Redknapp you a**e!

StillGoing

So now the FA have decided Roy Hodgson is their man for the England coach job, 'Arry suddenly looks to be needing a decent dinner service for the humble pie he's going to need to eat to win the hearts of Tottenham fans back. He should have negotiated a contract extension with Daniel Levy and pledged his allegiance to WHL while the England discussion was going on, but now the negotiating power lies firmly in the hands of the Tottenham chairman. Business acumen let you down there 'Arry. Given Spurs results since February, is his job at WHL even safe?

raymondo60

You may be right, but its also just as possible that there have been 'behind the scenes' discussions between the F.A., Harry and Spurs and that Harry really didn't want the job after all. Harry's a 'hands on' manager, who enjoys the day-to-day involvement with players. I never really thought he would take the job as England Coach.......

Ben6899

I don't think you need to worry about 'Arry's "business acumen".

From a football perspective, I am happy for Roy Hodsgon to take the role; his CV speaks for itself.

drays

Isn't it possible that the FA are speaking to Woy now West Brom are in mid table obscurity, and will formally approach 'arry once Spurs season is decided. (They always said they didn't want to disturn any clubs season (they failed).

If 'arry didn't want the job, he would have said by now. The FA will want to have a couple of good candidates to choose from, and Woy is available.

Ben6899

drays wrote:

Isn't it possible that the FA are speaking to Woy now West Brom are in mid table obscurity, and will formally approach 'arry once Spurs season is decided. (They always said they didn't want to disturn any clubs season (they failed).

If 'arry didn't want the job, he would have said by now. The FA will want to have a couple of good candidates to choose from, and Woy is available.

I think the job is as good as Roy's.

Thank fuck. I can't support an England team led by Harry Redknapp.

Hooligan Bill

Ben6899 wrote:

From a football perspective, I am happy for Roy Hodsgon to take the role; his CV speaks for itself.

19 teams in 36 years, that is a change on average every 22 months. Hardly shouts managerial success at you.

Ben6899

Hooligan Bill wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

From a football perspective, I am happy for Roy Hodsgon to take the role; his CV speaks for itself.

19 teams in 36 years, that is a change on average every 22 months. Hardly shouts managerial success at you.

I just look at what he achieved with Switzerland (1), Internazionale (2) and Fulham (3).

1) they hadn't been to the World Cup since 1966. When he stood down, they were ranked 3rd in UEFA's standings.
2) He did the donkey work (14W, 13D, 5L - look at the W, D, L ratios of teams winning Serie A back then) with a very average squad, was harshly sacked and the club narrowly missed out on winning Serie A under the guy who took over the last half-dozen or so matches.
3) I won't bother insulting your intelligence by going through the achievements at Fulham.

He's a bloody good manager.

Hooligan Bill

Ben6899 wrote:

Hooligan Bill wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

From a football perspective, I am happy for Roy Hodsgon to take the role; his CV speaks for itself.

19 teams in 36 years, that is a change on average every 22 months. Hardly shouts managerial success at you.

I just look at what he achieved with Switzerland (1), Internazionale (2) and Fulham (3).

And look what he achieved at Liverpool, lowest points total at the turn of the year for nearly 60 years and his win/loss ratio was better there than at Fulham. I don't know many Blackburn fans who have much good to say about him either. It will be just another "safe" appointment by the FA in the mould of McClaren/Taylor and Greenwood.

Aggieboy

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Stewieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee FA smell a rat and 'arry will trot out the "I didn't want it" line.

COYI's!!

Ben6899

Hooligan Bill wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Hooligan Bill wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

From a football perspective, I am happy for Roy Hodsgon to take the role; his CV speaks for itself.

19 teams in 36 years, that is a change on average every 22 months. Hardly shouts managerial success at you.

I just look at what he achieved with Switzerland (1), Internazionale (2) and Fulham (3).

And look what he achieved at Liverpool, lowest points total at the turn of the year for nearly 60 years and his win/loss ratio was better there than at Fulham. I don't know many Blackburn fans who have much good to say about him either. It will be just another "safe" appointment by the FA in the mould of McClaren/Taylor and Greenwood.

Look at the squads he had to work with. Liverpool might be Liverpool, but they're no better than mid-table fodder and they've been like that for a decade and a half.

I think, considering resources at Fulham, he did a bloody sterling job.

StillGoing

And a damn sight better than that tosser Dalgliesh considering who had what at their disposal.

Hodgson is as good as in. The announcement is expected before the end of the week. Spurs appeared to pick up yesterday probably on hearing the news.

Gazzaputt

Ben6899 wrote:

Look at the squads he had to work with. Liverpool might be Liverpool, but they're no better than mid-table fodder and they've been like that for a decade and a half.

I think, considering resources at Fulham, he did a bloody sterling job.

As a Liverpool supporter I have to agree the squad he inherited and the mess from Benitez was far from ideal.

As for mid table fodder for a decade and a half your talking sh1te.

Cleat Eastwood

i think its the fa who ar the arses - i can't stand hodgson - he's like human mogodon. I think this is a cunning plan by seb coe - get england knocked out early doors - nation in gloom - yay look to the olympics for inspiration - its sports version of boom and bust.

alihisgreat

Gazzaputt wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Look at the squads he had to work with. Liverpool might be Liverpool, but they're no better than mid-table fodder and they've been like that for a decade and a half.

I think, considering resources at Fulham, he did a bloody sterling job.

As a Liverpool supporter I have to agree the squad he inherited and the mess from Benitez was far from ideal.

As for mid table fodder for a decade and a half your talking sh1te.

I agree that you can't blame Roy for liverpool being crap... even 'King Kenny' can't sort them out

I also agree that Liverpool have been mid-table fodder.. apart from the Champions league win in 2005 they're a domestic cup team... and its generous calling them that!

Ben6899

Gazzaputt wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Look at the squads he had to work with. Liverpool might be Liverpool, but they're no better than mid-table fodder and they've been like that for a decade and a half.

I think, considering resources at Fulham, he did a bloody sterling job.

As a Liverpool supporter I have to agree the squad he inherited and the mess from Benitez was far from ideal.

As for mid table fodder for a decade and a half your talking sh1te.

Granted, I was off in my recollection of their Premier League performances. However, it must still be difficult reading for a supporter:

1992/93 6
8
4
3
4
3
7
4
3
2
5
4
5
3
3
4
2
7
2010/11 6

Yes, Benitez left a right mess.

rick_chasey

Hodgson is good with poor to mediocre teams. Amongst the European clubs, that's roughly where England sit.

Sounds perfect for him - if players decide to listen - which is another matter entirely.

Personally I would have liked Mick McCarthy. The English national team needs a bit of no-nonsense and extreme intolerance to big egos and bullsh!t.

verylonglegs

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Redknapp was working as a pundit for an England game previously, last WC possibly, and his assessment as England were behind and chasing the game was ‘stick Crouchie on and get the ball up to him and see if something will drop for us’. Tactical genius eh?

Either way, whatever the manager the players are not good enough to win it.

alihisgreat

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hodgson is good with poor to mediocre teams. Amongst the European clubs, that's roughly where England sit.

Sounds perfect for him - if players decide to listen - which is another matter entirely.

Personally I would have liked Mick McCarthy. The English national team needs a bit of no-nonsense and extreme intolerance to big egos and bullsh!t.

I don't think England can really be called a mediocre team.. when you look at the strength of the squad, England have a group of individuals who should be playing better and aiming higher than a mediocre team.. Which is why Redknapp may have been a better choice as he's had more experience with world class players and strong squads.

Although I think Roy may be a success at the Euros if he can grind out a few results.. but after that i think the FA need to look elseware.. Guardiola maybe? (... in our dreams )

Ben6899

verylonglegs wrote:

Either way, whatever the manager the players are not good enough to win it.

I think with the correct starting line-up, tactics and appropriate coaching, an England side does exist that could do well and possibly win the upcoming tournament.

Trouble is (1): we haven't had this since 1996, when we were bloody unlucky not to reach the final.
Trouble is (2): Wayne Rooney's absence from the first two matches a massive blow.

I am encouraged when I think about the changes Hodgson might make and the approach he will have; I thinkg there may be one or two surprises.

rick_chasey

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hodgson is good with poor to mediocre teams. Amongst the European clubs, that's roughly where England sit.

Sounds perfect for him - if players decide to listen - which is another matter entirely.

Personally I would have liked Mick McCarthy. The English national team needs a bit of no-nonsense and extreme intolerance to big egos and bullsh!t.

I don't think England can really be called a mediocre team.. when you look at the strength of the squad, England have a group of individuals who should be playing better and aiming higher than a mediocre team.. Which is why Redknapp may have been a better choice as he's had more experience with world class players and strong squads.

Although I think Roy may be a success at the Euros if he can grind out a few results.. but after that i think the FA need to look elseware.. Guardiola maybe? (... in our dreams )

No England are, by European international standards, a mediocre team.

They just about get through the group stages, and either go out in the first knockout or the quarter finals.

So, mediocre. Not so rubbish they can't get through the group stages, but never a team to back with a solid chance to get into the final.

Holland, Italy, Germany, Spain - these are good teams. There's always a shout they'll get into the finals, and more often than not they're there in the semis.

England is not there.

Ignore the players - look at the results.

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

I am encouraged when I think about the changes Hodgson might make and the approach he will have; I thinkg there may be one or two surprises.

That'll be no Gerard then.

Is that even a surprise any more?

Since Gerard came back from injury, Liverpool's winning record has plummeted.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I am encouraged when I think about the changes Hodgson might make and the approach he will have; I thinkg there may be one or two surprises.

That'll be no Gerard then.

Is that even a surprise any more?

Since Gerard came back from injury, Liverpool's winning record has plummeted.

That's why I italicised it.

verylonglegs

Rick Chasey wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hodgson is good with poor to mediocre teams. Amongst the European clubs, that's roughly where England sit.

Sounds perfect for him - if players decide to listen - which is another matter entirely.

