd rather remove others that are in the article than add more! --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• England 0-1 USA was a shock result, and the references attest to that: no need for inverted commas.
  • Done, removed The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably worth flagging up that Ramsey had a different degree of autonomy that Winterbottom had enjoyed: any background on the decision of the committee to relinquish power?
• Upon his appointment, he immediately declared his belief Immediately? After seconds? minutes? hours? weeks? Unless the adverb means something, delete it.
  • Done, removed The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The following year he led England to victory in the third-place play-off of the 1968 UEFA European Football Championship against USSR in Rome, but reflected "We are ...: by the same token, he lead them to defeat in the semifinal. Maybe The following year England finished third in the 1968 UEFA European Football Championship in Rome, but reflected "We are ..."
  • Done it... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Match description of 2-3 vs W Germany in 1970 much greater than that of 4-2 vs same opposition 4 years earlier: seems odd prioritisation.
  •  Doing... True, but the emphasis on the loss was to exemplify Ramsey's poor substitutions. I agree, however, that the WC win could be expanded as well, but we need to bear in mind this is about the managers, not the team necessarily.. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hacked this. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The whole Revie section is taking one article as unchallengable fact: some of the more contentious assertions should have either additional backing or be re-written. In particular, the "kangaroo court" accusation could be considered libellous if any of the committee are still alive.
• It looks odd to begin the Robson section with such a specific reference. Maybe something like Robson's tenure included 28 qualifying matches, of which only one, against Denmark in 1983, resulted in a defeat. This contributed to England's failure to qualify for the 1984 European Championships,[48] and Robson offered his resignation, but it was rejected by the FA chairman, Bert Millichip, and Robson went on to lead the England team to qualify for ...
  • Done, rephrased a little... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't recall ever before hearing of a manager being said to "undertake" games.
  • Done, rephrased... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For every tournament prior to 1998, the stage at which England were eliminated is reported.
  • Done - 1998 stage added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "controversial belief that the disabled, and others, are being punished for sins in a former life." This is presented as a quote, but it has neither source nor reference.
  • Done... I've added the reference now, don't understand where it had gone... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Eriksson had a good record in European domestic football, with success in Portugal and Italy, and had led clubs to win the UEFA Cup on two occasions. A couple of commas to allow the reader to breathe.
  • Done... and breathe.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The tone of the Eriksson section shows little sympathy for his appointment. Hard to identify particular phrases, but there seems to be some sort of editorial bias here, and a paucity of credit.
• with eye-catching headlines of the past including ...: as opposed to headlines not yet published?
  • Done, remove the "of the past"...The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• An intriguing figure in this respect is Terry Venables. Intringingness(?) is an editor's perception.
  • Done The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantry welcomed - as are your good wishes! We'll get onto that lot. --Dweller (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4

• Rôle section includes funny character (forgive me I forget it's name at this moment in time), yet the fourth word is simply role, without any accent.

I have circumflexed my muscles and fixed this. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any reference for the first paragraph of this section? Though I concede it isn't all that controversial.

I discussed this with His 'Cratship, TRM. We were comfortable that the information's non controversial and referencing it would take a mass of citations that would interfere with readibility. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• front-page or front page?

the latter, ta. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the claim about Eriksson's appointment being criticised needs a reference.

I agree. Done. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps mention McLaren hiding under an umbrella, for which he was hugely criticised in the press.

Not sure about this... I think it's only the recency that makes this seem relevant. I doubt in 30 years time it'll be anything more than an oddity. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've made a couple of other minor changes, but really I can see very, very little wrong or missing. Fantastic job. Peanut4 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]