Have just read Roy Curtis's article in the sunday world today promoting Venables as a "visionary applicant" for the Irish job. He then goes about criticisng those in the media who have not jumped on the venables bandwagon as using "lazy lampooning and powder-puff parody" as the weapons of choice to refute venables as a valid candidate. (Gotta love all the alliteration used by Curtis, very tabloidesque). He makes several claims about venables but doesn't back any of them up - "man management, training ground smarts, tactical awareness,...,media skills"
He then sets up a straw man argument by claiming that one of the main drawbacks of venables according to his critics is the fact that he is too old for the job. Now, maybe I have missed out on this aspect of the venables discussion but I have not seen his age brought into the argument anywhere. Despite this, Curtis spends six paragraphs refuting an argument that only he has brought up. Quality journalism.
He continuously compares venables to Jewell, as if there are no other candidates in the running, from what I can see, it is easier to inflate venables record by comparing him to Jewell than other candidates like Hodgson or Houllier.
He brings up Euro 96, what one of the venables cheerleaders doesnt, but he doesn't disect that particular competition, I am not going to discuss it here as it has been discussed extensively elsewhere on this thread, in short, it has been debunked as a pretty average stint as manager.
He then proceeds to gloss over stints at Leeds and Portsmouth, the former were doomed anyway and nothing could save them, for the latter, "he was more interested in owning the club", thats the reason for a lack of success. Praise indeed! What, venables interested in money more than football, never!
In opening the article Curtis also states, "they are seeking to pass their blinkered guff as serious analysis" in reference to journalists that are against venables getting the job, last words for Roy, physician, heal thyself!
Bookmarks