After the best part of decade under the plodding, ponderous management of Gareth Southgate, a new era for England kicked off during the last international break.

And, while a lot of people seem to be impressed by Lee Carsley’s first 180 minutes in charge of the Three Lions, I am quite happy sitting up here keeping the fence warm.

Yes, there were glimpses of improvement in the two games, notably in the first half against Ireland and the second half against Finland, when the team went forward with more fluidity than it had during this summer’s tournament.

Equally, and this may seem like a strange observation, the players looked happier than they did towards the end of Southgate’s reign. That may be because of the new faces in the dugout or possibly because they are under less pressure, but there were more smiles on show last week.

But was all that cumulatively enough to suggest Carsley is going to be the manager to unleash England’s full attacking potential and guide them to a trophy? Based on those games, it’s almost impossible to know.

Let’s be fair, the quality of the opposition was not the highest. Without being disrespectful, neither team are exactly of a level that would make a manager afraid to go on the attack. Well, Southgate possibly, but not any other manager.

In an ideal world I would have liked to see Carsley pit his wits against a Holland, Germany, France or Spain

Personally, I would need to see “Carsball” – as Lee’s attacking brand of football has been labelled – implemented against bigger teams than those before I would be able to confirm he is the right man for the job.

The problem is that the six games Carsley has unofficially been given to stake his claim for the position on a permanent basis are home and away against Finland, Ireland and Greece; none of which will be a real test of his approach; and all of which he should win, most of them relatively comfortably.

And that means, ladies and gentlemen, the job is essentially his.

It doesn’t matter if any of us have doubts. It doesn’t matter that he won’t have been properly tested. The way the fixture cookie has crumbled, Carsley has essentially landed the role by default.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Maybe not. I still suspect he is the right man for the job. But in an ideal world I would have liked to see Carsley pit his wits against a Holland, Germany, France or Spain before a final decision is taken.

But then again, whenever does anything to do with the English national team go ideally...?

The Eiffel eyesore

I’m all for the Olympics leaving a legacy in the host city – it’s one of the key long-term benefits of spending billions organising the whole shebang. But that legacy should be about new stadia, improved transport and better facilities for the people of the city... not a lingering logo.

Which is why my mind is slightly boggling at the apparent plan in Paris to leave the giant Olympic rings symbol stuck to the side of the Eiffel Tower for years to come. This is a world landmark we are talking about here, not a branch of Lidl; a combination of architectural beauty and engineering excellence that has stood, largely unmodified, for over 135 years.

It was entirely appropriate that the five Olympic rings should be hung on its side during the games themselves and, as some have suggested, maybe even until the end of 2024 as a happy reminder of how well things went. But at that point they need to come down and get packed away. See if Los Angeles want to borrow them.

The descendants of Gustave Eiffel have, quite rightly, hit out at the plan, which is apparently the brainchild of Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo. The family said the Olympic symbol “creates a strong imbalance in the tower’s shape” while “substantially modifying the very pure forms of the monument”.

Well, that’s all a bit highbrow and arty for me. But I get the sentiment. Treating the Eiffel Tower like some giant billboard will not enhance the legacy of the Paris games.

Keeping the rings up there for years to come will just make it look like nobody could be bothered to take them down.

A thought for Reds to ponder

Here’s a suggestion I heard last week that may raise a few eyebrows, but could it be that, just maybe, Jürgen Klopp was holding Liverpool back rather than driving them forward?

Like most football fans, I found it impossible not to warm to the German. His energy, passion and enthusiasm, all backed up by an infectious smile, made him one of the most naturally likeable managers to ever tread the Premiership touchlines.

And he is worshipped like some sort of football god in Liverpool with many of their supporters treating his decision to step down like a death in the family.

He guided them to seven trophies during his time at Anfield, which is a very decent return, especially considering that haul include a desperately needed and long overdue league title.

But, and this is merely someone else’s working hypothesis so no need to get all angsty with me about it, would the club have won more and been more consistent with someone else in charge?

The chap who put forward this theory was talking after watching Arne Slot seamlessly take over the reins, and winning his first three games in charge without conceding a goal. And, in doing so, Klopp’s relentless brand of management and energy-sapping style of football has been replaced by an approach that is entirely more subtle.

Where Klopp was all arm waving and motivational, Slot is calmer and more thoughtful. Where Klopp was incredible at creating a siege mentality and making it seem like it was his team ‘against the world’, Slot appears to be going for the ‘this is us, this is how we play, come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough’ approach. Where the German was gung-ho and always aimed to outscore his opponents, the Dutchman is all about being tight at the back and efficient going forward.

This isn’t about undermining Klopp or his achievements, as I personally think he was probably the right manager at the right time for Liverpool. But this friend, a diehard Liverpool supporter by the way, has planted the seeds of doubt in my mind that, just possibly, those seven trophies might have been 10 or 12 with a different manager guiding the same players.

Chew over this wild thought and let me know if these are nothing more than the deranged rantings of a man who doesn’t have both oars in the water...

E-mail: James.calvert@timesofmalta.com

Twitter: @maltablade