PS Melton - In reply to your Rio question. Hodgson himself said that the decision on Rio was NOT anything to do with not being able to play several games in quick succession. Are you suggesting he is lying? He went on to give the rationale I explained, which doesnt stack up v Gerrard either, so something doesnt smell right.

My guess is he bottled the Terry Rio situation.

So Hodgson is already being written off bcause he didn't take everyone's wants. Strangely enough that was never going to happen. If Carrick was already retired (and Scholes most definitely has), then how does he pick them?

Maybe, just maybe, we should look to endorse this manager who has taken on the role just before a set of national finals. Maybe he does actually have a plan for his squad that certain players don't fit into. Maybe he does even have a Plan B that other players don't fit into - we don't know and to criticise him is ridiculous.

As to his record with Pool, he inherited a Liverpool side full of egos and played no worse football than Benitez's teams in terms of entertainment (yes I am a Rovers fan under Allardyce at the time - happy days). He didn't cover himself with glory and was proved to be a poor appointment there.

However the whiff of cynicism - haven't we been crying out for a manager with a plan to build a team. Isn't that the most blatant criticism of Capello (same old favourites, no tactical brilliance). If our players are so limited, then maybe having a safety first approach is the right thing for this tournament.

Afterwards we can see how he goes but writing him off because he didn't choose our preferred squad and hasn't got the perfect record makes the OP and others sound like petulant children.

Here's a thought - you could say that Hodgson succeeded at West Ham where Di Matteo failed (was getting them relegated). Di Matteo seems to have succeeded at Chelsea where Villas-Boas failed and AVB was champion of the Waffa Cup. Failure and success elsewhere don't always guarantee anything (Capello built an awful TEAM). so Roy is the choice, let him do his job before the naysaying starts.

Well said Rover.

Pea,

I'm not being deliberately argumentative, I'm putting across a different perspective on Hodgson, which is surely what being part of a football forum is about? The opinions and views that came out in this thread way before I joined it seemed to be opinions that people had set in stone.

Any England manager, particularly in recent times, is lambasted by the media and in turn the fans. It has now seemingly got the stage where this is now happening before a ball is even kicked. I don't understand how people think that can possibly be productive - what chance has he got if he has it in his head that no-one is behind him anyway?

I wasn't being hypocritical with Wikipedia, like I said, I checked it after I had responded to see if that was where you got your information from, I didn't use it for information myself. The reason I mentioned that is because both your opinion, and whoever wrote the article on Wikipedia, seem to be coming from a very negative point of view regarding Hodgson. I'm not debating any of the factual points, of course it is right to research that, it is more the negative slant that has been put onto it. Given the context of the situation at Inter, it puts a different perspective on what happened. Regarding Switzerland, my father has worked in Basel for a long time and so I watched them quite a lot, particularly in the nineties (I was actually in the United end for the Basel game, which was an experience!). The way he set them up, even though the players weren't technically great, was not counter attacking football.

That negative point of view of Hodgson is more prevalant in the print media and in fans forums than it is from any footballing source. Hodgson is a highly regarded coach in football circles, if you read some of the best books on tactical approaches over the last 20 years, he always gets a mention. Just have a look at Zonal Marking for proof of that.

With Liverpool, as is coming out now, Dalgleish had a lot more input than people realise. It is entirely unfair to put the blame for what happened there at Hodgsons door, there was no way he was ever going to succeed in that role with the internal people that were at the club at the time.

Apologies if you think I am being deliberately argumentative, I am merely trying to put across a different point of view. If people have already decided that Hodgson is going to do a bad job, then it is all the more likely that that will happen. All I am asking is to give him a chance.

Yet again you miss the point Melton, which is why I wondered if you were being deliberately obtuse.

I've no problem with a different perspective on the issue in hand, but you are complaining about people who are merely expressing their disappointment at Hodgson's appointment, and the fact they dont like the squad he has picked. This is entirely different from giving him a chance.

As I said if Mancini got sacked and Terry Connor got put in charge of City, would you simply stay completely silent on the subject? Would you be telling all city fans to not say anything negative about the appointment and to wait until Terry has played a few games before mentioning anything about the appointment? Of course not, that would be nonsense. In any case how he does in the first few matches has absolutely nothing to do with how a person feels about his initial appointment. I wouldnt mind at all if you were saying I think Hodgson is a good appointment, because that's the different perspective, not saying you shouldn't be saying anything bad about the appointment and instead wait for games to be played. Do you seriously not see this?

As for only checking Wiki to see if any of my sentences matched the website, I simply dont believe you whatever you say. It's just a cheap shot to try and put a negative slant on the subject matter which was factual anyway. If anything I said wasnt factual please point it out, and suggesting I was using negative spin is rich when your spin consisted of cherry picking one job with Switzerland from his entire CV over 40 years as the reason he will be good. Although you're not even saying he will be good, as you then went on to say that even you dont think Hodgson is great, so yes maybe you are being deliberately argumentative.

PS Zonal marking is a defensive philosophy, and if you read my previous replies I kept saying his focus has always been defensive, that's my issue. You think some of his sides had attacking flair and he's shown himself to be tactical astute when it comes to dominant teams breaking down defensive ones. I disagree. AND no-one has said Hodgson isnt respected in the profession, as is Dalgliesh but that doesnt mean you want them managing England, and I certainly didnt hear all these managers you refer to cheering for Hodgson before the appointment. Most were going for the guy you using as the main reason you are happy Roy got the job i.e. not that he was great, but because he wasn't Harry.

Pea...

"I've no problem with a different perspective on the issue in hand, but you are complaining about people who are merely expressing their disappointment at Hodgson's appointment"

From yesterday's sage-like postings...
"The thing about todays squad is there are so many errors you lose track. Roy out, he's a disaster after what he's done today."

Overreaction much?

comment by Rover the hill and far away (U7040)
posted 10 minutes ago
Pea...

"I've no problem with a different perspective on the issue in hand, but you are complaining about people who are merely expressing their disappointment at Hodgson's appointment"

From yesterday's sage-like postings...
"The thing about todays squad is there are so many errors you lose track. Roy out, he's a disaster after what he's done today."

Overreaction much?

____________________

I didn't say that, but well done for picking out one sentence from someone on a 105 comment thread that has gone OTT, and if you expect anyone to believe you wrote war and peace in response to that one sentence and ignored the vast majority of posts that were simply talking about not being pleased with Hodgson's appointment or his squad choice then I dont believe you.

Ah apologie Melton I thought you'd posted that sentence above in my haste.

@Rover - you dont seem to know what Melton and I are discussing as Melton didnt write his original piece in response to that one sentence. He was responding to the general negative tone of the thread in their feelings towards Hodgson's appt and squad. I'm not sticking up for every sentence written on here by every person, I'm simply saying it's not out of order to express an opinion that you dont believe Hodgson is a great appt (even Melton believes that), or that in your opinion this squad has some issues, and this doesnt mean you aren't giving him a chance when it comes to critiquing his performance in the games.

comment by Rover the hill and far away (U7040)
posted 3 hours, 15 minutes ago

Here's a thought - you could say that Hodgson succeeded at West Ham where Di Matteo failed (was getting them relegated). Di Matteo seems to have succeeded at Chelsea where Villas-Boas failed and AVB was champion of the Waffa Cup. Failure and success elsewhere don't always guarantee anything (Capello built an awful TEAM). so Roy is the choice, let him do his job before the naysaying starts.

_____

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 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 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.