The Official England Thread-The Team We All Support [Vol 2]
Discussion
Steameh said:
TEKNOPUG said:
What do you base your opinion on that Roy is a good manager?
What I know of him and what I know of football and what I know of England.
k all.....Hodgson is hopeless.
Nice guy, and wears the FA suits well, but f
king useless when it comes to football.He was out of his depth at Liverpool, let alone England.
aeropilot said:
Which is clearly the square root of fk all.....
Hodgson is hopeless.
Nice guy, and wears the FA suits well, but fking useless when it comes to football.
He was out of his depth at Liverpool, let alone England.
I guess we have to agree to disagree there because from your opinion he is out of his depth, you know the square root of fk all.....Hodgson is hopeless.
Nice guy, and wears the FA suits well, but f
king useless when it comes to football.He was out of his depth at Liverpool, let alone England.
k all....Steameh said:
curlie467 said:
Which is what that no-one else on the planet can see?
What that we played more attacking football than I have seen England play in the last 10 years? That all our previous managers failed to try out new defensive partners so when cole, terry and rio left, that we would be completely boned? That we have to realise that because players earn XYZ doesnt make them world class. Yes, I saw that we have hope in the young kids, we need to clarify our style yes, but Roy is England through and through, he is tactically aware and very astute. He puts the leg work in and prepares well.
So yes, I think he is the right choice, or lets be morons and fire him, get someone else in who has learnt nothing from the world cup and start from a blank slate again.
Our displays were poor, our attacking football was terrible.
Defenders retiring has nothing to do with Roy so that doesn't make sense.
Nor does the players earnings have anything to do with Roy.
You then say we have to clarify our style.
Just because he prepares well doesn't mean he is a good manager. He is English so I would hope he was English through and through.
curlie467 said:
Well, I actually am lost for words, I think you could be in a serious minority here.
Our displays were poor, our attacking football was terrible.
Defenders retiring has nothing to do with Roy so that doesn't make sense.
Nor does the players earnings have anything to do with Roy.
You then say we have to clarify our style.
Just because he prepares well doesn't mean he is a good manager. He is English so I would hope he was English through and through.
The defenders retiring has to do with a much smaller pool of talent to draw on. If I am in the minority so be it, but most people I talk to seem to think he is the right choice. I know that might not be the case here, but thats the way things are. People are too quick to jump on one man.Our displays were poor, our attacking football was terrible.
Defenders retiring has nothing to do with Roy so that doesn't make sense.
Nor does the players earnings have anything to do with Roy.
You then say we have to clarify our style.
Just because he prepares well doesn't mean he is a good manager. He is English so I would hope he was English through and through.
Our attacking football was only really let down by poor delivery and a few rushed decisions in the final third.
From the managerial perspective, we set up well and individual errors cost us.
The earnings comment was to do with peoples perceptions that he should be able to win the world cup because rooney earns x and gerrard earns y
Steameh said:
TEKNOPUG said:
What do you base your opinion on that Roy is a good manager?
What I know of him and what I know of football and what I know of England.The best managers in the game have win-percentages between 55% and 70%. Hodgson hasn’t been over 51.4% upon completion of any job since 1989 (nineteen eighty-nine). That’s 16 jobs without anything remarkable. That 16 jobs of jobbing; 16 jobs of just jogging along.
No-one has a right to expect him to win more than 50% of games with Fulham or West Brom, as it’s not really possible; what he did there was more than good enough, given the budget and expectations. I thought he was a brilliant manager for Fulham, just as Sam Allardyce was perfect for Bolton. (Neither would be let within 100 miles of Real Madrid.)
But with Blackburn (when they were rich), Inter Milan, Udinese, Liverpool and England, it had to be possible for Hodgson to win more than 51% of his matches, yet he averages a meagre 40% at those clubs, and 50% with England. By contrast, Fabio Capello left England with a 67% win-rate, and hasn’t been below 52% in any job since the 1990s (admittedly at bigger clubs/countries, but there’s a reason people like him and Louis van Gaal get the big gigs). Capello may have been the wrong man for England in the long-run, and his best days may be behind him, but Hodgson’s record is worse. Capello even has a better win percentage with Russia (57%), with their lack of big names, than Hodgson has with England."
He's never won anything as a manager apart from a few trophies in Scandinavia in the 80's. Nothing at all. Zero success. He Mr Average personified. He managed to turn Liverpool into a laugh stock, not just their results but the tedious, dull, unimaginative brand of football, that had every right-thinking fan actually pitying the Scousers for having to endure it.
That's why I was hoping you'd have some evidence to support your claim. As all I can see is an average man doing and average job and getting average results. I can't see any reason why he, the football or the results will change in the coming years.
TEKNOPUG said:
Steameh said:
TEKNOPUG said:
What do you base your opinion on that Roy is a good manager?
What I know of him and what I know of football and what I know of England.The best managers in the game have win-percentages between 55% and 70%. Hodgson hasn’t been over 51.4% upon completion of any job since 1989 (nineteen eighty-nine). That’s 16 jobs without anything remarkable. That 16 jobs of jobbing; 16 jobs of just jogging along.
