he best not be in Nottingham he plays for Leicester.
ps I think Roy is the right man for the job.
Capello resigns - Hodgson appointed England boss
- Thread starter Joel`
- Start date
- Replies 521
- Views 36K
ps I think Roy is the right man for the job.
you aren't coz you are a *** scouser and full of hate for the master class that is Roy Hodgson. I think he'll be able to bring a style of football to England we haven't seen for years with all this daft foreigners in charge.
I don't think it really matters who we put in charge (as long as its not Pearce) we are a very very average bunch of players at the moment littered with over rated youngsters and ageing has beens sewn together with a few dependable but very limited steady Eddy's.
Is Hodgson a great manager? No of course not but he's half decent and a far better option than ******* Stuart Pearce. Who knows he might find a formula to get the best out of a pretty average bunch, make us difficult to beat and get us out of the group stages of the Euro's. That's about as good as we can hope for at the moment. Once where in the knockouts who knows what will happen, as Greece proved in 04.
Is Hodgson a great manager? No of course not but he's half decent and a far better option than ******* Stuart Pearce. Who knows he might find a formula to get the best out of a pretty average bunch, make us difficult to beat and get us out of the group stages of the Euro's. That's about as good as we can hope for at the moment. Once where in the knockouts who knows what will happen, as Greece proved in 04.
The FA wants England's manager to play the lead in training up new coaches and wants to also try to influence the clubs' academy setups by having those coaches go in and lead sessions. Which is potentially a great idea; but I don't want any coach trained by Hodgson anywhere near Liverpool's academy. Doubt many of the top clubs would. Football's moved on from Principles of Play.
Will take some time for Hodgson to drill the national team - that's his get out there, and it'll be true. What's also equally true is that top class players will quickly lose what very little belief they have in him when he begins to drill them in the way he's used to.
Mildly amused by the idea of him at England. He'll not be a total disaster if he's given time to drill the team. But he won't be, because England managers never get that level of contact. He's a safe option for the FA but I'm seeing people looking back to the days of Sven with nostalgia further down the line.
True story about Hodgson from his time at Liverpool: the scouts came back with their scouting reports for the next team we were due to play. They went through the details with Hodgson. Hodgson's response? "What am I supposed to do with this?". Once you've got the perfect system, why change it for anything? Drill, drill, drill.
Last edited:
The FA wants England's manager to play the lead in training up new coaches and wants to also try to influence the clubs' academy setups by having those coaches go in and lead sessions. Which is potentially a great idea; but I don't want any coach trained by Hodgson anywhere near Liverpool's academy. Doubt many of the top clubs would. Football's moved on from Principles of Play.
Will take some time for Hodgson to drill the national team - that's his get out there, and it'll be true. What's also equally true is that top class players will quickly lose what very little belief they have in him when he begins to drill them in the way he's used to.
Mildly amused by the idea of him at England. He'll not be a total disaster if he's given time to drill the team. But he won't be, because England managers never get that level of contact. He's a safe option for the FA but I'm seeing people looking back to the days of Sven with nostalgia further down the line.
True story about Hodgson from his time at Liverpool: the scouts came back with their scouting reports for the next team we were due to play. They went through the details with Hodgson. Hodgson's response? "What am I supposed to do with this?". Once you've got the perfect system, why change it for anything? Drill, drill, drill.
If that's the FA's view then it does make Roy Hodgson a strange one, as i hadnt realised that he would have such a wide ranging remit. That is somewhat unnerving. On the other hand, which coaches are there. Can we just give it to Hoddle (not entirely joking there). I would consider going very left field and giving it to Eastick. Although I'm at the point where any talk about England ends up with my head in my hands.
Just appoint him and get on with it, I hardly give a **** any more. The Euros are a write-off. Just stick any old manager in there and we're likely to do just about the same. Heck, take McLeish, he can't get anyone relegated in international football.
Hodgson's experienced and his football can be effective, if dull and dreary. Under 5% of WBA's passes this season have been long balls, though, so perhaps not as dull and dreary as everyone makes out.
EDIT: The straws, they're so clutchable.
Hodgson's experienced and his football can be effective, if dull and dreary. Under 5% of WBA's passes this season have been long balls, though, so perhaps not as dull and dreary as everyone makes out.
EDIT: The straws, they're so clutchable.
Think the ideal way to go would be to have their figurehead Englishman as the manager and go headhunt some of the top notch specialist youth coaches who are about and get them in at the Academy. The U17s England have right now are exceptionally promising. Four years down the line, it may be another story.
