Roy Hodgson for England :-(

West Bromwich Albion have today granted permission for The FA to speak with Roy Hodgson regarding the position of England Manager.

This follows an approach from FA Chairman David Bernstein to West Bromwich Albion Chairman Jeremy Peace.

David Bernstein said: "I'm grateful to Jeremy and all at West Bromwich Albion for their co-operation in allowing us to approach Roy, who I have since spoken with.

"Roy is the only manager we have approached and we remain on course to make an appointment within the timescale we set-out soon after Fabio Capello's departure.

"Further conversations will now take place with Roy and my Club England colleagues before any further announcements can be made."

Gutted, looks like it's nailed on for Roy to go if he is the only manager they have spoken to and they are putting it out in the open.

Oh ****. I think I'm going to cry.

Good appointment, should guide England through Euro 2012 with no major issues or any embarassment.

I'd have loved Redknapp to have gotten it, he would have come up with some bizarre team selection/formation and got England the boot in the first round.

Let's trust he is given more of an opportunity (and shown more respect) by England than he was by Liverpool.

By no means a bad choice if the media are to be believed but seems strange if all the talk about Redknapp being a racing certainty proves to be a load of hot air.

'Ol Roy would be a pretty good choice in my view - English, experienced with international management and doing well with WBA this season. I'd certainly take him over 'Arry and Pearce that's for sure.

Great choice. Tactically astute, makes his sides hard to break down and beat and he has international experience already. Maybe he wouldn't make the best option for the permanent job, but for this tournament he is the ideal pick. The only downside would be as to whether the prima donnas that inhabit the England dressing room would play for a manager coming from West Brom and who's main success came at Fulham.

I'm fairly happy with Hodgson to be honest. A much under rated manager and he does have international experience. Mainland europe appear to hold him in high esteem. Hope he gets us through to the knockout stage and build from there for the world cup

The Man That is Roy Hodgson

Link taken from 2009.

I can't help but feel there are slight similarities with the appointment of Steve McClaren and Hodgson. Rumoured not to be the first choice, and I still don't really believe that the FA preferred Hodgson to Redknapp. While Hodgson has a lot more experience across the world and in international football, he was not particularly successful. The places he has been successful are Fulham and West Brom the two midtable sides, comparable to how Middlesbrough were at the time.

I think the FA are probably trying to move away from the harshness and strictness of Capello and replace it with the much kinder and nicer Hodgson.

Not all doom and gloom.

Hodgson is a quality manager and to potentially have him on board is a good thing. What has concerned me more than anything was that the current England players all voiced how they wanted Redknapp and if there wasn't such a media frenzy that Redknapp was 'England Coach in waiting' then the potential appointment of Hodgson may not be welcomed with such dread.

Disagree with the 'he wasn't particularly successful' comment above. This is a guy who took a below Switzerland to the World Cup 1994 and Euro 1996. Not sure that many England managers in the current climate could do the same.

The McClaren appointment was one based on 'Let's go English' by the FA.

Hodgson is an experienced coach. Much travelled like the late Sir Bobby Robson. It doesn't say much about English coaches if Redknapp was the only English coach in the frame.

I think it is about time that the FA and the players got behind the coach instead of being petty and pampered and overhyped bumholes!

I have lost respect for Redknapp. Correct me if I am wrong, but he hasn't actually turned round and said "I want the England" job. He is ooooohing and ahhhhing and hoping the FA fight for him. Well unless he comes out with it, they will have a excuse not to pay the huge compensation package to Spurs.

Roy is a decent manager at getting the best out of decent players, the reason why he has struggled when given the opportunity to coach big sides is because he is too nice and gets dominated by strong personalities.

He will always be the kind of manager that will take struggeling sides and turn them into teams that are hard to beat but he will never be the type of manager that will turn teams into champions.

Not all bad for England but i think that he will get hounded by the English media.

Really don't get all the love for Redknapp. He is tactically inept. England don't need a great man manager, it's been proven in the past with failures like Keegan and Sven that it gets you nowhere. Hodgson has tactical genius and experience in abundance and aside from Hiddink was the next best candidate.

King Beer wrote:Really don't get all the love for Redknapp. He is tactically inept. England don't need a great man manager, it's been proven in the past with failures like Keegan and Sven that it gets you nowhere. Hodgson has tactical genius and experience in abundance and aside from Hiddink was the next best candidate.

Overcooking that a little I think. He's good at getting poor to middling teams organised. 2 backs of 4, defend deep and use a target man and a few quicks up front to hit teams on the counter. Tactics that don't really work well for teams that are supposed to take the game to the opposition.

He has a career win% of 38%, good enough for England? Capello had a 66.7% win record with England yet he was a 'donkey'. He had the most expensively assembled squad in the PL with Blackburn yet they went down the year he coached them - I know Brian Kidd eventually took them down but he actually improved on Hodgson yet it wasn't enough due to their wretched start. He was dire with Inter Milan, woeful at Liverpool and has never won a major trophy in his 36 year career.

He's a cheap appointment.

Edit: Agree with you on Redknapp. Good manager who's loved by the media so is therefore great.

liverbnz wrote:

King Beer wrote:Really don't get all the love for Redknapp. He is tactically inept. England don't need a great man manager, it's been proven in the past with failures like Keegan and Sven that it gets you nowhere. Hodgson has tactical genius and experience in abundance and aside from Hiddink was the next best candidate.

Overcooking that a little I think. He's good at getting poor to middling teams organised. 2 backs of 4, defend deep and use a target man and a few quicks up front to hit teams on the counter. Tactics that don't really work well for teams that are supposed to take the game to the opposition.

He has a career win% of 38%, good enough for England? Capello had a 66.7% win record with England yet he was a 'donkey'. He had the most expensively assembled squad in the PL with Blackburn yet they went down the year he coached them - I know Brian Kidd eventually took them down but he actually improved on Hodgson yet it wasn't enough due to their wretched start. He was dire with Inter Milan, woeful at Liverpool and has never won a major trophy in his 36 year career.

He's a cheap appointment.

Edit: Agree with you on Redknapp. Good manager who's loved by the media so is therefore great.

Being a Blackburn fan I must correct you. He didn't take Rovers down. Kidd did that himself with naive tactics and team selection. Roy actually picked Blackburn up off the floor after Ray "I'll play our most expensive striker as a defender" Harford! Roy turned Chris Sutton around and also bought a gem in Henchoz and Dahlin! He took them to 6th and into the UEFA Cup in first season! Jason Wilcox said at the time for Blackburn who struggled under him "The reason he didn't succeed was because the players didn't do as he said, otherwise they would've been successful" For such an endorsment from a player at that time is a solid view. Dalglish got the best of the Walker years in terms of being backed in the market. Kevin Davies was not given the time he deserved. Hodgson was shrewd and didn't make toilet signings like managers before and after. Blackburn went down in the 98/99 season

Capello didn't have the backing of the players. It is about time the players took responsibility for their short comings. Liverpool didn't give him enough time and look at the crap job Dalglish has done. Liverpool leak more goals now than they ever did under Hodgson.

This was guy who took Switzerland to number 3 in the world.

Not a bad coach eh.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

liverbnz wrote:

King Beer wrote:Really don't get all the love for Redknapp. He is tactically inept. England don't need a great man manager, it's been proven in the past with failures like Keegan and Sven that it gets you nowhere. Hodgson has tactical genius and experience in abundance and aside from Hiddink was the next best candidate.

Overcooking that a little I think. He's good at getting poor to middling teams organised. 2 backs of 4, defend deep and use a target man and a few quicks up front to hit teams on the counter. Tactics that don't really work well for teams that are supposed to take the game to the opposition.

He has a career win% of 38%, good enough for England? Capello had a 66.7% win record with England yet he was a 'donkey'. He had the most expensively assembled squad in the PL with Blackburn yet they went down the year he coached them - I know Brian Kidd eventually took them down but he actually improved on Hodgson yet it wasn't enough due to their wretched start. He was dire with Inter Milan, woeful at Liverpool and has never won a major trophy in his 36 year career.

