LiquidAK Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Winning 8 league titles in impressive, regardless of where (except Scotland, but he didn't win it there). Besides, he's by far a better choice because if nothing else he's going to take a much keener interest in the grassroots side, i.e. St George's Park than Redknapp ever would have. We're shite at the moment, no manager will win us anything without gallons of luck, period. Better someone like Roy who has experience winning a lot in different places and will take a real interest in our development for the future (the only way we will ever catch up imo) than someone like Cuntknapp who has won fuck all and will at best maybe give a temporary boost to some of our cunt players who want one of da boyz in charge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I'd say it's more than half of Spurs' fanbase that want rid of him to be honest.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Plus - if you're going to talk about success in England then Roy taking Fulham to within touching distance of winning the Europa League was an excellent achievement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I think it's churlish to suggest Redknapp hasn't done a good job at Spurs, sure they've got good players and a decent budget but we've seen with clubs like Spurs, Newcastle and Villa in the past 20 years that this isn't necessarily a surefire way to lead a club to finishes of 4th, 5th and 4th like he has. He's implemented an attractive style of play and turned them into a serious opposition when there's been times over the years that they've been a bit of a joke. He built a good side at Portsmouth with the money that they gave him and winning the FA Cup with them was a good achievement, look at the list of FA Cup winners in the last 20 years if you don't believe me. Everton-aside they're all 'top clubs', and even Everton are a much bigger club. And he had them playing good stuff in the league and finishing in the top 8 I think it was. Besides those 2 stints I agree that his career has been mediocre at best. I think he's an absolute twat and the press love-in with him is sickening and wrong but the case for him to be England manager was primarily built on him being the top-performing English manager in the league over the last 3 seasons. I'm happy enough with Hodgson though, just saying it's daft to say Redknapp is a crap manager who didn't deserve to be in the running. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Redknapp is a dopey little Englander, just like the press over here. There's no way he'd be able to be a success managing in different countries, learning different languages and cultures, helping build entire national set-ups from the ground up like he did in Switzerland. How on earth is any of this relative? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Because you're trying to say Hodgson has done nothing of note, when he's a well respected coach across Europe with a track record for improving teams and winning titles while having a reputation for working very well behind the scenes and in terms of grass roots development. Something Redknapp would never dream of doing because he doesn't have to scope, intelligence or interest in doing. It's an extremely one eyed view to say that Hodgson has achieved nothing of note in his career compared to Redknapp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Redknapp is a dopey little Englander, just like the press over here. There's no way he'd be able to be a success managing in different countries, learning different languages and cultures, helping build entire national set-ups from the ground up like he did in Switzerland. How on earth is any of this relative? Are you say that the fact Hodgson got Switzerland into 3rd in the world record doesn't matter, and that it didn't play on the FA's mind when makeing the decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I think it's churlish to suggest Redknapp hasn't done a good job at Spurs, sure they've got good players and a decent budget but we've seen with clubs like Spurs, Newcastle and Villa in the past 20 years that this isn't necessarily a surefire way to lead a club to finishes of 4th, 5th and 4th like he has. He's implemented an attractive style of play and turned them into a serious opposition when there's been times over the years that they've been a bit of a joke. He built a good side at Portsmouth with the money that they gave him and winning the FA Cup with them was a good achievement, look at the list of FA Cup winners in the last 20 years if you don't believe me. Everton-aside they're all 'top clubs', and even Everton are a much bigger club. And he had them playing good stuff in the league and finishing in the top 8 I think it was. Besides those 2 stints I agree that his career has been mediocre at best. I think he's an absolute twat and the press love-in with him is sickening and wrong but the case for him to be England manager was primarily built on him being the top-performing English manager in the league over the last 3 seasons. I'm happy enough with Hodgson though, just saying it's daft to say Redknapp is a crap manager who didn't deserve to be in the running. I actually like Roy Hodgeson fwiw. I just don't really see how he can be classed as a better manager than Redknapp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 It's pretty much impossible to say who is the 'better' manager in most situations, bearing in mind the different budgets, clubs, players etc. I would much prefer Hodgson as England manager because having Redknapp appear in the media even more than he does would be unbearable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Redknapp is a very good manager IMO, ignoring his personality and wobbly face. I was really looking forward to the media turning on him though, so it would have been win/win for me had he been appointed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Unfortunately I can't ignore his personality or wobbly face. I'm shallow like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Redknapp is a dopey little Englander, just like the press over here. There's no way he'd be able to be a success managing in different countries, learning different languages and cultures, helping build entire national set-ups from the ground up like he did in Switzerland. How on earth is any of this relative? Are you say that the fact Hodgson got Switzerland into 3rd in the world record doesn't matter, and that it didn't play on the FA's mind when makeing the decision. I'm more onabout the fact about Redknapp being a bit of a dodgy English spiv with no culture ect. But anyway, after checking, his "3rd best side in the world" was knocked out in the last 16 of the only tournament they played in under him. This was also pushing 20 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 He's got a terrible personality, a wobbly face, is a crook, taps up players in plain view of public, is hated by all previous and current supporters, leaves a trail of financial destruction, next to no trophy success despite 30 years in the game, sides persistently bottles big occasions and will happily proclaim he has no interest in tactics or coaching. Apart from that he's mint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 He's got a terrible personality, a wobbly face, is a crook, taps up players in plain view of public, is hated by all previous and current supporters, leaves a trail of financial destruction, next to no trophy success despite 30 years in the game, sides persistently bottles big occasions and will happily proclaim he has no interest in tactics or coaching. Apart from that he's mint. I was thinking of a better way to say why I hate him, thanks for saving the bother. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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...
Recommended Posts