Capello resigns - Hodgson appointed England boss

[Kieran David Brookes]

I think the FA are ridiculous the only reason they went for Roy hodgson is because they didn't have to pay west brom compensation because he was out of contract, Harry rednapp was the man we needed and now because the FA don't want to spend a couple of million on compensation we will never find out how good Harry would be as England manager.
out of all the club Roy has managed Liverpool is the team that normally play in the same way as England and it the one club Roy FAILED at... I'm hoping Roy will prove me wrong but I don't have big expectation for England in the euros

 

[Aannddyy]

I think the FA are ridiculous the only reason they went for Roy hodgson is because they didn't have to pay west brom compensation because he was out of contract, Harry rednapp was the man we needed and now because the FA don't want to spend a couple of million on compensation we will never find out how good Harry would be as England manager.
out of all the club Roy has managed Liverpool is the team that normally play in the same way as England and it the one club Roy FAILED at... I'm hoping Roy will prove me wrong but I don't have big expectation for England in the euros

I don't think that's the case.. They paid Capello £125k per week.. They could have afforded Redknapp. There is probably another reason for why he didn't get the job, but I doubt we'll ever know what it actually is!

 

[Kieran David Brookes]

I don't think that's the case.. They paid Capello £125k per week.. They could have afforded Redknapp. There is probably another reason for why he didn't get the job, but I doubt we'll ever know what it actually is!

The FA said that Roy was a better match for the job and because he is out of contract he's cheaper I heard that on radio two the other day and I cannot think any other reason how they could say that Roy was better for the job then Harry can anyone else?

 

[Mike.]

I think the FA are ridiculous the only reason they went for Roy hodgson is because they didn't have to pay west brom compensation because he was out of contract, Harry rednapp was the man we needed and now because the FA don't want to spend a couple of million on compensation we will never find out how good Harry would be as England manager.
out of all the club Roy has managed Liverpool is the team that normally play in the same way as England and it the one club Roy FAILED at... I'm hoping Roy will prove me wrong but I don't have big expectation for England in the euros

Wooo, England dont play similar football to Liverpool. Pearce only had one game, but if you were to look at Capello, his 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 hybrid and use of Rooney/wide players was closer to Manchester United.

In fact you cant equate Hodgson at Liverpool to Hodgson at England.

And why is Redknapp the man we needed?

 

[Mike.]

Joel posted the link, but im gonna put the whole article up, excellent analysis

England appoint Roy Hodgson

May 1, 2012

Hodgson winning the 2010 LMA Manager of the Year award

​

If the decision was between Harry Redknapp and Roy Hodgson, England were choosing between two very different coaches.
The debate should not have been about ‘experience at big clubs’ or ‘how much the players like him’, but about the style of coach required: in Redknapp and Hodgson, the FA were choosing between two men at complete opposite ends of the football coach’s ideological spectrum, the most stark contrast of managerial philosophies you can find.

Redknapp
Redknapp is all about individuals. He denies he’s a ‘wheeler-dealer’, and to imply that he is only a transfer specialist would be unfair; he clearly gets on with people (summed up by his relationships with both players and journalists) and is regarded as a good man-manager and motivator. Whether it is bringing them in or firing them up, Redknapp’s skill is that he gets the best from individuals.
His tactical ineptitude can be overstated – Redknapp is generally very good at making substitutions midway through a game, as he showed, for example, with a fantastic turnaround at Arsenal eighteen months ago – followed by a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation about why he made the changes.
Yet Redknapp’s sides retain a certain anarchy, epitomised by Tottenham’s win away at Norwich late last year, when Redknapp told Gareth Bale and Rafael van der Vaart they could “play where they wanted to”. In that game it worked, as Bale scored two fine goals in a man-of-the-match performance. “He gets in those holes, and when he gets the ball and runs at you, he’s unplayable,” Redknapp marvelled. Yet in recent weeks, Bale’s desire to roam has been indulged at the expense of shape and structure, and Tottenham have been in terrible form.
Van der Vaart is another who has enjoyed that freedom at Tottenham. “There are no long and boring speeches about tactics, like I was used to at Real Madrid,” he says. “There is a board in our dressing room but Harry doesn’t write anything on it. It’s not that we do nothing – but it’s close to that.”
How much does Redknapp value the system? He’s perfectly honest about it. “Whether it’s 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 – the numbers game is no the beautiful game in my opinion,” Redknapp once said. “It is 10% about the formation and 90% about the players.”

Hodgson
Hodgson is the complete opposite, the ultimate ‘system’ manager. His teams are very simple – they defend the same way, with two banks of four supplemented with two outright attackers – either two forwards or a lone striker supported by a number ten. Whereas Redknapp employs an army of coaches to do his work on the training ground, Hodgson personally drills his players relentlessly in training so they’re completely at home with the zonal defensive system, going through the same exercises again and again.
“We work on it every day,” Simon Davies, who played under Hodgson at Fulham, told Jonathan Wilson. “Every day in training is geared towards team shape on the match-day coming up. I’ve been working with the manager three years now and every day is team shape, and it shows… I don’t want to give any secrets away, but he gets the 11 that he wants on a match-day and he drills everything in that he wants. It’s certain drills defensive, certain drills attacking, and we work very hard at it. There are no diagrams. It’s all on the pitch with the ball, nothing unopposed.”
Whereas Redknapp doesn’t care for formations, Hodgson is a member of UEFA’s technical study group and will tell you about 4-4-2 all day long:

“The back four gives you the best possibilities of covering the width of the pitch defensively, and it also gives you great options, in my opinion, to get the the full-backs forward…one can go forward and the other three can shuttle across and you’re still playing with three defenders. When you play with three defenders, you lose that possibility.
The other six players? One could discuss. There’s no doubt you need one forward…you need a point of reference…if you play with two of them, you have the added advantage that whoever receives the ball has someone in close support at all times, and if balls are going to be played forward, you’ve got someone to threat the back of the defence. If you take him (the second striker) out, the threat to the back of the defence has to come from the midfield, you need midfield players bursting forward. It’s interesting to play with two – though these days many teams are playing with them vertically, rather than alongside each other.
The central midfielders do an important job for you, they’re going to protect the back four, and they’re also going to be the catalysts for attacks. The wide players are the ones you’re looking for to use spaces.
With 4-4-2, you’ve got ‘twos’ all over the field. I would always be looking to find a team that can play with a back four. Amongst the front six there a lot more options.”
​

Decision
So which type of coach is needed? England are in a state of complete confusion. Going into a major tournament having appointed your coach a month beforehand is embarrassing enough. Then there is the problem that Wayne Rooney, the star attacking player, is suspended from the first two games. Jack Wilshere, assumed to be one of England’s key midfielders a year ago, will miss out through injury. A generation of very good individuals (though never remotely a cohesive unit) are now past their peak, while the next crop are not established enough to base a successful team around.
This complete failure to have any long-term project in place deserves first round elimination – an outcome that would have been regarded as ‘best for England in the long-run’, had they not consistently failed to learn lessons from previous failures.

Templates
All this should make even the most ardent England supporter realise that the team is currently a rank outsider. And the only way outsiders have overachieved in recent major international tournaments is by being defensive and functional. Uruguay won the 2011 Copa Americain this fashion, and Zambia triumphed at this year’s Africa Cup of Nations with the lowest pass completion rate in the tournament, something also achieved by Greece in Euro 2004. Uruguay (again) and Ghana were the surprise performers at the 2010 World Cup, both being inherently reactive, defensive sides. It’s difficult to name a recent underdog that has overachieved by playing attractive football.
Only the best sides can contest international tournaments in an open, attractive style and succeed. For the Euros, this is probably limited to Spain, Germany and Holland. (Even they are more cautious than one might expect – this is a Spain side that won the World Cup scoring eight goals in seven games, while Germany who were thrilling in South Africa, but mainly on the counter-attack, and a Holland are considered one of the least ‘Dutch’ sides in history.) Those three can at least hope to play beautiful football. Everyone else must focus upon being well-drilled and rigid.
If a disciplined, organised style of play is perfect for leading an underdog into a major international tournament, there is only one choice. Hodgson’s successes have generally been with underdogs; the only problem anyone can have with his style of management suiting England’s situation this summer is if (a) they refuse to accept England are underdogs, or (b) they are frustrated at the confirmation of England’s status as underdogs.
(All this ignores long-term goals: granted, this is a major reason why England are currently in their current situation, but it’s difficult to see what long-term planning England can do between now and the Euros – regrouping after the summer is more logical. Talk of abandoning any attempt to compete at Euro 2012, in favour of a long-term approach looking forward to World Cup 2014, is a nice idea but assumes qualification and a reasonable idea of who would be in the side in two years’ time. Future international XIs are notoriously difficult to predict – predicting this year’s XI is difficult enough. In 2006 England took Theo Walcott to the World Cup, and though he didn’t play, he picked up ‘good tournament experience’, supposedly. This was totally useless when England didn’t qualify for Euro 2008 or when Walcott wasn’t deemed worthy of a place at World Cup 2010, and it was a wasted place in the 2006 tournament. To ‘do a Walcott’ with an entire squad would be suicidal.)

Caveats
There are two questions about Hodgson’s suitability. The first involves whether he’ll have enough time at international level implement his strict positioning correctly. This is a genuine issue – coaches who have had two years to prepare find it difficult, Hodgson only has a month. It will mean Hodgson’s style of football is probably even more boring than usual, as he would focus on defensive drills before planning any attacking moves. In that Davies interview quoted earlier, the Welshman finishes by saying, “We’re two-and-a-half years down the line now, so we’re all converted.” Hodgson does need time – when he arrived at Fulham, the team started poorly before a sharp recovery.
The second question is whether England’s players would respect Hodgson and be willing to follow his instructions. This is a problem for any England coach, though: Fabio Capello was ‘too distant’, Steve McClaren was ‘too chummy’. Hodgson isn’t stupid, and will be able to work out which type of players will be on board – he must be brave enough not to select anyone he believes will be a significant problem.

Conclusion
The point here is not that England have no chance of winning the tournament – it’s that they had no chance of winning the tournament by playing the anarchic football favoured by Redknapp. The type of football Hodgson offers is, in theory, the type of football that will maximise England’s chances of getting out of the group. In the current state of confusion, that must be regarded as a sensible target - although if Hodgson states this or voices satisfaction when this target is reached, he will be slaughtered for lowering expectations.
England must attempt to win the tournament; the chances are extremely slim, but have marginally increased with this appointment. England don’t have good enough players to be open and indulge individuals, and therefore Hodgson’s system-first approach makes sense.

 

[Kieran David Brookes]

Wooo, England dont play similar football to Liverpool. Pearce only had one game, but if you were to look at Capello, his 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 hybrid and use of Rooney/wide players was closer to Manchester United.

In fact you cant equate Hodgson at Liverpool to Hodgson at England.

And why is Redknapp the man we needed?

Well firstly I wasn't talking about the formations I was talking bout the way they play football and Harry is the man we need because he is the master of get the beat out of all his player he can motivate any player and if you look back at his resent career he has been very successful and if you look at Roy's you can see weakness for example he hasn't really done very well at big Clubs/teams witch kinda shows hes not good under pressure and being managers of England is probably the most pressure you can be under considering are last England manager won the world cup.

 

[Mike.]

Well firstly I wasn't talking about the formations I was talking bout the way they play football and Harry is the man we need because he is the master of get the beat out of all his player he can motivate any player and if you look back at his resent career he has been very successful and if you look at Roy's you can see weakness for example he hasn't really done very well at big Clubs/teams witch kinda shows hes not good under pressure and being managers of England is probably the most pressure you can be under considering are last England manager won the world cup.

I was also talking about the way they play. Capello utilised Rooney as a 10, while relying on attacking with width, with Rooney drifting to the left to link with the attacking left back, and allowing the left wing to come inside, which is exactly what United do

Roy did fairly well with Inter Milan.

A good number of Spurs fans will tell you that he isnt always the world beating motivator he is made out to be, otherwise, how have spurs manageed to stutter so badly second half of season. In fact you could argue Redknapp isnt good under pressure, the moment his side were touted as title contender, they choked badly. They were on 50 points at the time, United and City on 53, they have 66, United and City have 83 in contrast.

But even if he motivates his players, you think that other coaches wont motivate theirs? What comes after that? Is motivation enough to beat France?

The article above is a good analysis of both managers, worth reading.

 

[maxy67]

I was also talking about the way they play. Capello utilised Rooney as a 10, while relying on attacking with width, with Rooney drifting to the left to link with the attacking left back, and allowing the left wing to come inside, which is exactly what United do

Roy did fairly well with Inter Milan.

A good number of Spurs fans will tell you that he isnt always the world beating motivator he is made out to be, otherwise, how have spurs manageed to stutter so badly second half of season. In fact you could argue Redknapp isnt good under pressure, the moment his side were touted as title contender, they choked badly. They were on 50 points at the time, United and City on 53, they have 66, United and City have 83 in contrast.

But even if he motivates his players, you think that other coaches wont motivate theirs? What comes after that? Is motivation enough to beat France?

The article above is a good analysis of both managers, worth reading.

No title, and a final in the UFEA cup (getting beat with Shalke 04- who aren't nearly the size of inter) with Inter in the 90's is not good at all, one of many in a series of bad managers for Inter. He got pelted with lighters and coins when he lost that final. Most of the time the press had him down for the sack, and rightfully so Inter had won two Ufea Cups a couple of years before that and he couldn't manage it.

 

[Aannddyy]

No title, and a final in the UFEA cup (getting beat with Shalke 04- who aren't nearly the size of inter) with Inter in the 90's is not good at all, one of many in a series of bad managers for Inter. He got pelted with lighters and coins when he lost that final. Most of the time the press had him down for the sack.

That's mostly down to the fact that most Italian fans are scum.

 

[Mike.]

No title, and a final in the UFEA cup (getting beat with Shalke 04- who aren't nearly the size of inter) with Inter in the 90's is not good at all, one of many in a series of bad managers for Inter. He got pelted with lighters and coins when he lost that final. Most of the time the press had him down for the sack.

Its decent, despite being hated by the press and fans. He also did well with rank outsiders like switzerland. He's not my first choice, but all in all he's a better choice than Redknapp

 

[maxy67]

Its decent, despite being hated by the press and fans. He also did well with rank outsiders like switzerland. He's not my first choice, but all in all he's a better choice than Redknapp

Its far from decent, he had a great squad- and the club had won two UFEA cups before him a couple of years before, and he couldn't manage it. Djorkaeff, Ince and Javier Zanetti were three great players to have in your side.

I don't think either of them are good enough for England.

 

[maxy67]

That's mostly down to the fact that most Italian fans are scum.

I know that they have the same view about English fans...

 

[ajt09]

I know that they have the same view about English fans...

Just like some idiots here think Scottish fans are scum, and so on...but I digress. They're not football fans but you'll get them from every country and every club.

If it came between a cheeky chappie darling of the press, and a tactically astute manager who does the BASICS IN FOOTBALL RIGHT, I'd have have Roy all the time. This criticism from various outlets before we've even kicked off is just getting disresepctful-as demonstrated by the Sun (ain't that a surprise). Yes Harry does things well, but look at the form of the two teams for the resepective managers since Capello got the chop. Spurs season could've gone down the swanny after a ****-poor run, WBA maintained a good, consistent run. Surely that can't be just down to the players? That's down to the managers too. If a manager can't get the players to refocus that's a flaw for starters in my book.

Yes, Roy had a bad time at Liverpool, but not going over that again. It's tiresome safe to say he was in a total no-win situation. Besides, it's not completely a managers fault when things go badly. It's the eleven players on the pitch too. If they can't be arsed to play for a manager, or can't be bothered to play to full potential.......

Cerebral manager over man-manager every time

 

[maxy67]

Just like some idiots here think Scottish fans are scum, and so on...but I digress. They're not football fans but you'll get them from every country and every club.

If it came between a cheeky chappie darling of the press, and a tactically astute manager who does the BASICS IN FOOTBALL RIGHT, I'd have have Roy all the time. This criticism from various outlets before we've even kicked off is just getting disresepctful-as demonstrated by the Sun (ain't that a surprise). Yes Harry does things well, but look at the form of the two teams for the resepective managers since Capello got the chop. Spurs season could've gone down the swanny after a ****-poor run, WBA maintained a good, consistent run. Surely that can't be just down to the players? That's down to the managers too. If a manager can't get the players to refocus that's a flaw for starters in my book.

Yes, Roy had a bad time at Liverpool, but not going over that again. It's tiresome safe to say he was in a total no-win situation. Besides, it's not completely a managers fault when things go badly. It's the eleven players on the pitch too. If they can't be arsed to play for a manager, or can't be bothered to play to full potential.......

Cerebral manager over man-manager every time

Agreed on your first point.

As for Hodgson, I hope he proves me wrong in my belief that he's a mid table team manager. You are right in saying, he'll get the basics right, but I wouldn't expect any manager of England to fail on the basics. My concern is if he plays too defensively and doesn't utilise the good attacking talent England have like Rooney.

 

[mccollio09]

I'll give my two cents worth on this topic (have only read a few comments so apologies if I'm echoing others feelings).

I'm a Liverpool fan, that probably needs to be taken into account. I supported him when he first arrived but got quickly tired of his defensive, mind numbing, sideways passing ways of playing football. Oh and his mediocre signings but that shouldn't be an issue with international football. I also think you have to contrast his performances with two big clubs (Liverpool and Inter) vs every other (no offence intended) club he has been to.

He has been great for Fulham, and great for West Brom. And unfortunately, I think that's where his comfort zone lies.

I'll adversely defend him on two fronts. Dalglish has hardly been a messiah since he took over and if it wasn't for the cup runs, Hodgson would have a better record than him at pool right now.

On a second point, we did **** with Capello (and I don't care what anyone says, look at his record, he really is a world class manager), so it shouldn't be any different with Hodgson. Until we get that next generation through the door, we won't do anything in this tournament.

My only real bug bear is that I think we should accept we aren't going to do anything this tournament and should give the likes of the Ox, Sturridge, Welbeck, Jones, Smalling, Cleverley if fit, Martin Kelly and a whole host of other youngsters time to bed in. Hodgson won't be the type of manager to take a leap like that... Pearce may well have done.

 

[Subtle]

He has been great for Fulham, and great for West Brom. And unfortunately, I think that's where his comfort zone lies.

Exactly. England aren't Chelsea. England aren't Arsenal. England aren't United or City. They're a top half of the table sort of club, a Fulham or an Everton, on a good day maybe even a Newcastle. Until we radically change our country's youth program and various other factors, we will remain in this position. You only have to look at Lennon or Walcott to see why. Now, if people will stop pretending that we're a top 4 team, and start playing the kind of disciplined, tactical football we need, then we have a chance of getting somewhere. If we pretend that we are anywhere near Germany, Spain or even Holland, and go out there with our big egos, we will get hammered.

 

[alicwkd]

Exactly. England aren't Chelsea. England aren't Arsenal. England aren't United or City. They're a top half of the table sort of club, a Fulham or an Everton, on a good day maybe even a Newcastle. Until we radically change our country's youth program and various other factors, we will remain in this position. You only have to look at Lennon or Walcott to see why. Now, if people will stop pretending that we're a top 4 team, and start playing the kind of disciplined, tactical football we need, then we have a chance of getting somewhere. If we pretend that we are anywhere near Germany, Spain or even Holland, and go out there with our big egos, we will get hammered.

I agree with you on everything you say here, but unfortunately that's exactly what the majority of this country seems unable to do. It seems like there will always be this delusion, fuelled by the press, that England should be consistently getting to finals. In reality a QF in these Euros should be considered a successful tournament.

 

[Subtle]

I remember making a comment on the Guardian about 6 months ago saying that maybe we should say it **** it, blood the youth and accept that getting out of the group stages is a good accomplishment for the team. Within minutes someone had responded to ask why we couldn't win it and seemed genuinely outraged when I said that our squad was not as good as Spain or Germany's...

 

[Quasit]

One thing I cant understand is how is managing England biggest job in football? Everywhere I look there's some mention about that.

 

[alicwkd]

I remember making a comment on the Guardian about 6 months ago saying that maybe we should say it **** it, blood the youth and accept that getting out of the group stages is a good accomplishment for the team. Within minutes someone had responded to ask why we couldn't win it and seemed genuinely outraged when I said that our squad was not as good as Spain or Germany's...

Lol. It seems some people simply believe everything the media tells them. We have one player (Rooney) who would get into Germany's team. And maybe Hart depending on form. Other than that their team is better than ours in every way, and Spain is just no contest. I fail to see how people can't realise this. If we did and went into the tournament with realistic expectations we might actually get somewhere.