No-one has a right to expect him to win more than 50% of games with Fulham or West Brom, as it’s not really possible; what he did there was more than good enough, given the budget and expectations. I thought he was a brilliant manager for Fulham, just as Sam Allardyce was perfect for Bolton. (Neither would be let within 100 miles of Real Madrid.)
But with Blackburn (when they were rich), Inter Milan, Udinese, Liverpool and England, it had to be possible for Hodgson to win more than 51% of his matches, yet he averages a meagre 40% at those clubs, and 50% with England. By contrast, Fabio Capello left England with a 67% win-rate, and hasn’t been below 52% in any job since the 1990s (admittedly at bigger clubs/countries, but there’s a reason people like him and Louis van Gaal get the big gigs). Capello may have been the wrong man for England in the long-run, and his best days may be behind him, but Hodgson’s record is worse. Capello even has a better win percentage with Russia (57%), with their lack of big names, than Hodgson has with England."
He's never won anything as a manager apart from a few trophies in Scandinavia in the 80's. Nothing at all. Zero success. He Mr Average personified. He managed to turn Liverpool into a laugh stock, not just their results but the tedious, dull, unimaginative brand of football, that had every right-thinking fan actually pitying the Scousers for having to endure it.
That's why I was hoping you'd have some evidence to support your claim. As all I can see is an average man doing and average job and getting average results. I can't see any reason why he, the football or the results will change in the coming years.
Amirhussain said:
Ayahuasca said:
And launch a new Team GBR Football Team.
I do like the idea of a GBR football team, that way some of the Welsh and Scottish players get to play at the world cup and European championship, only thing is, what if Scotland get independence? Another benefit is we get to use the UNION JACK at matches!
Roy has had a lot of time to prepare and to find the right players to fit into his style of play and do a job for him in the way he wants. He chose to take the `best` players.
He stated that he would take in form players from over the last two years, Rooney, Smalling, Jones, Johnson, Baines, Welbeck are to name a few who had very poor seasons so this makes a mockery.
Rooney is the only one of that lot you would gamble on and only down to the form he has previously shown for his club, not for his country. Roy then takes that gamble but plays him out of position, all so he could accommodate Sterling in the no10 position. Rooney should have been a sub for that position or Sterling out wide because he can and is willing to play out there.
I am not just jumping on Roy either, I blame the whole ste setup. FA, manager, coaches, players. This was a dire world cup showing, an embarrassment.
He stated that he would take in form players from over the last two years, Rooney, Smalling, Jones, Johnson, Baines, Welbeck are to name a few who had very poor seasons so this makes a mockery.
Rooney is the only one of that lot you would gamble on and only down to the form he has previously shown for his club, not for his country. Roy then takes that gamble but plays him out of position, all so he could accommodate Sterling in the no10 position. Rooney should have been a sub for that position or Sterling out wide because he can and is willing to play out there.
I am not just jumping on Roy either, I blame the whole s
te setup. FA, manager, coaches, players. This was a dire world cup showing, an embarrassment.TEKNOPUG said:
"Through years of mastering a certain kind of coaching, Hodgson will bring a poor side up to average, keep an average side average, and bring a good side down to average. He is a thermostat set to ‘mild’.
The best managers in the game have win-percentages between 55% and 70%. Hodgson hasn’t been over 51.4% upon completion of any job since 1989 (nineteen eighty-nine). That’s 16 jobs without anything remarkable. That 16 jobs of jobbing; 16 jobs of just jogging along.
No-one has a right to expect him to win more than 50% of games with Fulham or West Brom, as it’s not really possible; what he did there was more than good enough, given the budget and expectations. I thought he was a brilliant manager for Fulham, just as Sam Allardyce was perfect for Bolton. (Neither would be let within 100 miles of Real Madrid.)
But with Blackburn (when they were rich), Inter Milan, Udinese, Liverpool and England, it had to be possible for Hodgson to win more than 51% of his matches, yet he averages a meagre 40% at those clubs, and 50% with England. By contrast, Fabio Capello left England with a 67% win-rate, and hasn’t been below 52% in any job since the 1990s (admittedly at bigger clubs/countries, but there’s a reason people like him and Louis van Gaal get the big gigs). Capello may have been the wrong man for England in the long-run, and his best days may be behind him, but Hodgson’s record is worse. Capello even has a better win percentage with Russia (57%), with their lack of big names, than Hodgson has with England."
He's never won anything as a manager apart from a few trophies in Scandinavia in the 80's. Nothing at all. Zero success. He Mr Average personified. He managed to turn Liverpool into a laugh stock, not just their results but the tedious, dull, unimaginative brand of football, that had every right-thinking fan actually pitying the Scousers for having to endure it.
That's why I was hoping you'd have some evidence to support your claim. As all I can see is an average man doing and average job and getting average results. I can't see any reason why he, the football or the results will change in the coming years.
So he has been with clubs that, by all purposes, were either in a league deemed not worthy, or a team with a squad that was poor. (Liverpool team he took over).The best managers in the game have win-percentages between 55% and 70%. Hodgson hasn’t been over 51.4% upon completion of any job since 1989 (nineteen eighty-nine). That’s 16 jobs without anything remarkable. That 16 jobs of jobbing; 16 jobs of just jogging along.
No-one has a right to expect him to win more than 50% of games with Fulham or West Brom, as it’s not really possible; what he did there was more than good enough, given the budget and expectations. I thought he was a brilliant manager for Fulham, just as Sam Allardyce was perfect for Bolton. (Neither would be let within 100 miles of Real Madrid.)
But with Blackburn (when they were rich), Inter Milan, Udinese, Liverpool and England, it had to be possible for Hodgson to win more than 51% of his matches, yet he averages a meagre 40% at those clubs, and 50% with England. By contrast, Fabio Capello left England with a 67% win-rate, and hasn’t been below 52% in any job since the 1990s (admittedly at bigger clubs/countries, but there’s a reason people like him and Louis van Gaal get the big gigs). Capello may have been the wrong man for England in the long-run, and his best days may be behind him, but Hodgson’s record is worse. Capello even has a better win percentage with Russia (57%), with their lack of big names, than Hodgson has with England."
He's never won anything as a manager apart from a few trophies in Scandinavia in the 80's. Nothing at all. Zero success. He Mr Average personified. He managed to turn Liverpool into a laugh stock, not just their results but the tedious, dull, unimaginative brand of football, that had every right-thinking fan actually pitying the Scousers for having to endure it.
That's why I was hoping you'd have some evidence to support your claim. As all I can see is an average man doing and average job and getting average results. I can't see any reason why he, the football or the results will change in the coming years.
He is the ideal transitional manager (England are in transition). He also took Fulham to the Europa League final in 2010 and got the LMA manager of the year award in 2010.
Steameh said:
So he has been with clubs that, by all purposes, were either in a league deemed not worthy, or a team with a squad that was poor. (Liverpool team he took over).
He is the ideal transitional manager (England are in transition). He also took Fulham to the Europa League final in 2010 and got the LMA manager of the year award in 2010.
Blackburn, Inter and Udinese all certainly had plenty of cash.He is the ideal transitional manager (England are in transition). He also took Fulham to the Europa League final in 2010 and got the LMA manager of the year award in 2010.
He picked Gerrard on the basis of his performances for Liverpool, where he played in a midfield 3, yet played him for England in a centre partnership with just Henderson. Leaving Gerrard totally exposed and great gaps between midfield and defence. It was completely antiquated and predictable. Everyone else is playing 3 in the middle and we are set up like something from the 80's.
He's a middle of the road manager; nothing exceptional, nothing special, simply average. All the evidence supports this. His whole career has just been totally unremarkable. Yet he's picking up £3.5m a year. Nice work if you can get it.
I hope you're right though, I really do. But I just don't sense any invention, any dynamism, any ideas or even belief that he can produce anything other than what he has before.
Ayahuasca said:
Easy to blame the players
Easy to blame the manager
Both carry some blame, but England have been crap for decades, before the current generation of players / manager.
Take a good, hard look at the FA.
And bin them.
And launch a new Team GBR Football Team.
I think we've been played better football this year than we have for nearly 20 years.Easy to blame the manager
Both carry some blame, but England have been crap for decades, before the current generation of players / manager.
Take a good, hard look at the FA.
And bin them.
And launch a new Team GBR Football Team.
TEKNOPUG said:
Blackburn, Inter and Udinese all certainly had plenty of cash.
He picked Gerrard on the basis of his performances for Liverpool, where he played in a midfield 3, yet played him for England in a centre partnership with just Henderson. Leaving Gerrard totally exposed and great gaps between midfield and defence. It was completely antiquated and predictable. Everyone else is playing 3 in the middle and we are set up like something from the 80's.
He's a middle of the road manager; nothing exceptional, nothing special, simply average. All the evidence supports this. His whole career has just been totally unremarkable. Yet he's picking up £3.5m a year. Nice work if you can get it.
I hope you're right though, I really do. But I just don't sense any invention, any dynamism, any ideas or even belief that he can produce anything other than what he has before.
Maybe my comments are out of hope for the country I love who deserves a golden era. I know I was the first one to jump to Pearsons defence when my club had a sticky patch and I know with the right man it can work out. I suppose I just would like everyone for once, to rally round him, sure question him, but lets give the guy the Euros, changing now would help no one.He picked Gerrard on the basis of his performances for Liverpool, where he played in a midfield 3, yet played him for England in a centre partnership with just Henderson. Leaving Gerrard totally exposed and great gaps between midfield and defence. It was completely antiquated and predictable. Everyone else is playing 3 in the middle and we are set up like something from the 80's.
He's a middle of the road manager; nothing exceptional, nothing special, simply average. All the evidence supports this. His whole career has just been totally unremarkable. Yet he's picking up £3.5m a year. Nice work if you can get it.
I hope you're right though, I really do. But I just don't sense any invention, any dynamism, any ideas or even belief that he can produce anything other than what he has before.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff