Very rarely have I seen British newspapers across the political spectrum so united but I suspect the unity in tearing Sven apart at best has more to do with the need to blame someone for our painful defeat and at worst borne out of the fact that Sven’s nationality does not start with “E” than an actual fair judgement.

No doubt 3 exits at the quarter final stage in 3 major tournaments are not good enough for England and someone who says that “all that matters is that we won” cant now be hiding behind the fact that we were the better team and deserved to go through. This is not an attempt to say that Sven was an unqualified success but an attempt to bring some perspective and balanced views amidst all the vitriol attacks.

It has always been my believe that there are few ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ decisions in football management (although Souness did master the art of getting wrong decisions), as management is all about opinions. The criterion therefore is whether you can see the reasoning behind Sven’s decisions. The question everyone should ask is “Could he possibly be right?” and not “Was he right?” Decisions also have to be evaluated given the circumstances at the time of making it.

Lets start with the obvious, the decision to bring Walcott and not a 4th striker. This to me was probably the most valid of all the criticisms (though it can still be justified). However the validity has been undermined and diluted by baseless speculations involving David Dein and I’ve yet to hear how it is in Arsenal’s interest to get Walcott to go to the World Cup as jacking up his price was surely not part of their agenda.

For me it was clear that Sven did not rate Defoe and I personally don’t think that is necessarily wrong. Defoe has not played regularly for Spurs and didn’t really impress when he did. Owen didn’t play regularly either but did fabulously when he did play for us and has proven himself for England in the past (as recent as the Argentina ‘friendly’), so the two cases are different. If I blame Sven, it would be for not taking Bent not Defoe.

As for Walcott, Sven wanted to use him as a super sub and I honestly believe that he would have used him if we were loosing a game. In fact if Rooney wasn’t sent off yesterday, we might have seen Walcott at some stage. Given his pace and especially against tiring defenders in the last 15 minutes, this could be seen as a ‘right’ decision. True he never played in the premiership, but given Wenger’s eye for talent which surely nobody doubts (Henry, Viera, Pires, Fabregas..etc), Walcott is probably a special player, not in Rooney’s mould but special anyway. Was it worth the gamble of not bringing a 4th striker, possibly yes especially as we are not really loaded with top notch strikers and given that in case of injuries, Sven did want to play the 4-5-1 anyway which brings me to the next point.

The whole 4-4-2 V 4-5-1 debate has to me been the epitome of hypocrisy. I still remember during Euro 2004, when Sven stuck to 4-4-2, all the pundits including Lawro was barking that Sven has no plan ‘B’ and only sticks with the typical 4-4-2.

Apparently there was no point in appointing him if he was only going to use the 4-4-2 which any English manager would have done anyway. And now when he comes out with something different (admittedly forced upon him because of Owen’s injury), apparently he is not playing to England’s strengths which is the 4-4-2. Anyone who reads the forum will know that I don’t often agree with NE5/Leazes but I feel it is apt for me in this instance to borrow his famous phrase “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t”.

The same people who were complaining that Crouch should be dropped because he encouraged the team to play long balls were yesterday screaming that Crouch should have started the game. They are also the same people who were ridiculing Crouch’s earlier misses especially that amazing “bicycle kick”. Its clear that Sven’s preferred formation was the 4-4-2 with Rooney behind Owen and he had every reason to believe it would have worked.

However in lieu of Owen’s injury, I don’t see anything wrong with changing to the 4-5-1 especially as on paper we have two really good attacking midfielders and we probably needed a defensive midfielder in the knockouts anyway to deal with the likes of Riquelme, Ballack, Zidane, Deco….etc. The only way to play a 4-4-2 with a defensive midfielder is the diamond and that has failed spectacularly in the past. So in light of all that the 4-5-1 seems reasonable especially as we don’t really have a good third striker and even with Bent, I can see why Sven could be ‘right’ in thinking that the 4-5-1 was still the best option because of the need for the defensive midfielder.

Next Lampard, no doubt one of the worst performers for England. But here we have a player who has been absolutely magnificent for Chelsea, a player who outscored most of the strikers in the other clubs. A player who Mourinho has nothing but praises for (and its not true that Mourinho only praises his players, take his threat to drop Joe Cole for instance).

True he was never the world’s second best player, but for Chelsea he was awesome and was quite good in Euro 2004 (in fact he was better than Gerrard then) and in fact was our top scorer in the qualifiers more than Owen and Rooney combined!. I refuse to believe that such a player can loose his ability over a fortnight, It was just a matter of confidence just like when Shearer hit that goal drought leading to Euro 96.

Once the first goal went in, the rest came naturally, I believed the same would have been for Lampard and don’t think Sven is necessarily wrong to think he would have come good. Also worth noting that we don’t have a good attacking midfielder (which we need, to play the 4-5-1) to replace him. Putting Carrick along with Hargreaves and Gerrard would have made us too defensive.

Lastly, Beckham, who many see as the symbol of Sven’s inadequacies. Sven’s style of management has always been on the basis of good relationship with the players and it was always important for him to have a constant captain and not change and chop at the first sign on ineffectiveness. Very few managers I think change their captains in the middle of their reign anyway unless the captain retires off course.

True Lennon did look the better player when he came on and as much as the press would like you to believe it, I don’t think Beckham was ‘undroppable’. Sven explicitly said this which was a warning to Beckham and I believed that even if Beckham did not get injured, Lennon would have been introduced against Portugal anyway.

Beckham possibly substituted or at best changed to right back which worked very well against T&T. Maybe Beckham should have been stripped of his captaincy after Euros 2004, but anyone who says that we should change captain smack in the middle of the tournament is just being idiotic (and there were quite a few). No manager worth his salt would do that less he wants instability in the players’ camp.

For all the above, Sven also took some decisions that deserve credit though the English press won’t tell you about them. A lesser manager, certainly McClaren would have folded under Fergie’s pressure on Rooney. Sven stood strong in his believe that Rooney will be fit for the World Cup and was proven right. It takes a brave and strong men to challenge Fergie.

Next Owen Hargreaves who was shamelessly ridiculed by English fans when he came on. All the ‘experts’ including Richard Jolly from Soccernet was questioning his selection and used it as a bullet to further attack Sven. But after yesterday’s game, it has now to be quite unanimous that he deserves not only to be in the squad but also be given a fair crack in the first 11. Sven again made the right call.

So there you go, have a go at this article in the forum all you want, and I can see many areas where it can be debated, but ask yourself, “In making those decisions, was there a logic behind them (even if you disagree with it)?”. Ultimately Sven was not brilliant but equally he is not a useless manager as some would like you to believe. He was ok. If McClaren can better him, then we would have done well.