It didn't take long for the shortlist to be drawn up. Almost as quickly as Roy Hodgson announced his resignation as England manager, predictions were already being made on his successor.

The usual names were mentioned - Harry Redknapp, Sam Allardyce, Alan Pardew, and essentially every other Englishman to have ever coached in the Premier League - but one suggestion emerged as the alternative candidate.

For those tired of English football's tedious cycle, the notion of Jurgen Klinsmann as the next country's next manager appeals (indeed on Thursday he was priced as low as 4-1 with some bookies to succeed Hodgson). Fans and media alike have put forward the German's name as an option to replace Hodgson, with the USA coach himself reported to be "intrigued" by the job. American supporters, baffled by such links, might feel the same way. Some are openly imploring Klinsmann to take over in the hope that he might leave his current post, like a shady eBay seller passing off faulty goods as nearly new.

So what is it about Klinsmann that leads some to believe he is the one to fix English football? Consider that just weeks ago his position as USA head coach was under intense scrutiny, after the pressure had been building on the German over the course of the past two years. Why is a man considered by many as not good enough to lead the US national team so widely seen as a viable option as the next England manager?

Much of it is down to a misapprehension of what it is Klinsmann has achieved in his five years as the USA coach. It’s understandable that his tenure would be considered a success. With the German in charge the US have won the 2013 Gold Cup, made it to the World Cup last 16 in 2014 and reached the semi-finals of the Copa America this summer, rising as high as No13 in the Fifa world rankings. But the success or failure of a soccer manager cannot be taken as binary.

There is much more to be taken into account. Like the 2015 Gold Cup defeat to Jamaica. Or the failure to qualify for next year’s Confederations Cup, something Klinsmann himself labelled a “top priority”. Or the World Cup qualification loss to Guatemala, which nearly put the USA’s chances of making it to Russia in doubt. For every Klinsmann success there has been an abject failure somewhere along the line.

But the biggest mark against Klinsmann is that he has broken the promise that won him the job in the first place. He has failed to deliver the aggressive attacking play he was appointed to deliver. Five years after his hiring, the USA still plays conservative, counter-attacking football, with Klinsmann’s side still cut adrift on a technical level.

Technical development was the central pillar upon which Klinsmann was appointed. US Soccer looked at how his stint as Germany manager coincided with the overhaul of the country’s football infrastructure and upturn in national team fortunes, deciding Klinsmann was the man to achieve similar results in America.

And so Klinsmann’s duty to football in America is about more than his role as national team manager. He is also US Soccer’s technical director, charged with modernising the national game on and off the field. Never before has the faith of the US game been placed so staunchly in one man. So far that faith has been grossly misplaced.

Of course, there are some aspects of Klinsmann’s character that would make him a good England manager. The German oozes positivity, almost to the point of irritation. At times the USA have needed their manager to demonstrate a harder edge, but England need confidence right now and that’s something Klinsmann could conceivably deliver.

It’s true that Klinsmann’s USA side performed above expectations at the World Cup in Brazil two years ago, escaping from the so-called Group of Death to make the competition’s last 16 (where they were edged out in extra-time by Belgium) but they did so by sitting deep, absorbing pressure and striking on the counter attack. Did that really constitute the ideological change US Soccer called for upon the German’s hiring? Is English soccer so desperate it would accept such mediocre results regardless of the manner in which they’re delivered?

Some suggest that with the deeper talent pool in England Klinsmann would have a better chance of implementing the style of play and mindset he has failed to impose on the USA. But contrary to what England need right now, Klinsmann is not a tactician. Nor is he a uniting figurehead, with members of the US national team tales of player discontent going back to 2013. He’s not much of a philosopher either, despite his public persona as a new age thinker. As USA boss he has struggled to impose a style of his play on his team because he has no style of play.

If England are looking for a manager to implement a philosophical overhaul, raising the country’s national team up to the stylistic level of their counterparts, Klinsmann is not their man. If England need someone to make the best of what they have, Klinsmann is not their man. In almost every way, he is not their man.

Guardian services