He's a cheap appointment.

Edit: Agree with you on Redknapp. Good manager who's loved by the media so is therefore great.

Being a Blackburn fan I must correct you. He didn't take Rovers down. Kidd did that himself with naive tactics and team selection. Roy actually picked Blackburn up off the floor after Ray "I'll play our most expensive striker as a defender" Harford! Roy turned Chris Sutton around and also bought a gem in Henchoz and Dahlin! He took them to 6th and into the UEFA Cup in first season! Jason Wilcox said at the time for Blackburn who struggled under him "The reason he didn't succeed was because the players didn't do as he said, otherwise they would've been successful" For such an endorsment from a player at that time is a solid view. Dalglish got the best of the Walker years in terms of being backed in the market. Kevin Davies was not given the time he deserved. Hodgson was shrewd and didn't make toilet signings like managers before and after. Blackburn went down in the 98/99 season

Capello didn't have the backing of the players. It is about time the players took responsibility for their short comings. Liverpool didn't give him enough time and look at the crap job Dalglish has done. Liverpool leak more goals now than they ever did under Hodgson.

This was guy who took Switzerland to number 3 in the world.

Not a bad coach eh.

Blackburn were bottom of the league when Roy was sacked - he refused to resign ensuring he got his nice little pay-off. Brian Kidd may not have been cut out for the job, but he had a better return of points from his remaining games than Hodgson did from his opening 14. In fact, given that Kidd took 26 points from his 24 games in charge, if you extropolated that across the season, Blackburn would have been safe!

Liverpool have the 3rd/4th best defensive record in the league under Dalglish despite the league season being woeful. But Kenny's poor record this season does not absolve Hodgson's so I'm not sure why people keep feeling some sort of vindication by comparing the 2.

Taking Switzerland to number 3 in the world just proves my point further, he's good with middling to poor teams. And anyway, since when did world rankings count as an achievement?

You right on one thing though - the players do need to take responsibilty. They won't though, the media are always at pains to avoid calling them out so they get a free ride.

Thing that gets me about a number of England fans is that they admit that we haven't got good enough players and that no manger, without a good slice of luck, would get us to win anything, and then bemoan the qualities of the new manager.
So we could go expensive and foreign and get knocked out in the 2nd round or quarter-finals, or we could go English and cheap(er) and get knocked out in the 2nd round or quarter-finals.
Seems a no-brainer to me.

Dire with Inter Milan?

He took one of the worst Inter sides in history to the Uefa Cup final and was loved enough to return for a second spell.

Liverpool never gave him a chance. With King Kenny upstairs he was doomed to failure. They never backed him financially, they didn't really want to get behind him and as such he left.

He took Fulham from relegation fodder to a Europa League final and has now esablished West Brom as a Premier League side.

Remind me, what does winning major trophies count for at international level? Capello won bag loads of major trophies but did jack all at international level.

The Uruguay coach is paid about £40,000 a year and took them to a 3rd place play off in the World Cup, he's never one a major trophy.

Joachim Low has built one of the most impressive German sides in recent years and has no major trophy wins.

Bert Van Marwijk has one Uefa Cup trophy to his name, yet he took Holland to a World Cup Final.

I quite often hear that Roy Hodgson is respected abroad, particularly here in Italy. However, my experience from speaking with Italians is completely different. Every italian that I speak to thinks that Roy Hodgson was a disaster and a useless manager. They laughed when he became the manager of Liverpool. I dread to think how they may react if they hear him announced as the new England manager.

That probably boils down to his time with Udinese.

A lot of the German success for me is down to the good work Klinsmann did with pressuring the German FA to make changes to the foreign player quota. Low was working with him too and shows what difference minor changes make.

I do not understand the negativity surrounding Hodgson. I think the one comment on here I agree with was the one made about how he makes teams difficult to beat. Something England need to become.

King Beer wrote:Dire with Inter Milan?

He took one of the worst Inter sides in history to the Uefa Cup final and was loved enough to return for a second spell.

