Roy Hodgson, Leicester Thoughts?

If only he HAD used something like your much better line, Mersey.

Instead, by saying that he had the "right" to hope the FA would choose him, he made possible the BBC's headline "Hodgson not surprised..", which has made him sound arrogant. It was surprisingly naive.

"What I mean is that Hodgson has done well at many clubs, while Redknapp has worked miracles at some of his."

Halmstad; just survived relegation, Hodgson takes over they win the league...twice.

Malmo; he won 5 consecutive league titles, plus cup and some European success (knocking Inter, the then Italian champions out).

Switzerland; after not qualify for a tournament since England had won one(!), Hogdson took over for the World Cup 94 campaign. They lost only one game and qualified in a group including Italy (who they beat at home and should have beat away) and Portugal. Hodgson got them through to the next tournament as well.

Fulham; on the verge of relegation, keeps them up, within a year they have their highest ever finish, within two, they have reached a Europa cup final.

West Brom; sitting on the relegation zone having lost 8 of 11, Hodgson comes in - they go unbeaten for 12, finish comfortably in mid-table and this year are competing for one of the club's highest ever post-war finishes.

I think there is an argument that Hodgson has spent at least as much time on 34th Street as Redknapp.

Also he guided Switzerland to 3rd in the rankings I believe. I honestly would have picked Roy Hodgson over Harry Redknapp anyway.

KTF - That record is why I think Hodgson is the second best choice for the job (rather than lower than that).

I would argue that Harry's skills and presence are more needed in the England setup at the moment and that his greatest accomplishments are better. (Champions League qualification and performance; Portsmouth's great escape and FA Cup win; etc.)

I'm less annoyed about this than I was yesterday and I wish Hodgson luck. I want to see an England team that competes and excites. If he can deliver that then great. But I'm going to need some convincing by the national team's performances that we haven't just missed out on a great opportunity with Redknapp.

Although I think there is a decent debate about the level of accomplishments between the two and I would stand by Hodgson from this perspective, I have to admit that my preference had been for Redknapp.

My point really was that Hodgson has certainly performed a couple of 'miracles' so to speak and I think he has shown enough at different clubs with different styles, to suggest he can adopt a formation and tactics to suit England rather than force them to play a blanket-type of football that he would look to intergrate at any club/nation (i.e. Capello).

If individual players continue to put in lacklustre performances in the Euro's I will continue to place a large proportion of the blame on the members of the team at this stage, over the new manager.

However, I do expect to see him use his experience to utilise the skills and style of play common with English players and the Premiership to a certain extent.......and of course, I expect Konchesky to be in the squad!!

It is a good appointment and I do hope he does well. Hes come at a time when a new generation of england players are starting to come through and if this is on the FA thoughts when making the appointment then I applaud them.

However, I really cant help the feeling that once again they seem to have with a "safe" option rather than a more opinion 'arry, who is more likely to speak his mind nevermind. Dont forget the reasons why Capello has gone..

dung If personality and the ability to stuff your back pocket where the crtieria then Arry would walk it.

I would like manager that can assess a situation and make things happen. Not be one of the lads thank you.

I'm still in a state of shock that the FA actually managed to get a decision correct! Been a long time coming

Very good choice I'd say, a manager who has a proven track record in this country, abroad and in international football, who is well respected across the globe and who takes a keen interest in coaching and developing players.

Yesterday's pretty appalling The Sun frontpage shows he has a long way to go to appease the gutter press though, especially after they put all their eggs in Harry Redknapp's basket. Personally I'm pleased that the FA didn't go for the easy choice in Redknapp - yes he has done a good job at Tottenham and elsewhere but remember how regularly he has to use the transfer market. A large part of his success at West Ham, Pompey (although it later bankrupted the club) and Spurs is his ability in the market - a very useful skill in the club game, pretty redundant in international football when you can only pick from a small group of players, and you can do very little to change that group. Also, 1 trophy in well over 30 years of management is hardly a ringing endorsement is it....

What I dont understand though is why we have given him a 4 year contract... could we not have given him 2 years initially to see how he gets on and then extend it if need be?

We renewed capellos contract right before the world cup and look what happened there... luckily in this case we got an easy escape with the John Terry saga.

I think all England manager's are traditionally given a 4 year contract Blackpool to cover two tournaments in theory.

But yes, with the amount of money they throw at managers (ironic considering how much they moan about league clubs spending) you'd think they would take it one tournament at a time.