But his experience with Liverpool suggests to me that he's better working with players who aren't the prima donna type.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but surely he managed those type of players at Inter Milan.
From wiki - In 2009 Hodgson recalled his time at Inter: "We lacked stars, apart from Paul Ince. It wasn't the Inter we see today of household names. They weren't the best technically but physically they were like machines."
Hodgson finished 7th with Inter. He left halfway through the following season with them in 3rd place.
He's had a lot of success with Swedish leagues. Two Uefa cup final defeats...
I'm not disagreeing with you, but surely he managed those type of players at Inter Milan. Also I'm not sure he had many problems at Liverpool, save for the owners expecting him to rebuild a team with no money. And it was a team that only finished 7th the season before anyway.
Coaches/managers in Europe tend to have slightly different job responsibilities - a coach simply does that - trains and develops the team and he is expected to be a good master of tactics and strategy. The rest of the stuff - recruitment, negotiations over transfer fees etc is done by a General Manager/Sporting Director. His problem at Liverpool wasn't ability but a matter of his face not fitting in, the fans never wanted him and Dalglish was openly cabvassing for the job and the fans wanted him or someone like Jose Mourinho, instead they got Fulham's manager. They wanted to see millions being spent on new players and for example a left-back who'd be good enough for Brazil or Spain, instead they got Paul Konchesky.
The old guard of Terry, Lampwick, Ferdinand, Cole and Rooney will run rings around poor old Roy. If I was him I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. Will all end as it usually does in tears.
Then why would he select them? This isn't a club side where he's stuck with what he's got, he can select anybody, so why select anybody who might cause trouble. Select younger, hungrier players who are honoured to be selected, they can't do any worse, especially if the players they replace were going to cause trouble anyway. At least 3 of that old guard shouldn't be going anyway. Terry shouldn't be going, Ferdinand has been poor, when fit, this season and Rooney is going to miss most of the games so I really see no reason to take him, especially if there is even the slightest hint he may be disruptive. Why would any sane manager take an unavailable player who's going to cause trouble?
As others have said i can see problems with the senior players but i'd love to be a fly on the wall at an England prospective managers interview or at least see a job description.
Wasn't Peter Odemwingie playing poorly for West Brom until Roy criticised him publicly saying they didn't give him his contract for him not to be scoring goals and got the reaction and got him scoring goals. Shows that he may be a bit of a SCP... Very very nice bloke but i'm sure he can be harsh if he has to. He couldn't have managed for as long as he has and had some of the success he has had without being a strong bloke.
But his experience with Liverpool suggests to me that he's better working with players who aren't the prima donna type.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but surely he managed those type of players at Inter Milan.
From wiki - In 2009 Hodgson recalled his time at Inter: "We lacked stars, apart from Paul Ince. It wasn't the Inter we see today of household names. They weren't the best technically but physically they were like machines."
Hodgson finished 7th with Inter. He left halfway through the following season with them in 3rd place.
He's had a lot of success with Swedish leagues. Two Uefa cup final defeats...
Fair enough. I was speculating, and was clearly wrong.
BFR, I agree with you about Liverpool. I have to say, though, that interestingly I think the England job would be more like his time at Inter than Liverpool, as he wouldn't have to recruit players, sort contracts etc.
Good shout, Hodgson has proved he can't handle big personalities at Liverpool and although a gamble to appoint a coach without previous managerial experience, I'm sure it's not a unique situation. I'd even prefer Becks to Woy.
Length of time the FA are taking to appoint someone has made the issue very very uninteresting
I think this approach was only made now as WBA were going to offer him a new contract which would have meant the FA would have had to pay compensation. If he's going to join England, WBA will almost certainly let him go at the end of the Premier League season as his contract runs out 30 June.
Also WBA's season is pretty much sorted, as soon as Spurs are in, or can no longer qualify for, the Champions League we will have a better idea if the FA want to approach him or not.
How's he gonna handle the changing-room full of overpaid tarts that call themselves the England team after WBA? Looks like another of the slightly flummoxed middle management types that the FA like - presumably because he reminds them of themselves. I can see him now in the interview after a handful of wins in friendlies and some crucial defeats where it matters, or shots of him looking perplexed on the touchline as Rooney underperforms in internationals AGAIN.
The old guard of Terry, Lampwick, Ferdinand, Cole and Rooney
Terry, Lampard and Ferdinand are likely to be playing in their last international tournament and maybe will retire after the Euros whether they like it or not. Probably Gerrard will go with them.
That means a lot of new faces will come in - younger players without the political clout and who might look up to Hodgson rather than seek to undermine him at every twist and turn.