Liverpool never gave him a chance. With King Kenny upstairs he was doomed to failure. They never backed him financially, they didn't really want to get behind him and as such he left.

He took Fulham from relegation fodder to a Europa League final and has now esablished West Brom as a Premier League side.

Remind me, what does winning major trophies count for at international level? Capello won bag loads of major trophies but did jack all at international level.

The Uruguay coach is paid about £40,000 a year and took them to a 3rd place play off in the World Cup, he's never one a major trophy.

Joachim Low has built one of the most impressive German sides in recent years and has no major trophy wins.

Bert Van Marwijk has one Uefa Cup trophy to his name, yet he took Holland to a World Cup Final.

Yep that's right he was loved so much that he was pelted with coins and lighters which forced him to resign. Inter Milan are European giants with 3 European Cups to their name - 2 at that time. 1 UEFA Cup final, disillusioning the fans by getting rid of star players is what I would call dire.

Your wrong on Hodgson at Liverpool. He's was appointed by none football people - an accountant no less who was effectively baying to the wishes of the media. He wasn't wanted at Liverpool by anyone that mattered and he wasn't given any money because we had none at that time. He was moved on by new owners who wanted their own man. Hodgson's record, albeit short, at Liverpool was woeful. He blamed everybody but himself for his failings (Joe Cole 'wasn't his signing' despite him being photographed holding a scarf with the new arrival) and took credit when it wasn't his for the taking (Suarez signing). He didn't leave, he was sacked. He shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Neither did I say that winning major trophies was the be all and end all of being an international manager, although it helps to have some sort of a resume behind in order to land of the biggest jobs in football - Hodgson has not being successful at any high profile job he has had whichever way you want to paint it.

As for Joachaim Low, he just continued the same philosphy that the German team had under Kilnsmann. He was basically groomed for the job by Kilnnsman helped by the fact that the Germans have an excellent youth system with players that have played with each other right through from a very young age and culminated in them winning the U-23 championships in 2009. His system suits their style and has proven lately to be quite tactically flexible after having criticisms following the World Cup for being predominently counter-attacking and having no plan B.

Hodgson on the other hand is tactically rigid and not even close to a 'tactical genuis' as he uses the same tried and tested formula over and over again. The antithesis to genuis you might say. It's successful at West Brom and Fulham, and at that level he is a very good coach. There's a world apart in tactics when you have to take the game to the opposition and try and break down stubborn defences, the kind of defences that Hodgson is ironically very good at building.

Great choice

What a palava!

I would have given the job to 'arry.

Working with a fixed set of players at the top of their game - you need a man motivator. So if not 'arry I would give the job to Di Matteo.

Roy Hodgson is a great manager but as others have said, I am not sure you can get the best out of him when you're working with a fixed set of egos. John Toshack didn't do too well managing Wales, I seem to recall a few players saying they would never work with him.

As with all England managers, the press will hound Roy Hodgson, and he will leave like all other managers leave, as a "failed" manager.

The biggest issue with the Premiership and Football league, is that it doesn't generate the stream of quality and skilled English footballer that is needed for a successful England team.

First off, I'll stress that I have no axe to grind with Hodgson. He's always come across as a good bloke, and his managerial achievements are noteworthy.

That said, the news that he is set to become England's next manager fills me with dread.

Dress it up whichever way you like, but his record when dealing with big names / egos can't be described as anything better than serviceable. It would, of course, be lovely if the likes of John Terry, Ashley Cole, Wayne Rooney etc didn't carry such egos and saw each and every manager in the same light - but it would be an exercise is self-delusion to pretend that this is the case. Players of such ability don't need to be told what to do move for move, but they do need to be inspired, I'd imagine. Hodgson, I fear, simply won't inspire such a dressing room.

I guess a major issue I have with this impending appointment is that Hodgson has always struck me as a bit of a 'yes man', or a meek character. I'm hearing rumours that he's jumped the queue ahead of 'Arry because he's happy to let Pearce - who has done precious little to command a place in the England set up as a divine right - remain in his team, whereas Redknapp wanted a clean slate and fresh start. If this is the case, Redknapp is perfectly within his rights, whereas Hodgson has basically rolled over for the F.A.

