Cronky Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Both managers can point to some achievements, and both carried some risks when it came to the England job. Hodgson looked that bit better suited to the role of international manager, that's all. Despite the Ox-Chamb gaff, I quite liked the way Hodgson presented at the press conference. We got a bit more insight into his thinking than most England managers have been able or prepared to give. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Sewelly's right with regards to Redknapp, like. He has no longevity in his roles. Spurs will fizzle out just like the other clubs he's managed. He doesn't know what he's doing enough to be able to maintain a teams performance. Spurs has been easier for him because of the cash. If the team slows, or ages, or comes back down to earth, he can't get it moving again, he just buys new first teamers. He may do well in 1 tournament for England, but his lack of tactical nous is beyond belief. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidAK Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Hodgson = Questionable how well he will manage the big ego bastards in our team, but good tactically and will take an active role in the development of football in England (hugely important) Redknapp = Would motivate the cunts, but is so short-termist that as soon as he leaves we're back to square one. Imo, Hodgson equals progress. Maybe we won't win a tournament now, or in Brazil etc. but 10 years down the line we'll be in a better position to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Hodgson = Questionable how well he will manage the big ego bastards in our team, but good tactically and will take an active role in the development of football in England (hugely important) Redknapp = Would motivate the cunts, but is so short-termist that as soon as he leaves we're back to square one. Imo, Hodgson equals progress. Maybe we won't win a tournament now, or in Brazil etc. but 10 years down the line we'll be in a better position to. Both would fail to win the next tournament either way, so yeah. In a way it's a shame it wasn't Redknapp. Seeing the team crash in the quarters the same way his Spurs side have against Chelsea and Portsmouth in recent years (spectacularly, and embarrassingly) would have crushed his reputation with the press forever. Shame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Hodgson = Questionable how well he will manage the big ego bastards in our team, but good tactically and will take an active role in the development of football in England (hugely important) Redknapp = Would motivate the cunts, but is so short-termist that as soon as he leaves we're back to square one. Imo, Hodgson equals progress. Maybe we won't win a tournament now, or in Brazil etc. but 10 years down the line we'll be in a better position to. Both would fail to win the next tournament either way, so yeah. In a way it's a shame it wasn't Redknapp. Seeing the team crash in the quarters the same way his Spurs side have against Chelsea and Portsmouth in recent years (spectacularly, and embarrassingly) would have crushed his reputation with the press forever. Shame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Redknapp or Hodgson, it doesn't matter. The FA (and media) shot themselves in the foot by insisting the next England manager be English. Dumb decision, ignoring of course that Capello (a foreigner) was the best manager England has had in quite some time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATB Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I think England can make a good tournament and I definitely can´t wait for it to start (and end so the silly season can take proper place). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Dumb decision, ignoring of course that Capello (a foreigner) was the best manager England has had in quite some time. He was better than his predecessor, that's about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Dumb decision, ignoring of course that Capello (a foreigner) was the best manager England has had in quite some time. He was better than his predecessor, that's about it. Looking at stats alone, Capello's squads won or drew in 86% of their matches. Granted that includes meaningless friendlies and what not and I understand the sour taste left after the WC. But still, that's the best non-loss percentage since Venables. Winning percentage at 66% was best in the last 60 years. The problem isn't necessarily that Capello was let go, but that Capello left such a bad taste with the English that they decided to ignore everyone who wasn't English. As if all foreign managers are like Capello. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 If you're saying Capello did a better job than Sven, you're insane, frankly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Dumb decision, ignoring of course that Capello (a foreigner) was the best manager England has had in quite some time. He was better than his predecessor, that's about it. Looking at stats alone, Capello's squads won or drew in 86% of their matches. Granted that includes meaningless friendlies and what not and I understand the sour taste left after the WC. But still, that's the best non-loss percentage since Venables. Winning percentage at 66% was best in the last 60 years. The problem isn't necessarily that Capello was let go, but that Capello left such a bad taste with the English that they decided to ignore everyone who wasn't English. As if all foreign managers are like Capello. That's all well and good but tournament performance is really all that matters at international level for a country like England. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, wanting an English manager to do the job. People seem to have this bee in their bonnet about "bloody little Englanders demanding an Englishman, how small minded" - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't two foreign managers two more than Germany/France/Spain/Brazil/Argentina/Italy/Holland have ever had? Personally I don't really see why the rules about international management are any different to the rules about international players and imo they should be from that particular country just the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 If you're saying Capello did a better job than Sven, you're insane, frankly. Statistically, he did. But you're right. And Sven also isn't an Englishman. So two of the best managers England has had in the past 20 years at least have been foreigners. So I'm not sure why they felt necessary to rule out foreigners, especially with the recent failures of Keegan and McLaren and relative shortage of 'quality' English managers right now. To be fair, I think Hodgson is going to be surprisingly solid for England. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Dumb decision, ignoring of course that Capello (a foreigner) was the best manager England has had in quite some time. He was better than his predecessor, that's about it. Looking at stats alone, Capello's squads won or drew in 86% of their matches. Granted that includes meaningless friendlies and what not and I understand the sour taste left after the WC. But still, that's the best non-loss percentage since Venables. Winning percentage at 66% was best in the last 60 years. The problem isn't necessarily that Capello was let go, but that Capello left such a bad taste with the English that they decided to ignore everyone who wasn't English. As if all foreign managers are like Capello. That's all well and good but tournament performance is really all that matters at international level for a country like England. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, wanting an English manager to do the job. People seem to have this bee in their bonnet about "bloody little Englanders demanding an Englishman, how small minded" - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't two foreign managers two more than Germany/France/Spain/Brazil/Argentina/Italy/Holland have ever had? Personally I don't really see why the rules about international management are any different to the rules about international players and imo they should be from that particular country just the same. Maybe it's different for me as a Yank, we don't have the same depth of footballing history or tradition. So it isn't necessarily a good thing to have an American manager (we'll take whoever gets us wins, whether it's an American, German, or Icelandic manager). Bradley was a better manager than many give him credit for, but he didn't commit to overhauling the entire system like Klinsmann is doing now. We also don't have a traditional 'American-style' like the English, so it's not really a matter of pride the way our boys play. Just so they get results. I put a lot of the 'failures' of the English squad on the players more than the managers. There isn't a more heavily scrutinized job in professional sports than the manager of the English national team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Dumb decision, ignoring of course that Capello (a foreigner) was the best manager England has had in quite some time. He was better than his predecessor, that's about it. Looking at stats alone, Capello's squads won or drew in 86% of their matches. Granted that includes meaningless friendlies and what not and I understand the sour taste left after the WC. But still, that's the best non-loss percentage since Venables. Winning percentage at 66% was best in the last 60 years. The problem isn't necessarily that Capello was let go, but that Capello left such a bad taste with the English that they decided to ignore everyone who wasn't English. As if all foreign managers are like Capello. That's all well and good but tournament performance is really all that matters at international level for a country like England. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, wanting an English manager to do the job. People seem to have this bee in their bonnet about "bloody little Englanders demanding an Englishman, how small minded" - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't two foreign managers two more than Germany/France/Spain/Brazil/Argentina/Italy/Holland have ever had? Personally I don't really see why the rules about international management are any different to the rules about international players and imo they should be from that particular country just the same. Holland have had 12 English managers, 14 Dutch, 4 Austrian, 2 Scottish, a German, a Romanian and a Czech. France were managed by Romanian Stefan Kovacs in the 70s. You're right about the rest though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Dumb decision, ignoring of course that Capello (a foreigner) was the best manager England has had in quite some time. He was better than his predecessor, that's about it. Looking at stats alone, Capello's squads won or drew in 86% of their matches. Granted that includes meaningless friendlies and what not and I understand the sour taste left after the WC. But still, that's the best non-loss percentage since Venables. Winning percentage at 66% was best in the last 60 years. The problem isn't necessarily that Capello was let go, but that Capello left such a bad taste with the English that they decided to ignore everyone who wasn't English. As if all foreign managers are like Capello. That's all well and good but tournament performance is really all that matters at international level for a country like England. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, wanting an English manager to do the job. People seem to have this bee in their bonnet about "bloody little Englanders demanding an Englishman, how small minded" - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't two foreign managers two more than Germany/France/Spain/Brazil/Argentina/Italy/Holland have ever had? Personally I don't really see why the rules about international management are any different to the rules about international players and imo they should be from that particular country just the same. Holland have had 12 English managers, 14 Dutch, 4 Austrian, 2 Scottish, a German, a Romanian and a Czech. France were managed by Romanian Stefan Kovacs in the 70s. You're right about the rest though Obviously I was talking about times that anyone other than Mick could remember. Checked Holland out... they were absolutely bloody rubbish until they started appointing their own! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest je85 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/backofthenet/archive/2012/05/17/everybody-left-out-of-roy-hodgson-s-england-squad.aspx Everybody left out of Roy Hodgson's England squad Thursday 17 May 2012 11:30 England's new coach has really swung the axe, as Back of the Net's John Foster explains... New England manager Roy Hodgson has been defending his surprise decision to leave everyone out of his squad for the European Championships in June The ex-West Brom boss swung the axe in his first national team selection, choosing to omit Rio Ferdinand, Micah Richards, Adam Johnson, Paul Scholes, and Michael Carrick. There was also no place for Aaron Lennon, Peter Crouch, Daniel Sturridge, Scott Carson, or any of the other 4,000 professional football players eligible to play for England. “We needed to try something new,” explained the 64-year old at a press conference yesterday to announce the 0-man party. “Everyone’s had their chances at previous tournaments to show what they’re capable of, and unfortunately, everyone’s made it repeatedly clear that they’re not up to the task.” How England will line up for their Euro 2012 opener against France Having spent a career getting the most out of limited resources, Hodgson insisted that he had thought carefully about how to make best use of England’s pool of available talent. “When I asked myself who deserved to be in the team on merit, the obvious answer was nobody, so that’s who we’ve gone for,” he told FourFourTwo.com. “It’s not the most physical line-up, given that it lacks any corporeal form, and I wouldn’t expect us to dominate possession,” he added. “But I’m confident that this team can be more than the sum of its non-existent parts.” The decision to take no footballers means England will presumably line up in a 0-0-0 formation, though a more flexible 0-0-0-0 has also been touted. And with no big egos to contend with, the dressing-room disharmony that has plagued previous squads should be kept to a minimum. Reaction among supporters to everyone’s omission has been mixed, however. “It’s great to see Roy get rid of the dead wood, but I worry about this team’s strength in depth,” said England fans’ spokesman Hugh Merryweather. “We’re lightweight in every position, and there’s literally no-one on the bench.” “Also, I can’t believe he picked Stewart Downing.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 “Also, I can’t believe he picked Stewart Downing.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 “Also, I can’t believe he picked Stewart Downing.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeloEmre Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 According to Hodgson, he saw Alex Chamberlain play well against Pirlo and Ambrosini v Milan. Ambrosini didn't play, Pirlo is at Juventus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 According to Hodgson, he saw Alex Chamberlain play well against Pirlo and Ambrosini v Milan. Ambrosini didn't play, Pirlo is at Juventus. Giggs wasn't playing for Milan that night either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Well I'm firmly back on the bandwagon, Come on England!!! I'll be calling them worse than muck but deep down I'll support them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Well I'm firmly back on the bandwagon, Come on England!!! I'll be calling them worse than muck but deep down I'll support them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritchie Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Martin Kelly called up as cover. Full of Liverpool players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Martin Kelly called up as cover. Full of Liverpool players. over Richards? Fuck off! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Losing a lot of respect for Roy now. It's becoming increasingly clear that he's trying to mend his Liverpool relationships. It would be one thing if they actually had good players, but this is just a joke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts