England v Germany 2010

"I assume you mean West Brom rather than West Ham, but that aside I also assume this means you were positive about Steve Kean's appointment from day 1? "

I wasn't positive no. SK had no history in football management (I was very positive about Ince and before him though as he ahd served his apprenticeship and deserved a go - Kean never had) and had gone from being a no 3 very quickly. That was done by a group that had no history in football and football management appointees. That being said, he had his chance and was received and given the opportunity to play the game his way.

You make the point about Connor turning up at City which is a ridiculous comparison as Connor has a bad history of management (hardly his fault given his situation) and City expectations are higher. Where are England expectations? Well people didn't want a foreign mgr so we looked English and there are no outstanding candidates. Most everyone is unethused about Hodgson - I think he appreciates that but I find the OP's postings and rants (such as the sentence extracted above) too negative to say its all over before we have kicked a ball under the new guy and to criticise him for selecting the failures of the past etc. Whilst we might have gripes about individual players, I am not sure what miracles people expected Hodgson to pull ahead of the Euros (he was damned either way) and therefore some of the criticism of his squad choice is ridiculous.

"I also assume this means that if Venky's put their eldest son in charge on the team you'll get right behind him on every decision until he proves on the pitch he isn't great? In all seriousness no matter which manager the Venky's appoint you'd be positive? I dont buy it, and look forward to Megson arriving at Blackburn"

I think you have verged into the ridiculous here - no of course not. The situations are not comparable in the slightest.

Megson would be an improvement. Actually Venky's eldest son might be too....

"well done for picking out one sentence from someone on a 105 comment thread that has gone OTT"

So from three other seperate posts - including one gem from you...

"I must admit, after today I can't stand Roy Hodgson."

"the man is a total moron."

"However, many of his decisions in todays squad are quite frankly astounding even to those of us who knew he'd be a disaster. "

Overeaction much?

Pea,

I wasn't talking about Zonal Marking as a way of playing, it is a website dedicated to tactical analysis and philosophies with some of the best writers on the internet and in the media writing on it.

As Rover said, it is not merely voicing disapproval on his selection choice or appointment, a lot of posters, both on this thread and elsewhere, have obviously already made their mind up. I would say the same thing about any manager of any club that I support. After the appointment, I would try to get behind them at least until some games have been played, both ourselves and the manager have the same goal at the end of the day. Take my own club for example, I didn't like the way that Hughes was sacked and initially did not like the appointment of Mancini. It did not stop me backing him though.

I don't have a problem with anything at all that you have written, in fact I completely welcome it. I'm trying to debate it, which is surely the whole point of a forum? I'm also not sure what you think I am lying about regarding the Wiki bit, I was right in that you used some of it to write your response? I only said what it read like, and that Wikipedia is not just written from a factual point of view, it is absolutely full of opinion and when you get under the skin of it, mistruths.

Please remember that my initial post was not solely directed at you. There are plenty of posts in this thread from people that have not even tried to articulate a point, just jumped to a conclusion. All I am trying to argue is that it is not as clear cut as that.

In my first post, I said "At least give him a couple of games before casting full judgement, he deserves at least that". I wasn't demanding that, I was asking for it. You responded -

"People dont need a couple of games to make their mind up about Hodgson's style. We've seen it for 30 years. Why would two games change anything?"

Now, you may not. You obviously know your stuff and have an opinion (just as valid as mine) on Hodgson. I don't think all people are in the same boat though and are simply repeating whatever they have read elsewhere. All I am trying to argue is that he is actually very highly regarded, both as a person and tactically, by a lot of people in football and to those people that have already given up on him (of which there is a number), I am asking them to at least give him a try.



Once again, please do not see this as an argument or that any negativity was intended, I am just trying to open up the debate. It does feel, particularly from your last post, that you think I am arguing something that I don't think I am!

Hope that makes sense.

@Rover - Your argument and statement was that failure and success elsewhere dont guarantee anything so dont express a negative view of Hodgson from the off and wait for him to do badly first.

I was merely pointing out how this argument holds no water at all with a few silly comparisons, and they were silly because of course past experience counts and feeds into peoples opinions, and indeed is the reason people make certain appointments.

In this case Hodgson has no track record of success with bigger teams in major leagues or Internationally that are more often than not going to be favourites in games. Like it or not that is usually the case with England even if we have failed in the past to reach our potential, as Spain used to as well.

Noone thinks we should be the best team in International football, but we should certainly as a nation be aiming for the latter stages of tournaments, and outside tournaments we will regularly be the favourite in matches.

All we can do at this stage is look at Hodgson's past performances and set ups throughout his career and judge whether right now we think he's the best guy for the job, or whether we like his style of play, his football philosophy etc, so expressing a view that you aren't pleased with his appointment shouldnt be criticised for not giving him a chance in future games, as that's another matter. As is do you like this squad right now.

I dont see why anyone on here should sit in silence and not express their view about a current event until they have the benefit of hindsight, otherwise what we doing on here.

Do you really think it's likely or preferable for people on this forum to not say anything negative about his appointment or this squad, and instead only mention your previous view when a confirmatory event happens e.g. another silly example...we lose all our group games and the first 6 qualifiers, Hodgson is sacked, and then everyone comes on here and says 'well I always thought Hodgson would be a disaster, and I was right all along, but I didn't mention it at the time as I thought it better to keep quiet on this forum as I was worried it would affect the performance of the team on the pitch and wouldnt have been giving Hodgson a proper chance.'

"I dont see why anyone on here should sit in silence and not express their view about a current event until they have the benefit of hindsight, otherwise what we doing on here. "

Pea,

No one is saying you shouldn't. Why are you coming from the point of view that other people are trying to finish the argument yet you aren't? It is a debate, that is all, at no point has anyone said "you can't say that, or don't say this".

You seem to be arguing about peoples rights to say what they feel, when did anyone say they can't? I've only argued that I think that viewpoint is premature in my eyes.

@Melton - Fair enough re zonal marking. I thought you were bringing that up because Hodgson introduced it to the Swedish league in the 70s. It's one of the things his pro camp regularly use to big him up i.e. he introduced a known tactic in England to a back water footballing country. Woohoo.

The reason our discussion is frustrating me is because people's opinions about Hodgsons appointment or even whether they like the look of this squad, is totally distinct from giving him a chance in the games, so I still have no idea what your actual problem is. What does 'giving him a chance' even mean in a practical sense? If it means dont form an opinion on his capability to do the job well, or write about it on a discussion forum until after he's done the job, then that's never going to happen in any situation. People will always be instinctively happy or sad, others will describe the rationale for their current view, but that doesnt mean it can never change, and it doesnt mean people are then going to directly sabotage his attempts to win games.

You've said yourself you werent happy with Mancini's appt, it's no different. I assume you didnt keep your view of Mancini's appointment to yourself. I assume if the first thing he did was sell Kompany you wouldnt have said well let's all keep quiet and see what happens. You would have expressed a view and then reassessed it later if necessary.

Maybe giving him a chance in practical terms means not holding Mancini out banners at the first game or Hodgson out banners at England's first games but that sort of thing isnt what this thread was really all about from the comments I read, and I know you werent directing anything specifically at me. I just thought you were coming across as chastising people for holding an opinion right now, and suggested this means they aren't giving him a chance.

PS HODGSON OUT!

Pea,

I honestly didn't mean it like that. It is more the vitriol that some people put into their posts, particularly about Hodgson. I do feel like sometimes, he gets much harsher criticism than he deserves and I do think some people have judged him without knowing that much about him (absolutely, you are an exception to this).

i guess the point I was trying to make is that it is possible to be critical of a squad and manager and yet still support him, but that isn't the feeling I have got from this forum over the last couple of days (at least, in parts).

If I was to argue Hodgsons appointment (to try and get back on track!), I would say that I do think he is the right man for England going into the Euros, but agree that there is doubts longer term. Having said that, the key difference between Hodgson and Redknapp, for example, is that one is about systems, the other is about players.

Hodgsons approach tends to work best when he has had enough time with his squad to make sure they understand the system inside out and know exactly what each others roles are in that. That is why he tends to do better with the underdog teams - the players are less likely to break from that system. I'm not sure as England manager, he will get enough time with them to fully embed it, which is my worry. On the flip side, Redknapp would be more about the players and allowing them more freedom to do what they do best and I don't believe we have the players to do that.

Out of interest, considering the squad, what for you would constitute success in the Euros? Before any appointment was made, I would say that getting through the group stage would be the level we are currently at, anything further than that I would consider a very good tournament considering.

Fair enough Melton.

I think given Hodgson's appt, and the decisions he's taken on top with the squad, even getting out of the group would do better than many are now expecting, but getting out of the group should be the minimum for England with any manager. However, we all know Roy & the FA will use the short notice etc as an excuse if we dont get out of the group, and I agree with your summary of why Hodgson often does better with relative weak players/teams

With a manager that could have motivated the team far better at short notice, brought a feel good factor, and excited the nation then I'd have said it would be a shock if we hadnt got out of the group. You mentioned not liking Redknapp but to me if you are just looking at the Euros in isolation he would have done better on most levels and the players would all have really played for him.

As I mentioned earlier, the Euros are not even my main concern with Hodgson, as we wouldnt have won with any manager, so even though I'd expect Hodgson to do worse than whatever that failure would have been with many others, it is still going to end up with us coming home with nothing.

My biggest worry is Hodgson's major input into defining the way English teams will be playing at all ages levels via the Burton technical role i.e. implementing a spanish style model of consistent formations / style etc that feeds through to the elite team, so players are comfortable in our system when they play for England. This is where Hodgson's role and footballing philosophy scares me most.

We could be looking at a rigid defensive 4-4-2 across the age groups, each player fixated on his specific positional role, staying tight at the back, and hoping to nick one at the other end. As oppose to a flexible attacking style that encourages technical players to be fluid positionally, and take creative risks within a sound tactical structure. Redknapp wouldnt have brought this either btw, but Hodgson certainly wont, and we could be set back a generation behind the ever improving international set ups of countries like Germany and Spain.

Hiddink would have been better from both the perspective of the Euros and the technical role. If we look at British managers then even Brendan Rogers would have been more foward thinking and brave from the FA. He seems an innovative modern guy, with a great philosophy that fits with the way football is going. I dont buy you need international experience. Many of the hugely successful International teams have been managed well by people that sometimes havent even much managerial experience, let alone International managerial experience e.g. the German and Brazil teams over the years.

It's still a shame imo that Hoddle had barmy off the field views as he was also the right sort of guy for England. Instead we've gone back to 70s/80s and hired about as old fashioned, dour and uninspiring a guy as is possible. They've also given him 3 tournaments immediately eeeek

IMO Hodgson was picked because he was cheap as chips (after the big Fabio pay out) since he had no contract with any club past June (another ringing endorsement), and will happily be a Burton daily blazer man attending all the FA meetings & committees.

Ledley King didn't go to the last WC.

Surprised nobody has picked up on that.