What's more, it's being said that Tottenham would want £15 million in compensation, should 'Arry be whisked away by the bright lights of Soho. I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that England have seen that Hodgson is out of contract with West Brom in the coming weeks, and therefore have seen a window of opportunity to, in effect, just go for the cheap and easy option.

Honestly, if we're appointing international managers simply because it saves a bit of dosh, the game really is in trouble.

Again I'll stress, Hodgson deserves the utmost respect for what he's done with Fulham, West Brom and Switzerland in the past. However, none of this means that the disaster with Liverpool, the startling fall from grace with Blackburn or the largely unproductive spells with Inter should be airbrushed out of the picture. Nor should the dour brand of football his teams tend to specialise in be ignored.

You can't paint some stripes on to a donkey and call it a zebra. Hodgson can improve a relegation-threatened team and get the best out of smaller name players. But I'm not at all convinced that he can inspire a group of £150,000 per week prima donnas to handle the virtuosity of a rampant Spain, Germany or France side when the pressure is really on.

I like Hodgson, am suprised by his appointment though as any manager that the press don't love or isn't a massive name isn't going to get any time and is going to be hounded out of the England job regardless of how well/poor they're doing - I see England doing the same as they always do and the best their level of players can manage - QFs, and then the wrath of the press will descend on Hodgson, who (like McClaren) will have is reputation destroyed and need to move abroad to rebuild his career.

King Beer wrote:That probably boils down to his time with Udinese.

No, completely wrong. His biggest critics here in Italy are inter fans, they think he is the worst manager they have ever had. Trust me they have told me enough times.

Saying he was successful at Inter because of one uefa cup final is like saying Graeme Souness was a success at Liverpool because he won one FA cup.

In one season, it's still reasonably succesful.

What bugs me is the England 'fans' who can't just give the guy a chance to do his job. He might not be everyones cup of tea, but until he actually takes charge of a few games who the hell are we to judge? Can he really be any worse than Capello in 2010? Or McBrolly in 2008? Or Sven in 2006/2004/2002? Or Keegan in 2000? Seriously, the last 2 'decent' England managers were Hoddle and Venables and neither of them were hugely successful or popular.

Give the guy a chance, don't jump on his back, you're all gonna look stupid if he turns out to be a great manager.

Fair play KB, I actually agree with you on this one. He should be given a fair shot, and I will be supporting him fully if/when he gets the job officially.

My point was just focusing on his supposed success in Italy, a view which is continually perpetuated by the British media. I remember having a few debates with Phil McNulty over this very issue on the BBC website at the time of the Liverpool appointment.

I agree regardless of whether he is everyones cup of tea or not, we want a successful England team, and we should support anyone who wants to have a go at what is a poisoned chalice of a job.

Radio 1 for just summed up the media's stance on Hodgson being approached.

As usual they do the lazy journalism of asking a few random people on the street what they think, though strangely enough they decide to do it with several people with a broad scouse accent. Wonder what most their reaction was...

It's only focused on in Italy because people scoff at the quality of the Swedish leagues. What he acheived with Halmstads and Malmo was unprecedented at the time. Regardless of the league, to win 5 straight league titles is still a notable acheivement.

The other side of the coin for me, whilst everyone bangs on about Hodgson, what exactly has Harry done?

He's left every team he's managed up the creek, Bournemouth, Southampton, Portsmouth, West Ham. He's one what? 1 FA Cup? He's English and in charge of Spurs, that hardly makes him the stand out candidate. It's more so the fact that he is the media darling and as yet they haven't found a reason to hang him out to dry. And in terms of money, England are in a massive transitional period when it comes to the National team, why pay through the nose for a chequebook manager when you can get someone who's dedicated to the new national footballing centre and what's to see England produce new world class talent?

Just read this from Phil McNulty....

At Liverpool, Hodgson’s methods reportedly led to tedium on the training ground – although it is clear this approach was bought into and resulted in success at Fulham and stability at The Hawthorns. Steven Gerrard’s thoughts on the appointment will be keenly sought.