This could be a good time to be appointed manager of England, but a lot will depend on who Hodgson brings in with him - Pearce seems to be a good coach and has a good record at U21 level although his record in managing at club level was poor, presumably he'll stay on.
I for one am disappointed with this appointment whilst Hodgson is obviously knowledgeable and to a degree adept technically he is about as inspiring as last Christmas sprouts! Somebody on this thread mentioned the England team of 1996 as being one that played with real gusto and I believe that was in large part due to Terry Venables being a great man manager, granted he was also a gifted coach and he had a better than decent set of players to call on, but I see Harry Redknapp in a similar vein and to my mind would have got the players motivated and playing as a unit better than Hodgson. I just can't see this bloke being in any way adventurous or creative, so another failure I fear.
A liitle over a year ago a team in south-east London appointed an inexperienced manager who wasn't first choice and according to some rumours wasn't even second choice. Some of the fans thought it a mistake and others would have been happy to have seen him depart after a couple of months when he perhaps understandably failed to get a coterie of existing and experienced players to perform on the pitch.
A year on and after a clear out with a lot of young players coming in things seemed to have worked out well.
Sometimes in life what you want should take second place to what you need.
I'm interested to see how many people are claiming to have knowledge of RH's man management and motivational skills. The dressing room at The Hawthorns must be massive to fit them all in...
A liitle over a year ago a team in south-east London appointed an inexperienced manager who wasn't first choice and according to some rumours wasn't even second choice. Some of the fans thought it a mistake and others would have been happy to have seen him depart after a couple of months when he perhaps understandably failed to get a coterie of existing and experienced players to perform on the pitch.
A year on and after a clear out with a lot of young players coming in things seemed to have worked out well.
Sometimes in life what you want should take second place to what you need.
If you look at it would Hodgson be appointed to a top club job in this country? i.e. United, City? Answer is no he wouldn't but then again 'Arry wouldn't either. Once again everyone wants the best man for the job (as long as he is English) the problem with that is you are looking at second tier managers. As the appointment goes I think its okay, I was in the anyone but 'Arry camp and for me Hodgson is a better manager, he has proved it by having a better win percentage over his career, he has won titles in Scandinavia and managed at international level before. The Liverpool situation will always be held against him by those trying to find a reason that he shouldn't have been given the job but what those same people won't acknowledge is the very difficult circumstances he tried to do that job.
I want to be proved wrong as I do like Hodgson but for me there are better candidates out there and unfortunately for some they aren't English, for those that wanted the best for the job as long as they are English well done you have your man.
Comments
Hodgson finished 7th with Inter. He left halfway through the following season with them in 3rd place.
He's had a lot of success with Swedish leagues. Two Uefa cup final defeats...
Coaches/managers in Europe tend to have slightly different job responsibilities - a coach simply does that - trains and develops the team and he is expected to be a good master of tactics and strategy. The rest of the stuff - recruitment, negotiations over transfer fees etc is done by a General Manager/Sporting Director. His problem at Liverpool wasn't ability but a matter of his face not fitting in, the fans never wanted him and Dalglish was openly cabvassing for the job and the fans wanted him or someone like Jose Mourinho, instead they got Fulham's manager. They wanted to see millions being spent on new players and for example a left-back who'd be good enough for Brazil or Spain, instead they got Paul Konchesky.
Didn't pull up any trees, I'd agree, but disaster is unfair.
I agree he should go back into club management if he wants to progress - Forest at some point?
He's already managed Forest with little success.
BFR, I agree with you about Liverpool. I have to say, though, that interestingly I think the England job would be more like his time at Inter than Liverpool, as he wouldn't have to recruit players, sort contracts etc.
and Rednapp can provide the half time entertainment with his talented pet dog.
I'll back him more than i wouldve Redknapp.
Also WBA's season is pretty much sorted, as soon as Spurs are in, or can no longer qualify for, the Champions League we will have a better idea if the FA want to approach him or not.
Terry, Lampard and Ferdinand are likely to be playing in their last international tournament and maybe will retire after the Euros whether they like it or not. Probably Gerrard will go with them.
That means a lot of new faces will come in - younger players without the political clout and who might look up to Hodgson rather than seek to undermine him at every twist and turn.
This could be a good time to be appointed manager of England, but a lot will depend on who Hodgson brings in with him - Pearce seems to be a good coach and has a good record at U21 level although his record in managing at club level was poor, presumably he'll stay on.
A year on and after a clear out with a lot of young players coming in things seemed to have worked out well.
Sometimes in life what you want should take second place to what you need.
I want to be proved wrong as I do like Hodgson but for me there are better candidates out there and unfortunately for some they aren't English, for those that wanted the best for the job as long as they are English well done you have your man.
Only dissapointment is not getting to see the train wreck that Redknapp would of made of the job.