I think this guy is the first high quality international manager we have had since Alf Ramsey. Ever since Ramsey left, England have had a succession of misfits managing the England team - I liked the job Robson and Hoddle did with the team, but one was lucky and the other mental. The more i hear from Hodgeson though, the more I think he has the temperament to manage the players properly and get the best out of them. Finally we have moved away from the wide boys like Venables, the imbeciles like McClaren, and the foriegners not really interested in Englnad, just the money, like Eriksen and Capello, and of course the embarassment Graham Taylor. Feels like we have a good leader in charge now, at a time when expectation is at its lowest. Put England down for a semi final place at least - they could even win it.
Hoddle was ****ed over by the Sun, as for being mental, so he doesn't believe the same stuff you do, maybe it's you that's mental, there's plenty of evidence that faith healing works, and I can find plenty of cases where it's worked where traditional medicine fails. As to the rest, yeah I sort of agree, except I don't think Robson was lucky, in fact I'd say he was unlucky not to get to the final, a flukey equalizer by the Germans and Lineker denied by a post. As he'd already informed everyone that the 1990 WC would be his England swansng he could be more adventurous. I think the best thing about Hodgson being in charge is that, for the first time I remember, there is no pressure on the team to win as no one expects it
I agree that Hoddle was ****ed over by the newspapers, who put their own access to the team whenever they want ahead of the team actually doing well. Still Hoddle was seriously deluded to think he could thumb his nose at everyone and not get done over...
I actually though Venables was a good England manager. I wide boy for sure, but he worked well with the players and got the team playing together. His record is actually really good. Only two losses in 23 games ! But his wheeler dealer antics were too hot for the FA. Shearer described him as one of the best England managers he'd played under.
He only managed England for five competitive games, and they won two of those. And he never had to deal with a qualification campaign, just a tournament on home soil. Of course the trouble is we'll never know how he might have done over a longer period because of he and the FA not being on the same page.
I think Roy is a great manager, just hope he can bring us success, the football we played seems to be more controlled already you can see the aim is to make sure that we defend better.
He has seen the current crop of players for what they are. The majority are very limited at the highest level, so has set them up accordingly. Shrewd appointment by the FA.
I'm sorry ... I think it was the part where he said disabled people had done something to deserve it in a past life that he was "****ed over" for. And that's not ****ing someone over ... if you believe something like that, you deserve the **** kicked out of you.
Bit early to say that. Two 1-0 wins against sides that didn't qualify is proof of little. We will know where we stand after the France game and i have yet to be conviced. Better sides will punish us if we play like we did today.
The fact is, you're limited attack wise, so he's playing to your strengths, and moulding your defence into a solid unit. He's obviously aiming for the Greece 2004 approach, where they won by being solid, and only attacking every now and again.
It's true, people seem to get angry at the idea of England playing defensively and conservatively ... but then bemoan when we try to play pretty and we can't. We're not Spain or Brazil, we can't play pretty football like they can; we don't have the players for it. But we're a good enough side to make ourselves difficult to break down if we set ourselves up to do it, and good performances are built on good defensive performances. If we keep on doing what we did in those first two games, we could be on the way to making ourselves a team which the big countries get edgy about playing against because they know there won't be openings.
Would you rather be boring and win, or be "exciting" and end up losing to teams with more technical class?
I actually agree with a liverpool fan We have been ****e in both games and look piss poor. SSN are saying we're being unlucky with injuries? Barry and Lampard are a blessing in disguise. Hodgson has a no pressure tournament but he's sticking to his piss poor middle table team bollocks and a poor team selection. We looked too two dimensional yesterday and the only positive thing was that we can defend. There was nothing in attack and that was down to our tactics! Milner on the right?! Johnson was ****e at right back. If Walker was fit I would have him in with Lennon because they play with each other week in week out for Spurs. Closest player to Walker is Richards and he gives an extra man at corners because he's awesome in the air. I could keep ranting but look forward to a ****e euro 2012 for us and ****ter world cup in 2014.
If recent years are anything to go by, England will be boring and end up losing to teams with more technical class!
