BREAKING: FA APPROACH ROY HODGSON

largehat wrote:Natasha, who would you have offered the job to? Droopy with his one FA Cup win?

I would have offered the job to Redknapp, he was by far the best man for the job.

Let's face it, the majority of the England team picks itself, you don't have to be Pep Guardiola to know that Hart, Cole, Terry, Rooney etc are the best players in their positions.

The difference for me is how the team will play. Hodgson is a cautious manager and he'll be exactly the same with England. Sven was cautious, McLaren was cautious and so was Capello. We've been there and failed every time.

I actually think we have a good attacking team, defensively not so good. So why not play to our strengths and go out there and attack teams? I think we'd have been more likely to attack under Redknapp.

Hart

Richards Terry Cahill A Cole

Oxlade-Chamberlain Gerrard Parker Wilshere Young

Rooney

I'm not saying that team is going to win things, but it has loads of pace and anything is possible.

I see your point about the cautious approach, I really do.

For me there are only three downsides to Woy's appointment

1) his age (this would also have counted against Redknapp)
2) he is an exponent of 4-4-2, which he will need to adapt if he wants to succeed, 4-4-2 is obsolete in elite international football (a plus point for Redknapp)
3) he will have to earn the respect of some of the egos in the dressing room (a plus point for Redknapp)

It's hard to make a case for Redknapp. You mention Sven, McClaren and Capello has being cautious, Nat. Well I'll see your Sven, McClaren and Capello and raise you a Kevin Keegan.

Redknapp has a mediocre track record whichever way you look at it. He destroyed Portsmouth, and scrapped around at the foot of the table with West Ham for years. He has won nothing at Tottenham and he has spent a fortune. He seems to only be able to identify tidy midfield players. They are about 25 points off the top of the table as I write, and a lot of the plaudits he has received from the media are based entirely on this season's form.

He is also dodgy as fuck.

I think Roy will surprise one or two sceptics. He is no mug. He has the pick of England's finest players and if England do fail to deliver it will be because the players are not good enough.

largehat wrote:

It's hard to make a case for Redknapp. You mention Sven, McClaren and Capello has being cautious, Nat. Well I'll see your Sven, McClaren and Capello and raise you a Kevin Keegan.

Redknapp has a mediocre track record whichever way you look at it. He destroyed Portsmouth, and scrapped around at the foot of the table with West Ham for years. He has won nothing at Tottenham and he has spent a fortune. He seems to only be able to identify tidy midfield players. They are about 25 points off the top of the table as I write, and a lot of the plaudits he has received from the media are based entirely on this season's form.

He is also dodgy as fuck.

He's won nothing at Spurs, but if you're judging a good manager by what they have won in England in recent years then the only men for the job are Ferguson and Dalglish.

He got Spurs into the Champions League and they did well, they're a big club but still not a Chelsea, City or United.

But what has Hodgson won? His only experience of a big club (and therefore big egos) was at Liverpool where he fcuked it up big time. Redknapp is brilliant at managing these egos - his retort to Vedran Corluka last week was classic Harry.

He may be dodgy, he may not be brilliant, but he is far and away a better candidate than Hodgson. I fully expect Roy to fit Lampard and Gerrard in the same team.

Hodgson took Switzerland on and got them into the 1994 World Cup (which England didn't qualify for) and Euro 96 and to rank 3 in the FIFA world rankings.

He has led clubs to the league championship in Sweden and Denmark, and managed Inter, a bigger club than Spurs.

He also took Fulham to 8th in the PL and the UEFA Cup final.

All that beats one FA Cup in 20 years, earned by bankrupting the club in question.

Do you not think he was underhand in signing all those mercenaries for Portsmouth and then buying them back on the cheap when he took over Tottenham, out of interest?

Do you not find it strange than Van der Vaart was about to join Bayern Munich for £18m but instead joined Tottenham the following day for £8m?

Unfortunately as i said before, IMO, the "whats he won" argument is irrelevant when it comes to the England job.

It's about getting players who think they're gods gift up for matches when they wish they were on their yachts.

I'm not sure Hodgson is going to be able to do that.

The England job really is unique in that sense.

Like Hipster says the 'what's he won argument' is a non starter as you only have to look at the last failure of an England manager. He had the 'I've won everything' t-shirt.

Hodgson has managed 3 different national sides and he's managed in at least 6 different countries.

Droopy lived off the victory over Man Utd when he was Bournemouth manager for years.

I do partly agree with what this chap posted on the BBC website though......

"I think you could put a cucumber in charge, it wouldn't make the slightest difference as none of the English football 'stars' seem to give two hoots about putting on the England shirt"

To be honest I don't think redknapp would have been cut out for the international management business, but as usual the FA have gone for the safe approach with one boring fucker as mamanger who I give about 6 months in charge before he walks and player power takes over.

p.s. I wouldn't have given the job to either of them.

Hodgson has a big advantage over Capello. He speaks English.

So who would have got your vote Aaron?

I know he hasn't managed an international team before but for the work he has done at Swansea, Brendon Rogers.

The guy oozes class and though he isn't english, he doesn't look like a guy who takes fools lightly, plus his training methods are apparntly second to none.

If I had to choose from Roy or Arry by the way I would have taken Redknapp every day of the week.

aaron_bwfc wrote:I know he hasn't managed an international team before but for the work he has done at Swansea, Brendon Rogers.

He's done a good job yes, but they are only going to finish 10 points above us - who everyone agrees have had an awful season.

You cannot put people like Hodgson & Rogers in charge of these overpaid ponces because they have no respect for them. As soon as things go wrong it'll be Terry & Gerrard picking the team.

Allardyce would have been a better choice than Hodgson.

It's just such a BORING choice.

exactly Redknapp would have been successful in the short term IMO.

The players openly said they wanted him, he'd have come in on a blaze of glory and might have got these idiots to finally play to a finals level.

instead you get Hodgson, though a good manager, the unpopular choice, an anticlimax and i'd be stunned if England do anything in the Euros.

It's their first season though so it's no real surprise, the way they play posession football is 2nd to none plus it's not the greatest side in the world, the england team are shitter than us at times for keeping the ball for long periods.

Couldn't agree more though about your last point, Roy is the most uninspiring man the Fa could have picked and very much like Mclaren.

Great to see that there are people who think success as a manager shouldn't have any bearing on who should be England manager. On that basis, any idiot can be England manager I guess.

I see where Aaron is coming from with Brendan Rodgers, but it's too soon in his career, the England manager should be someone who has had a successful career, not managed for a few years. It's not a realistic suggestion.

Neither is Natasha with her Fergie and Dalglish comments. Completely off with the fairies.

Hell will freeze over before the FA appoint an Irishman or a Scot.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

I notice that the Sun describes Roy as having a speech impediment. How dare they ? He might roll his R's slightly but I wouldn't call it an impediment. He should ban the Sun sports writers from attending his press conferences.

largehat wrote:Great to see that there are people who think success as a manager shouldn't have any bearing on who should be England manager. On that basis, any idiot can be England manager I guess.

What a tit you are. As I've said the only managers with any recent success are Fergie & Dalglish. Oh, and Mancini won the FA Cup so he qualifies as well.

So who is this successful manager who has won things in England who should be the next manager?

And once again you show your complete lack of knowledge about football...man-management is a huge part of the modern game, especially at the top. Why do you think Coyle has struggled all season? Because he has none. You need a Harry or a Fat Sam to stand upto these players.

[quote="Natasha Whittam"]

And once again you show your complete lack of knowledge about football.../quote]

WTF

Some people want the 'Tax Avoider' because he is popular with the players. To me, this a good reason not to appoint him. If Terry and Gerrard and Lampard and the rest of the self-important non-achievers get the man they want then these tossers will just carry-on as they always have done with the usual result i.e. nothing.

Hodgson is not perfect but my god the twitching Redknapp would be a complete disaster at international level.



The headline in the Sun today is a completely disgraceful. Hodgson has a slight lisp, well so what.

This paper for fools has not only got the morons against the new England manager (before a ball has been kicked) but there will be children with similar defects who's lives will be made a misery by bullies who read this junk.

Anyone who continue to buy this garbage should be ashamed.