This will sound especially bizarre after Portsmouth's humbling at the hands of Liverpool today, but Harry Redknapp was the right man for the England job. That's not to say that Fabio Capello won't do well, but Harry had everything that was needed. He's great at getting the best out of what he has, he's worked with several of the players before, and he likes his teams to attack.

Sven Goran Eriksson was by far the most successful manager that England have had in recent years. Critics complained that he had failed to win England a major tournament, but then who had? They're a side that haven't done fuckall since 1966, and the unfortunate Sky and Premiership hyperbole seems to have players and fans alike believe that the England squad is far better than it actually is.

What ultimately really got the fans on Sven's back, was that England didn't play exciting football. They played result-oriented football, to the best of their abilities, and when faced with the world's best, like Brazil, Portugal and France, they couldn't survive. They always managed to compete though, and were never massacred, but the players weren't upto the level of technique where Sven could trust them at.

This year, after City's rousing start to the season, the press asked Sven why England never played like that, and his simple and honest answer was that he never had a player like Elano as England manager. That's the basic truth to all this - the present England players are lacking heavily in technique and skill, and so they have to be organised in a way that compensates for this, and that requires a tremendous amount of humility, which the players simply don't have.

Capello is an angry man with a big personality, and he will make sure the players do what he says, and he won't mince his words. But if people thought that Sven's brand of football was uninspiring, they will be in for even worse with Capello. His only focus is winning, and he doesn't care about style or substance or anything as long as he gets 3 points.

He's also a stereotypical Italian tactician, and his lack of English is going to hamper his communication to his players. Additionally, he's never managed an international team, so it will be interesting to see how he does with England, since he only has the players together for a few days every month. My guess is that he'll strip the play down to the bare essentials, and the fans won't like it. Neither will the media, and that battle is one of the biggest for an England manager. If the media starts to get on your back, the wheels might just start falling off the wagon.

Now Capello is a strong enough character to deal with all of this, but he's going to have to conduct quite a reality check once he starts. In his first spell at AC Milan, he had Van Basten, Rijkaard, Maldini, Gullit and co. Then at Real, he had Raul, Morientes, Suker and Mijatovic. Back at Roma, he had Totti, Batistuta, Cassano, Tomassi and Emerson. At Juventus, he had Buffon Ibrahimovic, Vieira, Del Piero, Emerson, Camoranesi and Nedved. And then back at Real, he had Raul, Ronaldo, Beckham, Cassano, Robinho, Van Nistelrooy, Gago, Guti, and Casillas. That is an awesome array of talent to always have been supported by.

Who does he have with England? Well... Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard, and Joe Cole. Gerrard as well is probably just a little bit overrated, but that's essentially the issue. Rio Ferdinand can play a bit when he's not busy with orgies and booze, and Peter Crouch can be a jack-in-the-box, but essentially the England squad is full of very, very limited players, and has no goalkeeper (surely, only the most deluded of fans still believe that Paul Robinson is "world class?).

At his previous clubs he's always been able to request the players that he wanted, but international management doesn't have transfer feers unfortunately. Granted, that's more than OK if you're the manager of Brazil, or Italy or France, but not quite with England. The core group of England players might be as talented as some top sides, but in terms of depth, there's not much. So the key is getting the best out of the players that you have, and that is where Harry Redknapp is excellent.

OK, he is a bit of a wheeler-dealer on the transfer market, but those who've followed him for many years know that it's not what he relies on. Constant injury problems, lack of funds, and switching of clubs mid-season have shown that he organises the team according to the players he has, and can innovate very well. He's never won anything major, but he's shown he can beat the best, and play attacking football.

Also, across the various clubs he's been at, he's had Michael Carrick, Joe Cole, Jermain Defoe, Glen Johnson, David James, Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Rio Ferdinand, Anton Ferdinand, Frank Lampard and Sol Campbell playing for him. That's the core of the England squad right now, and he knows them in-and-out. Plus, he's been a Premiership manager for years, and knows the rest of the players quite well. This is as opposed to Capello, who admittedly says he doesn't know too much about the Premiership, and intends to do homework with watching loads of videos.

Having said all of this, Capello and Redknapp are in two completely different classes of manager. One could take the Italian comparison, and compare Capello to Lippi (two highly succesful, legendary club managers), and Redknapp to Donadoni (canny managers, who have managed small clubs, and not won anything, but know how to organise teams).

I'm in favour of Redknapp in this case, because he would have cost a fraction of what Capello did, and would not have put the pressure on England in such a big way. Now, they've gone for one of the biggest names available, on one of the biggest salaries available, and if they still fail, they one of football's proudest nations will end up as a laughing stock. It's a miracle they aren't already, because anyone who hired Steve McLaren should be.

Some fantastic matchups await fans in Austria and Vienna next summer, after the group stages for Euro 2008 were drawn in Switzerland today. The groups are as follows:

Group A: Switzerland, Czech Republic, Portugal, Turkey

Group B: Austria, Croatia, Germany, Poland

Group C: Netherlands, Italy, Romania, France

Group D: Greece, Sweden, Spain, Russia

That's some fantastic competition, and although all the groups are tough, Group C will easily be the Group of Death for the tournament.

Group A is interesting with hosts Switzerland joined by the more attack minded Czechs, Portugal and Turkey. The Swiss didn't concede at single goal at last year's World Cup, and their young side will have matured even more now. The Czechs unfortunately suffer from a reliance on the ageing Jan Koller that has been ingrained into their playing style over the years, and the creative burden falls almost entirely on the injury prone Tomas Rosicky. Portugal will be as strong as ever, with clubmates Cristiano Ronaldo and Nani providing attacking wizardry, Deco pulling the strings, and Carvalho, Ferreira, Meira and Miguel provide class and experience at the back. Unfortunately their strikeforce is still suspect - Nuno Gomes is over the hill, and Hugo Almeida is still unproven. As for Turkey, well they will be as unpredictable as ever. They did well at Euro 2000, then finished 3rd at the Korea-Japan 2002, and then failed to qualify for either Portugal 2004 or Germany 2006. Temperamental but gifted, they boast an array of German-based (and German-born!) talent in the Altintop brothers, Nuri Sahin, and Yildiray Basturk. Then there's Nihat (Villareal), Emre (Newcastle) and Tuncay Sanli (Middlesborough). The living legend Hakan Sukur is still soldiering on (37 years old, 112 caps, 51 goal), and Besiktas defender Gokhan Zan is one of Europe's brightest young stoppers. Russia-based striker Hasan Kabze might just have a surprise impact. The Swiss-Turkey match is likely to be bad-tempered and exciting - they fought during the Germany 2006 Qualifiers, after the Swiss knocked out the Turks.

My picks: Portugal and Turkey. Portugal have too much talent and experience. The Czechs no longer have enough quality. The Swiss lack goalscoring ability. The Turks have a huge collection of imaginative, dangerous attackers, and if they click they will cause problems.

Group B will have Germany joined by neighbours Austria and Poland, and nearby Croatia (well, Europe isn't all that big anyways). Austria are severely short of any real talent, and despite the home backing, they're likely to fall short. Croatia have become an excellent unit, with depth in every position. Luka Modric and Niko Kranjcar are fantastic midfielders, and Arsenal striker Eduardo should be settled, fit and in-form by the time the tournament starts. Germany are stalwarts as ever, with Joachim Loew continuing the good work he started en route to Germany 2006. They have a batch of new talents, many of them with question marks over their heads, and a lot will depend on the fitness of Michael Ballack and how quickly the goalkeeping situation is resolved - if Lehmann continues to be on the bench for Arsenal, and Hildebrand continues to start for Valencia, then the latter will be Number 1. Poland qualified very easily, but are an ageing side that lack any genuinely top-class players. However they work well as a unit, and Rasiak and Zurawski work well together up front. 'Keeper Boruc is underrated, and could be one of the best at Euro 2008. This group should see a lot of intense matchups because of the presence of the hosts, and the regional/political rivalries of some of the countries, and the Germany-Croatia encounter will be a fascinating tactical matchup.

My picks: Germany and Croatia. The Germans will cruise through, and Croatia will be too classy and clever for the rest. The Poles might ruffle a few feathers, but will not cause any real surprises. Austria will be happy to get a draw or two.

Group C is going to be the highlight of the early part of the tournament, and sees two pairs of qualifying opponents rematched. The Netherlands have a lot to prove after repeated failures at major tournaments since Euro 2000 was played on their home soil. They have superbly talented players, but too many egos, and poor temperament. Van Persie, Robben and Van Nistelrooy make up a deadly attacking trio, with Van der Vaart, Seedorf and the amazing Sneijder providing the ammunition. The Dutch have one of the most talented squads in the world, but doubts remain over their defensive ability. Italy are Italy, and will always be tough. There are no new names or faces, although Totti has retired from Internationals. Gilardino is in much better form for his club now, and should provide more of a presence. Toni is banging in the goals in Germany. Apart from Pirlo, Italia don't have much creativity, but that's never been their strong suit, and they will always grind out results and get important goals. Romania are a talented but fragile team. They beat the Netherlands in qualifying, and they have a magician in Steaua playmaker Dica. They can also call on Fiorentina attacker Adrian Mutu, and Inter's Cristian Chivu, one of the world's finest defenders. They have a squad full of good technicians, many of whom ply their trade across Europe's top leagues. Finally, France will want to continue their post-Zidane resurgence. They have their old collection of big names like Henry, Trezeguet, Vieira, Thuram and Makelele, but they will be looking to the younger Franck Ribery for creative inspiration now. Ribery's former colleague at Marseille, Samir Nasri, and the two other French-Arab youngsters Hatem Ben Arfa and Karm Benzema (both from Lyon) are capable of sublime attacking magic. Much will depend on Domenech's willingness to give the new faces a chance. In Gregory Coupet, Mickael Laundreau, Sebastien Frey and Ulrich Rame, they have a varied but error-prone set of 'keepers. Apart from the obvious France-Italy and Holland-Romania grudge matches, every game in this group will be fantastic. The Italy-Holland games will be a fantastic battle of wits, tactics and skill.

My picks: Netherlands and France. The Dutch kids will finally come good. France are formidable, and already beat Italy in qualifying. Romania are too inexperienced and fragile. Italy have gotten away with having easy groups in past tournaments (not to mention "friendly" referees), but they will struggle in this mix.

Group D is unlikely to throw up too many surprises. Reigning champions Greece are still coached by German tactical magician "King" Otto Rehhagel, but are unlikely to be able to repeat the surprises of the last tournament. They have an ageing squad, with a sparse amount of attacking talent, and an unproven collection of strikers. But you can never say never. Sweden have always had a tradition of achieving results with average, workmanlike squads with a few gifted players. Previously with Dahlin, Brolin, and Larsson, and now with Ljungberg and Ibrahimovic, they benefit from a solid coaching setup, and a great understanding in the squad of how to play and compete. John Elmander is a very talented young striker who could have an impact. Not much can be said about Spain that hasn't already been said. Traditional flops at the major tournaments, but always blessed with world class players, they will arrive at Euro 2008 with Fabregas, Torres, Alonso, Casillas, Ramos, Puyol and so many other brilliant players in every position. Russia just managed to sneak through after finishing poorly. Hiddink is a great tactician, but with a harmful ego. Kerzhakov is their main attacking threat, and young 'keeper Igor Akinfeev is one of the best in the world, but he might not be fit for the tournament. The Spain-Sweden game is another rematch from the qualifiers and will be the highlight.

My picks: Spain and Sweden. The Spanish will get through the group stage easily enough, whether they can have the impact they should on the rest of the tournament remains to be seen. Sweden might have a few problems, but they will be able to get results. Greece are clever and can take points off the bigger teams, but are one-dimensional. Russia will be lost in the mix. 

Stay tuned during the tournament of course, for all kinds of updates from OleOle - videos, podcasts, blogs, news and more. We might even have a few contests running beforehand for you, and don't forget about our Tickets & Travel section, which will have some great deals to let you watch some great games.

In a recent interview, Alex Ferguson said that it was his duty to produce English players, because nobody else was going to. Whether he intended it that way or not, the media interpreted it as a pop at Arsene Wenger and Arsenal, and probably a bit at Liverpool as well.

Of course, this all comes on the back of England's defeat to Croatia, and their generally bad football over the last year, and how all this is somehow the fault of foreign players coming in, and how clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool don't produce enough English players. Of course clubs like Manchester United and Chelsea are hailed for having "English souls" and whatever else, but that's really a lot of crap. It's easy for the two richest clubs in the country to go out and spend 10-20m on an English player and then claim that they have homegrown players. It's also nonsense.

So I thought i'd take a look at the two clubs named as the big "saviours" of English football, and see just exactly how many English international players they've "produced".

From the England squads, Manchester United have Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick, Gary Neville, Wes Brown, Owen Hargreaves, Rio Ferdinand and Ben Foster. Which is fine I suppose, it's nice to have 7 England internationals, and I guess Alex Ferguson can be proud of that. But when it's used as stick to beat other clubs and managers with, then it becomes very, very unfair, because how much did these players cost?

Well, Rooney cost £27 million, Carrick cost £18m, Hargreaves cost £17m, and Ferdinand cost £33m. Ben Foster was a £1 million buy from Stoke, and ONLY two players - Gary Neville and Wes Brown - are from United's "famed" youth setup. Well, that's a total cost of £96 million! It's easy to brag about your "English core" when you're filthy rich isn't it!

And Chelsea? Well they have Ashley Cole, Wayne Bridge, John Terry, Frank Lampard, Joe Cole and Shaun-Wright Pillips. Once again, errr... well done for having all these Englishman in the squad, but again, how many have Chelsea produced? Just one - John Terry. As for the rest? Ashley Cole cost about £17 million (£5m + William Gallas), Wayne Bridge cost £7m, Frank Lampard cost £11m, Joe Cole cost £7m and Shaun Wright-Phillips cost £21m. Total cost: £63 million.

Chelsea and Manchester United spend more on their beloved English players than most clubs (Arsenal included) do in 2 or 3 seasons on ALL their players. And how many can you say are worth it? Is Owen Hargreaves really worth £17m when Mathieu Flamini cost £1m? Is Rio Ferdinand really worth £33m when Kolo Toure cost £750,000? Is Wayne Bridge worth £7m when Patrice Evra was only £4.5m? And Michael Carrick £18m when the far superior Xabi Alonso was only £11m? There's a reason that clubs look abroad for players, and it's not because they dislike English players or want to harm English football, it's because the prices and hype that surrounded even a moderately talented English player are ludicrously high, and clubs other than Chelsea and Manchester United can't really throw the money around.

In any case, we've seen that between them, Chelsea and Manchester United presently have only three club-produced England internationals in their squads. So why don't we look at the recent England squads, and the number of players that have been club-produced by the "Big Four", and when they won their first caps:

Manchester United: Gary Neville (1995), David Beckham (1996), Phil Neville (1996), Wes Brown (1999)
Arsenal: Ashley Cole (March 2001), David Bentley (September 2007)
Liverpool: Steven Gerrard (2000), Michael Owen (1998)
Chelsea: John Terry (June 2003)

OK, so Manchester United have the most home-produced players of those 4, but the most recent cap of them all was Wes Brown in 1998, and he's not even that important. They're basically still living off the reputation of their much vaunted "Golden Generation", but the fact is that United have not produced a decent English player in years and years, and their present crop are decidedly ageing and average at the ages of 32, 31, 32 and 28.

And I'd like to follow that up by asking you which club from the "Big Four" has produced the most number of players to be capped in this decade? Well the answer to that, funnily enough, is Arsenal! Two is not a large number, but it's certainly more than Manchester United have given to English football in the last 7 years. And if you look at the recent England youth squads, you will find that it's Arsenal who are producing the most talented young English players, and in good numbers as well. Surely this can only be because of their foreign manager, and all the incredibly talented foreign players that are there in training and on the field?

Incidentally the two clubs that have contributed the most to recent English squads are Leeds and West Ham. Leeds - Aaron Lennon, Paul Robinson, Alan Smith, Scott Carson, and Jonathan Woodgate
West Ham - Rio Ferdinand, Joe Cole, Michael Carrick, Frank Lampard and Jermain Defoe (although the latter was schooled mostly at Charlton)

Thank you Croatia, for bringing down to earth the most over-hyped national team on the planet. Exemplified by the hype that Soccernet loves to throw out:

After years and years of being shunted around from position to position - a compromise between trying to help his beloved Aston Villa's threadbare squad, and trying to work out the best way to break into the England side - Gareth Barry seems to have finally found some stability and recognition. An essential figure in England's "renaissance" (well, with regards to the Euro 2008 qualifiers at least), Barry looks to have established himself as Steven Gerrard's partner in central midfield. He was excellent in their 3-0 win over Estonia today, but of course the true test will come in midweek, when they play Russia away on the infamous "plastic pitch". But over 3 games, it's been a case of so-far-so-good for the affable Villa man, and today he was picked ahead of Frank Lampard.

His case has been helped by a few factors of course - both Owen Hargreaves and Lampard have had injury problems, and Martin O'Neill's success with the Villa side has helped him boost his profile. But there's also the fact that the general public have finally noticed that Frank Lampard is overrated and fat. And that apart from running a whole lot, making square passes, and talking in a funny accent, Owen Hargreaves doesn't offer much else.

Barry on the other hand has a calming effect in midfield. He's disciplined, tidy, and has that oh-so-rare quality of being both English and left-footed. It's improved the balance of the midfield, and allowed Steven Gerrard to get forward and do what he does best - be brilliant. Of course I'm not suggesting that this has suddenly solved England's problems, but it has given them some clarity in the short-term. They need to focus on qualifying, and they have the system to do it now, especially because they aren't be facing any teams of real quality. Once they come up against Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, and so on, they will need to have a better philosophy in place than "Give the ball to Stevie".

Anyhow, back to Barry!

Now 26, he broke into the England squad at the age of 19. It was the Kevin Keegan era, and he played on the left of a back three. He was the much vaunted, left-footed, ball-playing centreback that England had apparently been crying out for so many years. At Villa he had broken through as a centre-half, and it was in that role that he had impressed Keegan, who decided to fit him into his system in a way that would allow some freedom and options to pass and distribute. His full debut came against France, and after the game the plaudits poured in - the new Stuart Pearce, Paolo Maldini, blah, blah, blah. The English media didn't disappoint, throwing up it's usual elixir of superlatives and hyperbole. Although in truth, Barry had played very impressively.

And that was more or less the end of that. Kevin Keegan's Three-At-The-Back turned out to be rubbish, and was on it's way, and then Kevin Keegan turned out to be rubbish, and he was on his way. In came the bog standard back four, and with Barry primarily being a centre-back, he found no way into the team ahead of Adams, Keown, Ferdinand, Woodgate and so on.

Valiantly, he began to play as a left-back for his club, both out of necessity and a wish to further himself with England, who had been crying out for a decent LEFT-FOOTED left-back for years, but instead had to make do with Phil Neville basically not really doing anything apart from running up and down, being ugly and giving away penalties. Unfortunately for Barry, this was around the time that Ashley Cole and Wayne Bridge both emerged, and that was really the end of his left-back story.

Fast forward a few more seasons, and our friend Gareth has now pushed on up into mid-field. Although struggling at first, he raises and adapts his game, and though he's not the quickest or most skillful player, he does a fantastic job of understanding what is needed in the wide positions, and does very efficient, very good work. Now if England had a paucity of decent-left backs, then they had (and still have) an absolute vacuum of left-sided midfielders. Under Sven Goran Eriksson's reign as manager, they used Paul Scholes, Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard, Owen Hargreaves, Wayne Rooney, Joe Cole, Trevor Sinclair, Danny Murphy, Darius Vassell, Phil Neville, and yes, EVEN Emile Heskey in that role. Apart from Joe Cole in flashes, and Wayne Rooney because of his obvious talents, none ever really looked any good, and so surely the left-footed Barry would get a look in. His crosses would be appreciated by the likes of Crouch, Heskey and Rooney. His natural left-footedness and width would have added balance to the midfield, and made things less congested in the centre, and his defensive nous would have allowed Ashley Cole to rampage forward like he did for Arsenal. But inexplicably, Barry never got a chance.

Ever the good pro, he never once complained. Not when he was left out as a centreback, not when he was left out as a left back, and not when he was left out as a left midfielder. He never complained when he was shunted around from position to position at Villa, and despite his talent and ability, he never once wavered in his commitment to them. And somehow throughout all of this, he managed to play well too. Sparkling in rare patches, he mostly drew attention with his shocking consistency. He almost never had a bad game, and almost always had a good game. He was not a matchwinner on most days that he played, but always pitched in with hardwork and his fair share of assists, and added goals to his game as well.

Finally, under Martin O'Neill last year, it seemed like Barry had given up on England. To add to this, he had started to play in the centre of midfield, sitting tidily in front of the back four, passing the ball around, and the arrival of Nigel Reo-Coker this past summer only served to cement this as his permanent position under O'Neill. Barry as ever didn't object, did his job, and did it well. And herein lies the great irony in all of this; if England were overloaded with centre-halves when Barry was making the breakthrough as a 19 year old, then they are now doubly overloaded with central midfielders - Hargreaves, Gerrard, Lampard, Parker, Carrick, Reo-Coker, Jenas, and so on. But somehow, despite being consistently overlooked by England when they needed him most, he has now made the breakthrough in a position where they need him the least. Well, "need" of course is open to interpetation.

It's sad that in 7 years he has only accumulated 13 caps for his country, when he should have had at least 30. But hopefully now we can finally say that he's arrived, and that people are taking notice of him and his ability. McLaren has been wearing a quite unsightly grin of late, to go with his amazing redness and thinning gingerness, and Barry has been a big part of that. Good luck Gareth!

Sorry for the slight lateness of this, but as everyone knows, Platini's administration chose Poland & Ukraine's joint bid over the other top candidates of Austria-Hungary (are they trying to resurrect the empire again?) and favourites Italy. I'll confess, i've posted late because I spent the entire day laughing at the dismay of the Italians, most of whom were soooooo confident that they were going to get it.

Why? Because they're Italy. Because of the riots and match-fixing and other problems that they thought would secure the sympathy vote having assumed that people would want to see them rewarded for their self-inflicted problems. And Because they're "world champions". Guess what? They already got their sympathy vote - it's called the World Cup. Everything now is just karma for Fabio Grosso's honesty.

And there's the small matter of politics - Italy did not support Platini's UEFA presidential campaign (maybe because he seems to be slightly on the extreme side), and perhaps they are paying the price for that now. Italy still have the same old football administration that they've had for 20 years, and nothing has shaken it - not the doping scandals, not the riots and violence, and certainly not the match-fixing/calciopoli scandals. Perhaps they thought that they were too old and powerful for the young man, and now they've been shown up. This might be the catalyst for the shake-up that Italian football has required for some years now, and Platini might have precipitated it, which is ironic considering he spent his best years under the power shelter of the Old Lady in Turin. I'm not Platini's biggest fan, but I think if he had been president prior to calciopoli, there was no way AC Milan would have been allowed into Europe this season.

As for the decision in general, I think it's great. Countries like Poland And Ukraine are all part of "Europe", but let's face it, nobody really considers them to be. They will always be "those Eastern Europeans" to the self-important Western Europeans and it's time that something was done to give them a presence. Poland, despite being part of the EU are yet to be really accepted, and the Ukraine are just one of many nations trying desperately to gain membership into the EU. The leftovers of strife and communism are still visible over there, but it is major events like these that can literally transform the fortunes of a country.

It will help both countries (moreso Ukraine) on a financial/economical level, and will also bring them to the world stage. This is important especially in the case of the Ukraine, where a wave of mini-Abramovich's has seen football clubs being bought up and millions spent on bringing talent in from around the world. The announcement that the Euro is coming will only spur on the football interest in these countries, and meanwhile they will be busy cleaning up and preparing for a festival of fun and football. Meanwhile Sepp Blatter and his little sidekick Michel Platini can chuckle to themsleves. Who knows... maybe "incentives" from the Russian/Ukrainian mob were involved? With Blatter you can just never say.