Erm, why? Gerrard shouldn't be near the England team for the next qualification, and frankly, if he doesn't like Hodgson, he can go back to kncoking DJ's around and hiding the fact he's Everton through and through.

King Beer wrote:It's only focused on in Italy because people scoff at the quality of the Swedish leagues. What he acheived with Halmstads and Malmo was unprecedented at the time. Regardless of the league, to win 5 straight league titles is still a notable acheivement.

The other side of the coin for me, whilst everyone bangs on about Hodgson, what exactly has Harry done?

He's left every team he's managed up the creek, Bournemouth, Southampton, Portsmouth, West Ham. He's one what? 1 FA Cup? He's English and in charge of Spurs, that hardly makes him the stand out candidate. It's more so the fact that he is the media darling and as yet they haven't found a reason to hang him out to dry. And in terms of money, England are in a massive transitional period when it comes to the National team, why pay through the nose for a chequebook manager when you can get someone who's dedicated to the new national footballing centre and what's to see England produce new world class talent?

+1

I am with you in what you say KB.

I haven't a clue why so many are against him even being a candidate. The guy has a pedigree. What England need right now is stability. Not since Robson have we had a manager that has actually been given a chance. Venables was never backed. Hoddle went all religious on us. Keegan wasn't up to the task. Eriksson was linked with just about every job on the planet during his reign. McClaren boosted sales of brollies. Capello was a disaster. Least with Hodgson we will have someone that has loyalty and he can command the respect of the players if they can keep their ego's in check. What you don't want is a manager that allows players to speak out against the reigime during a World Cup or WAGS being the talk of the town or a player's right boot the subject of discussion.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am with you in what you say KB.

I haven't a clue why so many are against him even being a candidate. The guy has a pedigree. What England need right now is stability. Not since Robson have we had a manager that has actually been given a chance. Venables was never backed. Hoddle went all religious on us. Keegan wasn't up to the task. Eriksson was linked with just about every job on the planet during his reign. McClaren boosted sales of brollies. Capello was a disaster. Least with Hodgson we will have someone that has loyalty and he can command the respect of the players if they can keep their ego's in check. What you don't want is a manager that allows players to speak out against the reigime during a World Cup or WAGS being the talk of the town or a player's right boot the subject of discussion.

To be fair while like you say none of the managers mentioned got backed (even Venables when he was building a really good team) Venables, Hoddle, Eriksson & Capello all did well with England - ie getting to the QF's/SF's which with the pressures to pick the 'star' players or drop the 'national enemy' that appears after every competition (be that Beckham, Terry, Seaman, or who ever else is getting hounded by the press) and the fact that the press (and some fans) seem to believe England can suddenly compete with teams like Brazil, Argentina, Spain or Germany - despite decades of proof to the contrary.

I feel the need to make a comment here.

All this stuff about success with poor to middling teams, firstly what exactly are England? No matter what the media say, we aren't a world class side, we have two maybe three world class players in our squad. Secondly, what is so bad about achieving beyond expectations with "poor" sides? (Though as an Albion fan, I take exception to being labelled a poor side when we are 10th and comfortably clear of relegation, having beaten some top sides this season). Hodgson has worked within tight budgets at Fulham and West Brom, he hasn't been able to splash out massive amounts of cash, which would suggest he has a good eye for a player. Redknapp has spent millions at Spurs, money Roy could only dream of having at his disposal at Albion, yet it's looking as if Spurs might bottle it for 4th against a far cheaper assembled side in Newcastle. He spent huge amounts of money at Portsmouth to assmeble the side that he did, which has since ruined them.

Harry is a great man manager supposedly, the media are talking about the likes of Gerrard not being happy with how Roy dealt with him at Liverpool, look at Redknapp at Spurs players like Corluka,Bentley, Pienaar have come out and said things about his management style and not positive.

Dull football? I'm not really sure about this. We play organised football at Albion, but it's far from dull. Hodgson has proved his sides can play great football, look at some of the results Fulham had in the Europa League, beating sides like Juventus 4-1. We've won away 5-1 this season, hardly dull football.

I feel for Roy, I really do. It feels like the Liverpool job all over again, fans don't want him, they want someone with "charisma" like Redknapp, what difference does charisma make to being a great football manager? Look at Keegan's time in charge. So what Harry gives a good press conference? He hasn't produced the good for Spurs for most of the 2nd half of the season. Press don't want him. He's going to go because he's a proud Englishman, this is his ultimate job but I fear for him, the respect and admiration I have for the bloke doesn't seem to be mirrored by other fans or the press who already can't seem to wait for his first failure.

Well look at Liverpool now and WBA. 3 points between them. Kenny had a much bigger war chest then Hodgson and yet WBA could even finish above Liverpool. What does that suggest with Hodgson?

I don't buy all this Hodgson is a yes man nonsense. He is simply a guy that get's on with the job. Just because he doesn't come out and slate the chairman or owners doesn't make him a yes man. He is paid to do a job, not give opinions or try to run a club all himself.

The FA haven't bottled it by not going for Redknapp, they have simply gone for the best qualified English coach out there.

As an outsider I can say that its a good choice, they are talking about it being another Clough moment but cant see that Clough won titles and European Cups while Greenwood won an FA Cup and Cup Winners Cup whereas Redknapps won an FA Cup and took Surs into the Champions League whereas Hodgson took Fulham took the Europa League final and into midtable using maybe 25 players all season

Hodgson is experienced and the reason he didnt succeed at Liverpool is down to the players as look at where they are in the league now after millions have been spent 'improving' them

People seem to forget that Clough had a deep rooted hatred of Don Revie and probably had no desire to follow him into the England job after the debacle at Leeds.

Roy Hodgson: 7 Swedish League Titles, 2 Swedish Cups, 1 Danish League Title, 1 Danish Cup and LMA Manager of the Year in 2010. 36 years of experience in 8 different countries. Managed Internationally and at club level.

Harry Redknapp: English Division 3 Title, JPT Trophy, Intertoto Cup, English Division 1 Title, 1 FA Cup and Premier League Manager of the Year 2009/10. 29 years of experience in one country. Only managed at club level.


If you want an English manager, Hodgson is the man. But the media will be on his back constantly because he's not 'Arry. I say take the job Roy, 'Arry is not the people's choice despite what the media say.

Who needs Mourinho, we've got Roy Hodgio!

Duty281 wrote:Roy Hodgson: 7 Swedish League Titles, 2 Swedish Cups, 1 Danish League Title, 1 Danish Cup and LMA Manager of the Year in 2010. 36 years of experience in 8 different countries. Managed Internationally and at club level.

Harry Redknapp: English Division 3 Title, JPT Trophy, Intertoto Cup, English Division 1 Title, 1 FA Cup and Premier League Manager of the Year 2009/10. 29 years of experience in one country. Only managed at club level.


If you want an English manager, Hodgson is the man. But the media will be on his back constantly because he's not 'Arry. I say take the job Roy, 'Arry is not the people's choice despite what the media say.

Who needs Mourinho, we've got Roy Hodgio!

Or maybe Roy should have let them give the job to 'Arry then wait for the press to hound him out and tear his rep to shreds and then Roy could have stepped up as the saviour! Instead it's probably going to be Roy who gets torn to shreds (because he's not Harry) and Harry (if he can stay afloat at Spurs) who will be hailed as a hero and will step into the England hotseat next year once Roy has been sacked for 'only' reaching the QF/SF's

Hodgson seems the better choice overall, seems better placed to bring through the next generation of England players.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Hodgson seems the better choice overall, seems better placed to bring through the next generation of England players.

He'll never get the chance to bring through the next generation as he's not a media darling and will be hounded out - I also can't see him managing the ego's of the 'undroppables' - Terry, Cole, Ferdinand, Lampard etc

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Hodgson seems the better choice overall, seems better placed to bring through the next generation of England players.

He'll never get the chance to bring through the next generation as he's not a media darling and will be hounded out - I also can't see him managing the ego's of the 'undroppables' - Terry, Cole, Ferdinand, Lampard etc

I don't think it is fair to lump Ferdinand in with that lot, he has shown good grace in being removed from the captaincy and adapting to a new role at United given his injuries.

I think the key for Hodgson is to bring a united squad and that for means leaving the likes of Lampard and Terry or any other power group of players at home if they aren't going to be in his starting line up.

Ent wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Hodgson seems the better choice overall, seems better placed to bring through the next generation of England players.

He'll never get the chance to bring through the next generation as he's not a media darling and will be hounded out - I also can't see him managing the ego's of the 'undroppables' - Terry, Cole, Ferdinand, Lampard etc

I don't think it is fair to lump Ferdinand in with that lot, he has shown good grace in being removed from the captaincy and adapting to a new role at United given his injuries.

I think the key for Hodgson is to bring a united squad and that for means leaving the likes of Lampard and Terry or any other power group of players at home if they aren't going to be in his starting line up.

To be fair I think Lampard may have earned a spot with his recent performances he seems to adapted his game a bit recently and learned to be a bit more disciplined unlike that mupper Terry. Coles always been a good left back just a very unlikeable man but Baines is best left back in the league this season just gets homesick apparently

Ent wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Hodgson seems the better choice overall, seems better placed to bring through the next generation of England players.

He'll never get the chance to bring through the next generation as he's not a media darling and will be hounded out - I also can't see him managing the ego's of the 'undroppables' - Terry, Cole, Ferdinand, Lampard etc

I don't think it is fair to lump Ferdinand in with that lot, he has shown good grace in being removed from the captaincy and adapting to a new role at United given his injuries.

I think the key for Hodgson is to bring a united squad and that for means leaving the likes of Lampard and Terry or any other power group of players at home if they aren't going to be in his starting line up.

Does that mean replacing Terry with Chris Smalling, with Phil Jones and Ferdinand in defence, and Lampard replaced with Cleverly, Carrick in for Barry and having a front 3 of Rooney, Welbeck, and Young ...

There are just as many stupid comments and blinkered people on here than in the tabloids.

Roy has done a good job everywhere he's been except Liverpool, yet consider just how much Liverpool have improved since Kenny spent well over £100m.
Many claim Roy couldn't control the egos in the dressing room at Anfield, yet there is no evidence of this, all we know is that the club were in turmoil when he was given the job and he was given no time or money to change things.
Compare what Liverpool have achieved since he left with what he's done at WBA and compare it fairly, considering money spent, the situation both clubs were in at the time and the way the managers have been treated by the clubs fans.

Look at the simple fact that Roy has already managed at international level and done so successfully, he's also managed clubs abroad and compare that and the rest of his CV with Harry and there is only one logical choice for the England job and for once the FA seems to have made the right decision.

It's a bit odd that one of the major criticisms of Capello was that he was a bit of an old-fashioned manager, sticking to 4-4-2 football, and his teams were always built to hard to beat, yet these criticisms of Capello are now compliments for Hodgson.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Ent wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Hodgson seems the better choice overall, seems better placed to bring through the next generation of England players.

He'll never get the chance to bring through the next generation as he's not a media darling and will be hounded out - I also can't see him managing the ego's of the 'undroppables' - Terry, Cole, Ferdinand, Lampard etc

I don't think it is fair to lump Ferdinand in with that lot, he has shown good grace in being removed from the captaincy and adapting to a new role at United given his injuries.

I think the key for Hodgson is to bring a united squad and that for means leaving the likes of Lampard and Terry or any other power group of players at home if they aren't going to be in his starting line up.

Does that mean replacing Terry with Chris Smalling, with Phil Jones and Ferdinand in defence, and Lampard replaced with Cleverly, Carrick in for Barry and having a front 3 of Rooney, Welbeck, and Young ...

No but that wouldbe a decent side that worked as a team.

If Hodgson isn't going to pick the big time charlies for his starting 11 (which most people seem to want), I see no point in having them in the squad as they have shown in the past they will cause trouble.