Personally I would have liked Mick McCarthy. The English national team needs a bit of no-nonsense and extreme intolerance to big egos and bullsh!t.

I don't think England can really be called a mediocre team.. when you look at the strength of the squad, England have a group of individuals who should be playing better and aiming higher than a mediocre team.. Which is why Redknapp may have been a better choice as he's had more experience with world class players and strong squads.

Although I think Roy may be a success at the Euros if he can grind out a few results.. but after that i think the FA need to look elseware.. Guardiola maybe? (... in our dreams )

No England are, by European international standards, a mediocre team.

They just about get through the group stages, and either go out in the first knockout or the quarter finals.

So, mediocre. Not so rubbish they can't get through the group stages, but never a team to back with a solid chance to get into the final.

Holland, Italy, Germany, Spain - these are good teams. There's always a shout they'll get into the finals, and more often than not they're there in the semis.

England is not there.

Ignore the players - look at the results.

Under Blanc and with bit of a clear out France are amongst the teams you've named, I'd rate them above Italy and I expect them to top England's group. For me Englands weakness is in central defence, we can't expect to shut out the top teams.

Ben6899

I think there’s a case for replicating successful club partnerships, where nationality allows, at International level. And this has to be regardless of whether the players in question might not be the “best” players available in those positions.

So, for example...

Back four: A Cole, Terry, G Cahill, A Another
Centre forwards: Rooney, Welbeck

In midfield, there’s an embarrassment of riches if deployed appropriately so I’ll let someone else fill that one in. I’m fed up with upsetting folk on here!

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

In midfield, there’s an embarrassment of riches if deployed appropriately so I’ll let someone else fill that one in. I’m fed up with upsetting folk on here!

Eh?

No there isn't! Not compared to other nations.

beverick

I think the BBC were playing the irony card this morning when, under a picture of 'Arry at a press conference the scrolling banner on the news channel said "Hodgson formerly managed Finland".

The FA may as well have re-appointed Steve McLaren.

Mind you, at least he has some relevant experience. From that well known font of all knowledge and truth Wikipedia: “When the German underdogs [Shalke 04] won the final in [the second leg in] Milan on penalties, Inter fans pelted Hodgson with coins and lighters.”
At least that experience will come in handy for the World cup qualifying games at Wembley when he sets the team up with a 9-0-1 formation.

Not that I think he would have been a particularly good appointment, but what Stuart Pearce is thinking today I can only speculate. But I bet there's a few damaged doors and walls around Soho Square.

Bob

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

In midfield, there’s an embarrassment of riches if deployed appropriately so I’ll let someone else fill that one in. I’m fed up with upsetting folk on here!

Eh?

No there isn't! Not compared to other nations.

I'm not comparing other nations. I am saying there is plenty of decent talent to choose from to have a talented selection of midfield players. This has nothing to do with what other nations have available.

One word: Greece.

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

In midfield, there’s an embarrassment of riches if deployed appropriately so I’ll let someone else fill that one in. I’m fed up with upsetting folk on here!

Eh?

No there isn't! Not compared to other nations.

I'm not comparing other nations. I am saying there is plenty of decent talent to choose from to have a talented selection of midfield players. This has nothing to do with what other nations have available.

One word: Greece.

England's midfield is poor. Oh so poor. Gerard? Rubbish. Lampard? Alright, but limited. Has come good more recently. Young? Good in bits. Lenon? Again, limited. Carrick? Not very useful in an England team, he's best at distributing to real talent. Scott-Parker? Beginning to scrape the barrel a bit. Barry? Oh dear.

You're right to bring up Greece. That's how England should play. Work hard on set pieces (which tend to be more valuable in international competitions), and give up any attempt to play good football.

If it were me, and thank god it's not, I'd have Crouch in the team with Young - just for the set pieces. That's worth a goal or two in a few matches.

Ben6899

What would your England first XI be, Rick?

alihisgreat

Ben6899 wrote:

What would your England first XI be, Rick?

Rick's would be rubbish as he seems to think all English midfielders are useless!

Lampard is just finding his form again and you wouldn't bet against him getting a few goals from midfield in the euros, Parker is a solid and dependable CDM who doesn't lose the ball, Ashley Young is England's best winger, Carrick is a solid CDM/distributor although not as flexible as Lampard.. but i have a feeling that's due to SAF restricting him.

Then Younger players like Cleverly as a CAM and Phil Jones as a CDM can be brought in to reinforce the squad.

I do agree that Hodgeson should run as far as possible away from Barry and Lennon though.. probably Gerrard too... and RM/RW is a position where England really lack a stand-out player... they just need someone who can put a ball into the box consistently.


Here is mine:

Cole, Cahill, Terry, Walker

Lampard, Parker

Young, Rooney, Walcott

Welbeck

4-2-3-1 in theory... any suggestions for someone better than Walcott?

verylonglegs

Instead of Walcott....I've always rated Adam Johnson but he's not getting enough playing time at Man City. Oxlade-Chamberlain already looks to be the talent that Walcott hasn't quite become imo.