FA approach hodgson westbrom give permission to talk!!

[Simster]

All seems pretty obvious to me.

'arry. Of course the press want him, and therefore install him as the "peoples choice." He gets on well with the press, always gives them a quote - usually about the next player he wants to sign - and is a timebomb waiting to go off with a massive corruption stpry. That's PERFECT for the press, of course they want him. But for the FA it would cost in the region of £10m to buy him out of his Spurs contract, and as a manager who is always in need of "2 or 3 more quality signings" he is perhaps not suited to International management, where he can't drop a Van Der Vaart into the squad.

Roy. He makes a career out of getting the best out of mediocre talent, which is the job he needs to do with us. He does it by working with those players, rather than opening a cheque book, and has experience of International management. Also, there is no contract to buy him out of as his deal at West Briom expires in a few weeks.

There is only a big fuss being made, because he's not as good news for the media, because he's just not as colourful a story.

Quite.

I just don't get the outcry from anyone with a brain over Hodgson. As if he will do any worse than so many of the clowns we've had in recent years: Taylor and McClaren were especially dreadful. Even Capello (who clearly knows his onions) couldn't be arsed with learning the language or moderating to suit a non-Latin culture. Hodgson ought to do better than all of them.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Switzerland are Swedish as well!? Blimey, I do get them mixed up though...[MENTION=805]Kalimantan Gull[/MENTION] may have a point...

I think the point I was making was that Harry has a better record in England than Roy.

He did not 'do well' with Switzerland, unless everything is now 'relative'. Doing well should be an absolute. Why not appoint Micky Adams as England manager, he did well with Brighton...

 

[Simster]

Thats a daft statement. We've got players in the champions league final, winners of champions leagues, of course they're good enough. If they weren't we wouldn't have been laying into Sven, Shteve and Cappello the way we do. Manager's matter.

How many English players do Chelsea start with? Lampard and John Terry, and one of those two is a f***ing liability at the very top level as we have just seen.

We are light years from the standards played by the very best.

 

[Mellotron]

Thats a daft statement. We've got players in the champions league final, winners of champions leagues, of course they're good enough. If they weren't we wouldn't have been laying into Sven, Shteve and Cappello the way we do. Manager's matter.

Russia and Ivory Coast have players in the Champs league final, winners of champions league. Should they win the World Cup?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

As if that is even remotely possible in the next 10 years.
I'm delighted that Redknapp didn't get it and wish Woy all the best- I think he may surprise a few people.

Well its not now. I don't hate Roy Hodgson, I'm sure he'll do just fine, its just a shame we've let a talent like Harry slip away. But of course I'm in a minority about that

 

[Mellotron]

I think the point I was making was that Harry has a better record in England than Roy.

He did not 'do well' with Switzerland, unless everything is now 'relative'. Doing well should be an absolute. Why not appoint Micky Adams as England manager, he did well with Brighton...

What does "in England" matter when we're appointing an INTERNATIONAL manager? I'm much more fussed about how much they know/understand of the world game. Clue: Roy knows a LOT more than 'Arry.

 

[Gritt23]

I don't know about you, but I'd like to win a world cup or a euros, not just be comfortably average

And the truth is that we don't even nearly have the players to do so. Have you seen Spain lately? 'Arry certainly isn't going to change that, and neither will Roy, the playing talent simply isn't good enough. For me though Roy has a better pedigree at improving the players he has at his disposal, whereas 'Arry doesn't even try, as he's straight on the phone to agents to buy new players wherever he goes. I have never seen how that tells us whether he can take a limited pool of England players and improve them.

Personally, I think the FA have made the right choice, and if we "fail" to win the Euros that won't mean it should have been 'Arry. The unrealistic expectations of many isn't teh fault of the England manager, whoever it is.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I think the point I was making was that Harry has a better record in England than Roy.

He did not 'do well' with Switzerland, unless everything is now 'relative'. Doing well should be an absolute. Why not appoint Micky Adams as England manager, he did well with Brighton...

Of course it's relative, as you can only succeed with the team you have, so if Switzerland qualify for finals, that's good "relatively" for them - otherwise, you can only be good if you win the tournament, which is patently no true.

I personally don't think it's very fair to bring Hodgsons Liverpool experience into any argument, as he never stood a chance there - he was the wrong appointment, and was undermined as soon as he got there - everyone should just be allowed to forget that episode and move on.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

How many English players do Chelsea start with? Lampard and John Terry, and one of those two is a f***ing liability at the very top level as we have just seen.

We are light years from the standards played by the very best.

Russia and Ivory Coast have players in the Champs league final, winners of champions league. Should they win the World Cup?

I can't keep up arguing with everyone at once!

OK, so England are shit, so it doesn't matter who we appoint. Is that the argument now?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think the point I was making was that Harry has a better record in England than Roy.

He did not 'do well' with Switzerland, unless everything is now 'relative'. Doing well should be an absolute. Why not appoint Micky Adams as England manager, he did well with Brighton...

You are joking!? They hadn't qualified for a finals in 30 years, in a group featuring Italy and Portugal they lost one game - to get to a finals England didn't even qualify for. He got Switzerland to 3rd in the FIFA rankings under his tenure - please tell me the last time the England got to 3rd!!??

What would you class as success with Switzerland, winning the world cup?!?

What then is Harry's great successes as a comparison?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I can't keep up arguing with everyone at once!

OK, so England are shit, so it doesn't matter who we appoint. Is that the argument now?

You've got loads of people arguing with you because you are coming out with such utter tripe!!

 

[Simster]

I think the point I was making was that Harry has a better record in England than Roy.

He did not 'do well' with Switzerland, unless everything is now 'relative'. Doing well should be an absolute. Why not appoint Micky Adams as England manager, he did well with Brighton...

Firstly, I don't see the relevance to Redknapps success *in England* for international football. Redknapp has spent almost his entire career in England - he was at Bournemouth in 1982. Hodgson started his managerial career in Sweden in 1976 but only returned to manage here in 1997. I'd be alarmed if Redknapp *hadn't* had more success in England thay Hodgson.

And Hodgson has reached TWO European finals. Surely more relevant that any domestic cup win that Redknapp has managed?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

What does "in England" matter when we're appointing an INTERNATIONAL manager? I'm much more fussed about how much they know/understand of the world game. Clue: Roy knows a LOT more than 'Arry.

But that was the argument when Sven and Fabio were appointed.

I have also felt that the criteria to be England manager should be 'have managed in England' and 'be a winner'. Which leaves a small pool of people.

 

[Gritt23]

He did not 'do well' with Switzerland, unless everything is now 'relative'.

No he didn't "do well" with Switzerland, he did far better than that. Of course everything is relative!

He took a nation of non-qualifiers, and qualified for the 1994 World Cup, which I believe was their first qualification for 20 years, and he also got them through the Group stages. That was an incredible achievement.

Also, he did it with the same pool of talent, not buying in a load of new players that the club couldn't afford. That is a hard skill, and it's hard to tell whether a manager has it unless they have International experience. Not all good club managers would make good International managers, which is why the fact Roy has this experience, and shown he can improve a group of players to play beyond where everyone thought they could, is a massive plus for him, and one that 'Arry just cannot match.

 

[JBizzle]

Thats a daft statement. We've got players in the champions league final, winners of champions leagues, of course they're good enough. If they weren't we wouldn't have been laying into Sven, Shteve and Cappello the way we do. Manager's matter.

Personally, I never really criticised the three mentioned manager too much exactly because of the above reasoning. Our players are good but only when supplemented by better foreign imports. Ever wondered why virtually no Spanish, Italian, German, French, Dutch or Portuguese clubs sign English? Sure, price is a factor but lack of technical ability is a bigger one.

Put simply, Terry (Carvalho), Ferdinand (Vidic), Barry (Yaya Toure), Parker (Modric), Lampard (Makelele), Gerrard (Alonso) and to a lesser extent Hart, Cole and Rooney are good players but they need proper quality around them (bracketed) to actually look good. This is why when paired with each other on the International stage they fail every time.

Managers matter, sure, but the players matter far more.

 

[Simster]

I can't keep up arguing with everyone at once!

OK, so England are shit, so it doesn't matter who we appoint. Is that the argument now?

No. Your argument seems to be that Redknapp is the man for the job because you want to win things.

We're all saying that won't happen, whoever is in charge. However, we are less likely to be embarrassed if Hodgson is running things.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Firstly, I don't see the relevance to Redknapps success *in England* for international football. Redknapp has spent almost his entire career in England - he was at Bournemouth in 1982. Hodgson started his managerial career in Sweden in 1976 but only returned to manage here in 1997. I'd be alarmed if Redknapp *hadn't* had more success in England thay Hodgson.

And Hodgson has reached TWO European finals. Surely more relevant that any domestic cup win that Redknapp has managed?

Look its just a stupid back argument to Mellotron saying Roy had a better record than Harry. In the one league in which they've both managed Harry has a better record than Roy. I'm not saying it matters, other than I think having a good knowledge of English football and English footballers matters which is why Sven and Fabio were such bad choices.

Thats irrelevant here, Roy knows English football. My SOLE argument in favour of Harry is that I think he has the better motivational skills which I think is more important than organisational skills at TOP-level International football.

 

[Mellotron]

I can't keep up arguing with everyone at once!

OK, so England are shit, so it doesn't matter who we appoint. Is that the argument now?

Nah. It's that with the limited playing resources we have, I think Roy is a more suitable appointment than Harry.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

No. Your argument seems to be that Redknapp is the man for the job because you want to win things.

We're all saying that won't happen, whoever is in charge. However, we are less likely to be embarrassed if Hodgson is running things.

A couple of years ago I wanted Jim Gannon to be the next Brighton manager instead of Gus Poyet, using pretty much the same argument you and others are putting forward on this thread. I feel I've learned my lesson...

 

[Mellotron]

But that was the argument when Sven and Fabio were appointed.

I have also felt that the criteria to be England manager should be 'have managed in England' and 'be a winner'. Which leaves a small pool of people.

To be fair, we were SUPERB under Fabio up until the tournament itself. He has the best record of any England manager, ever. The performances in the tournament itself were bizarre. The likes of Algeria and Slovenia we were destroying 4-0 in qualifying.