Not sure about Hoddle - think the FA will steer well clear of him, and perhaps advisedly so. Most of the top notch talent who've played under him don't rate him at all as a coach.
Think it's a farce of the FA's own making this time round. They set the key criterion for being appointed, and it's left them with Hobson's choice if they're not willing to pay the compensation to Spurs and split out the academy from the manager's remit.
I wouldn't say Hodgson is a long ball merchant but he certainly doesn't stray too far from the basics. At the end of the day he fits the FA criteria, Cheap, English, yes man, never causes trouble, International experience, multi lingual (although his English isn't the best) and no skeletons in the cupboard, unlike a Redknapp or Venables say.
What i dont understand is why give the manager such a wide ranging role, if we don't actually have any viable candidates? Also. every man and his dog knew it would cost to prise Redknapp from Spurs, so why chase him if they werent willing. Its a farce alright, it would be hilarious if it wasnt so **** depressing at the same time
The Euros are going to be a laugh, mainly because my expectations are so low i'd be happy with 4 points. **** I'd consider it a small victory if we were to pick Carrick.
Why the **** are English fans always so ****** negative, no matter what happens the fans never give anyone a chance before they have even done anything. Roy Hodgson may not be the best choice, but he is one of the best English managers and he will show more passion than Capello ever did, that can only be a good thing. Hopefully it can rub off onto the players and we can be strong at the back (not give away goals like we did against Germany in the World Cup) and have some freedom upfront, not sure about attacking wise under Hodgson but I think he is a very capable English Manager. Give the guy a ****** chance before you start judging, especially to you Liverpool fans. Kenny has not done anything better worth to shout about and he has spent 100m.
I'd consider it a small victory when Johnson doesn't get picked (attacking fullbacks comfortable on the ball? what are they for?) and Gerrard retires with no lingering regrets
No idea about why they've pushed on with things structured as they are. Though Hodgson does tick the boxes as the man for the job - UEFA technical committees, a true coaching manager etc. I guess we'll see whether his methods translate (*ahem*).
----
Agree with the point about him not being a long ball merchant. He isn't.
There are some similarities to long ball, though long ball takes things to an extreme. For Hodgson's school of coaching, there is no conception of holding possession, controlling tempo - the aim is to score every time, and if you can't score, passing backwards is failure, to the side is going nowhere, only ever forward, push, push, push to victory. Defensively there's more focus on players returning to their positions and maintaining a shape than on pressing. It's what most people imagine when they say a 'typically English style'.
There's strengths to the approach - it works well with teams who are not expected to carry the play. There are also weaknesses because trying to be so direct against possession orientated teams and then not pressing means you'll rarely get the ****** ball back!
And saying 'oh but you're a Liverpool fan' isn't really a rebuttal of my views of Hodgson. They were the same when he was taken Fulham into the latter stages of the UEFA cup, they were the same when the whispers started that he was being approached by Purslow to manage us (to my absolute dismay), and remained very much the same during his time with us and subsequently as he's managed West Brom. Got to know the snide side of him while he was at Liverpool rather than the 'ever so 'umble' persona which is often portrayed, but the question is his credentials. And I think Sven did it better.
Last edited:
He has also been in two UEFA Cup finals! He's tasted success, all right.
All jokes aside, though, it doesn't really matter who we appoint, it's obvious that the FA consider us the international equivalent to a lower mid-table side with no pressure to perform and few [if any] actual stars.
I don't think there's any actual correlation between increased passion and better defensive or attacking performance sadly.
A lot of the papers today stating its like when the FA went against the fans choice and chose others over Clough. Erm im sorry, i forgot Harry Redknapp had won 2 European Cups and 5 League titles. This country for a long time has had to put up with poor and lazy journalism and its getting worse and worse. In terms of experience i.e International experience and i would even say popularity then Hodgson wins this battle with Redknapp hands down.
S
Sam
Guest
Roy Hodgson will do a good job, cos he's know for making average players perform well.
My favourite thing about this is the fact that Redknapp has been talking about getting himself the job for months, and now he's not. It's funny because a) He's a prunefaced **** and b) Tottenhams results have suffered for nothing
I love this entire situation. Roy Hodgson also pwns btw, people who are bummed need to remember him pre-liverpool and post-liverpool. One 5 month period means nothing.
I love this entire situation. Roy Hodgson also pwns btw, people who are bummed need to remember him pre-liverpool and post-liverpool. One 5 month period means nothing.
