You can never be certain that a new boss is the right one for a particular job – that he or she will gel with the players and fans and powerbrokers, that he or she is the right fit for the role. 

The Football Association is guessing that Phil Neville will be an inspired choice to take charge of the England women’s national team rather than a mistake they live to regret. 

Critics of the decision to bring in Neville are guessing when they claim he will fail in the job because he has never been a manager and never worked in women’s football. 

Nobody knows for sure how a new boss will work out. Remember the scepticism when Arsenal stunned the game by appointing a little-known French coach back in 1996? ‘Arsene Who?’ was the damning headline of the day.

Remember when Sam Allardyce was chosen as England men’s team manager to general acclaim in 2016, and lasted but one match? There is always risk and it is a risk that works both ways. 

Accepting the role of England women’s team boss is a gamble for Phil Neville, too. 

The salary is far less than he could have earned as an assistant manager at a club like West Ham, where he could have gone with mentor David Moyes. 

It is a gamble for Neville because his appointment was certain to be seen as contentious, never mind the immediate controversy about a few ill-advised historic twitter postings where attempts at humour were embarrassing. 

It is a gamble for him because he is an outsider to women’s football. It is a gamble for him because, given, his desire to become a manager in the Premier League in the future, there are other more conventional ways to prove his worth. 

For example, the manager’s job at League One club Oxford United is currently vacant, with another former England star Frank Lampard among the names being mentioned as contenders. 

That is the traditional way for a football boss to start his career, with a lower division club, a route taken by so many through the years from Brian Clough to Graham Taylor, from Allardyce to Wenger and Antonio Conte. 

Football has changed, though. The encouraging and long overdue rise in profile of the women’s game means that the England head coach position is an attractive role – and another possibility for football people of talent and ambition. 

It is vacant because the previous incumbent Mark Sampson was sacked in a case that sharply divided opinion within the women’s game. 

Isn’t there a strong argument, in these circumstances, that this is a good time for an outsider to take charge of England rather than someone steeped inside the system? 

Yes, that could have been a foreign women’s coach, as some observers suggested. But the appointment of a serious figure from English football during the past two decades, a player who as part of the golden generation at Manchester United, makes at least equal sense. 

Wales have just done the same in selecting Ryan Giggs as their men’s national team boss, even though he has limited experience. 

They did same with Mark Hughes to good effect nearly two decades ago. These gambles can work. 

How good is Phil Neville? Well, he would not have been offered an assistant’s job at West Ham by their new boss David Moyes if he wasn’t fiercely good at the job. 

Moyes knows the management side of football better than almost anyone; its ups and downs, its delights and pitfalls. 

He understands the requirements and this is a powerful recommendation in my book. 

Can Neville sustain and improve the fortunes of the England women’s team? Only time will tell – but he has a thick skin to deal with the flak, he has an intense desire to succeed and he has been prepared to take a mighty risk jumping into this job. 

It seems to me that they are significant credentials to set alongside all the football knowledge imbibed during a hugely successful playing career for club and country.