Jack Fulham
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The FA wants England's manager to play the lead in training up new coaches and wants to also try to influence the clubs' academy setups by having those coaches go in and lead sessions. Which is potentially a great idea; but I don't want any coach trained by Hodgson anywhere near Liverpool's academy. Doubt many of the top clubs would. Football's moved on from Principles of Play.
Will take some time for Hodgson to drill the national team - that's his get out there, and it'll be true. What's also equally true is that top class players will quickly lose what very little belief they have in him when he begins to drill them in the way he's used to.
Mildly amused by the idea of him at England. He'll not be a total disaster if he's given time to drill the team. But he won't be, because England managers never get that level of contact. He's a safe option for the FA but I'm seeing people looking back to the days of Sven with nostalgia further down the line.
True story about Hodgson from his time at Liverpool: the scouts came back with their scouting reports for the next team we were due to play. They went through the details with Hodgson. Hodgson's response? "What am I supposed to do with this?". Once you've got the perfect system, why change it for anything? Drill, drill, drill.
Hodgson completely remodelled Swiss football in the 90's after 30 years of not qualifying for anything and it's worked out very well for them although they just missed out on qualification for 2012. I'm not sure how much control he'd get over the way youth's play but I know at Fulham, we restructured our academy whilst Hodgson was in charge and he appointed Malcolm Elias and Huw Jennings. Since that appointment, we've won the Under 18 League two seasons in a row and our under 14 side beat Barcelona under 14 in a tournament.
Roy hasn't won anything major but what English manager has? He's done international football before so he's got tournament experience. I think we should give him a chance before we start to lambast him. I'm not expecting any real success because I wouldn't expect anything from a manager given so little time before a tournament to be successful.
Jack Fulham
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Roy Hodgson's the boy - but papers are already putting the boot in
"A good man is just about to take on the Impossible Job." That was the conclusion of the Daily Telegraph's Henry Winter in writing about the Football Association's decision to offer the England football manager's job to Roy Hodgson.
The reason was made abundantly clear in the coverage in other national papers this morning. As Winter noted, they were declaring Hodgson "a failure before he's even been appointed."
A couple of editors registered their surprise - and implied criticism - in front page headlines: "Hod choice for England" (Daily Mirror); "What are the Hods on that?" (The Sun) and "Forget 'Arry, it's Roy in the frame for England" (Daily Star).
In the sports pages, the boot really went in. Reminding readers of Hodgson's brief and unhappy stewardship of Liverpool, the Daily Mail's main headline said: "Kop flop Roy is FA's choice."
The Mirror was critical too: "Oh why, oh why, oh Woy?" This reflected the widespread bafflement that the media's favourite, Harry Redknapp, had been overlooked.
The general view from almost every football commentator was that Hodgson was nothing more than a safe and uninspiring choice.
They included The Sun's Steven Howard, "After Fab... the drab", the Mail's Martin Samuel "Is this a job for Mr Average?" and the Daily Express's John Dillon, "Little joy in a chase for Roy Hodgson".
Brian Woolnough in the Daily Star predicted that the FA would suffer a backlash from fans. "He is a safe pair of hands rather than the 'character' England needed," he wrote.
The word "safe" can be found in almost every reaction. Daniel Taylor in The Guardian thought him "a safe option, a mid-table manager whose best work in England has been done at two relatively small clubs in Fulham and West Bromwich Albion."
In The Independent, Musa Okwonga thought Hodgson's appointment has infuriated people "because it shows us what we really are: we are outsiders, peering up at football's elite." So a pragmatic choice makes sense.
Tony Evans, The Times's football editor, was wholly unimpressed by the appointment of a man "whose bathroom cabinet is bigger than his trophy cabinet."
It was "a retrograde step," he wrote and then had the gall to add: "It is unfair to pillory Hodgson."
In what is clearly a self-fulfilling prophesy he concluded that Hodgson "will become the focus of public criticism very quickly."
Amid the negativity, it was a pleasure to read the piece by Oliver Holt in the Mirror, "Don't destroy Roy: why Hodgson deserves better than to be written off before he's even got the England job".
He accepted that Hodgson, unlike Redknapp, he lacks the common touch, nor does he have the charisma of Martin O'Neill.
But, wrote Holt, "he is tactically astute, he is a clever coach and... he is well-respected throughout the game...
"What he will need to overcome is the inverted snobbery that will be aimed at him by some because he's a cerebral manager."
I found myself nodding at that. As a long-standing West Ham fan, I recall the same reaction to the appointment of Ron Greenwood in 1977. Too cerebral, it was said.
But his record as England manager was far from disastrous: we qualified for the 1982 World Cup - for the first time in 12 years - and though we were eliminated in the second round, we were unbeaten throughout the tournament.
Will cerebral Roy do as well as cerebral Ron? I think he might do better.
Roy Hodgson's the boy - but papers are already putting the boot in | Media | guardian.co.uk
"A good man is just about to take on the Impossible Job." That was the conclusion of the Daily Telegraph's Henry Winter in writing about the Football Association's decision to offer the England football manager's job to Roy Hodgson.
The reason was made abundantly clear in the coverage in other national papers this morning. As Winter noted, they were declaring Hodgson "a failure before he's even been appointed."
A couple of editors registered their surprise - and implied criticism - in front page headlines: "Hod choice for England" (Daily Mirror); "What are the Hods on that?" (The Sun) and "Forget 'Arry, it's Roy in the frame for England" (Daily Star).
In the sports pages, the boot really went in. Reminding readers of Hodgson's brief and unhappy stewardship of Liverpool, the Daily Mail's main headline said: "Kop flop Roy is FA's choice."
The Mirror was critical too: "Oh why, oh why, oh Woy?" This reflected the widespread bafflement that the media's favourite, Harry Redknapp, had been overlooked.
The general view from almost every football commentator was that Hodgson was nothing more than a safe and uninspiring choice.
They included The Sun's Steven Howard, "After Fab... the drab", the Mail's Martin Samuel "Is this a job for Mr Average?" and the Daily Express's John Dillon, "Little joy in a chase for Roy Hodgson".
Brian Woolnough in the Daily Star predicted that the FA would suffer a backlash from fans. "He is a safe pair of hands rather than the 'character' England needed," he wrote.
The word "safe" can be found in almost every reaction. Daniel Taylor in The Guardian thought him "a safe option, a mid-table manager whose best work in England has been done at two relatively small clubs in Fulham and West Bromwich Albion."
In The Independent, Musa Okwonga thought Hodgson's appointment has infuriated people "because it shows us what we really are: we are outsiders, peering up at football's elite." So a pragmatic choice makes sense.
Tony Evans, The Times's football editor, was wholly unimpressed by the appointment of a man "whose bathroom cabinet is bigger than his trophy cabinet."
It was "a retrograde step," he wrote and then had the gall to add: "It is unfair to pillory Hodgson."
In what is clearly a self-fulfilling prophesy he concluded that Hodgson "will become the focus of public criticism very quickly."
Amid the negativity, it was a pleasure to read the piece by Oliver Holt in the Mirror, "Don't destroy Roy: why Hodgson deserves better than to be written off before he's even got the England job".
He accepted that Hodgson, unlike Redknapp, he lacks the common touch, nor does he have the charisma of Martin O'Neill.
But, wrote Holt, "he is tactically astute, he is a clever coach and... he is well-respected throughout the game...
"What he will need to overcome is the inverted snobbery that will be aimed at him by some because he's a cerebral manager."
I found myself nodding at that. As a long-standing West Ham fan, I recall the same reaction to the appointment of Ron Greenwood in 1977. Too cerebral, it was said.
But his record as England manager was far from disastrous: we qualified for the 1982 World Cup - for the first time in 12 years - and though we were eliminated in the second round, we were unbeaten throughout the tournament.
Will cerebral Roy do as well as cerebral Ron? I think he might do better.
Roy Hodgson's the boy - but papers are already putting the boot in | Media | guardian.co.uk
What a surprise. Papers focusing on his Liverpool stint, which is harsh as **** as the players wouldn't play for him at times. The papers are never happy. They just like, as usual, to focus on negatives. Wish to god they'd actually leave the guy alone. They obviously forgot the tremondous work he's done at Fulham, and how he's steadied the ship at The Hawthorns. I'll be supporting Roy if he gets the job as an England fan and shall do nothing but ignore all this ****** negative publicity, that the press thrives on putting out there. He has to be given a chance, not be given the boot before a ball has even been kicked.
Gettin to the point now where I think why even bother to appoint a manager. The press criticise straight away before a balls even been kicked, some fans thrive on pointing out past failures (why may not have even been a managers fault) and completely forget successes, no-one's happy.....what's the frickin point?
Gettin to the point now where I think why even bother to appoint a manager. The press criticise straight away before a balls even been kicked, some fans thrive on pointing out past failures (why may not have even been a managers fault) and completely forget successes, no-one's happy.....what's the frickin point?
Last edited: