http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/cracks-starting-show-roy-hodgsons-1792059 Roy's not the boy: Why the cracks are starting to show in Roy Hodgson's England tenure Liverpool's fans sussed out Roy Hodgson's limitations during his time at Anfield. Now the nation's fans are beginning to discover the same, writes Brian Reade When Roy Hodgson was sacked by Liverpool he peddled a defence which was widely swallowed and served to insulate his reputation as a top coach. It was the fans wot did it. According to Roy, every Kopite had wanted Kenny Dalglish, not him, to replace Rafa Benitez, so he was doomed from the off. But it wasnât true. The majority of supporters may have been underwhelmed by Hodgsonâs appointment in 2010, but willed him to succeed. That majority only started calling for Dalglish five months into Hodgsonâs reign when they were in despair over his woeful signings, negative tactics, inability to motivate top players and make decisive tactical changes and a defeatist attitude which showed undue respect to their fiercest opponents. Oh, and that face-rubbing touchline impression he did, whenever the pressure built, of a hamster whoâd fallen off his wheel. They concluded Hodgson was a man to set-up teams to climb from the bottom half of the table into the top, but lacked the sophistication to take a big club that had under-achieved for years back into the elite. Kopites didnât drive him out they sussed him out. And Iâm sensing the same is happening with England fans who, on Tuesday, saw the same Hodgson who inhabited the Anfield dug-out. A troubled man, rubbing his face, paralysed with indecision, unable to respond to the tactical changes made by his opponent and looking out of his depth. Then, adding insult to injury, the inevitable defeatist post-game spin which merely confirmed the worst fears: âI thought we hung on quite wellâ he said, after a draw with mighty Montenegro, before lowering expectations below the floorboards by hinting that England may now be looking at getting to next yearâs World Cup via the play-offs. Happy 150th anniversary FA. You laud yourself as being in charge of the biggest footballing country on earth. But one struggling to top a group ahead of a nation with a population of 630,000 and an average FIFA ranking of 84. There may well be, as the cliche goes, few easy games left at international level, but had Sven Goran Eriksson or Fabio Capello been in charge, Englandâs place in Brazil would now be assured. They breezed through every qualifying group they faced and would have done in this. I donât want the FA to sack Hodgson. Iâd just like to get this question in now before itâs widely asked when the obituaries are written on his England career: Why did they appoint him? Surely failing so miserably, so recently, in his one shot at managing a big English club should have made them question whether he has what it takes to do it at the highest level. At the time, the low-key, behind-closed-doors way he was given the job had the same feel as his Liverpool recruitment. He was hired by worried men not because of who he was, but who he wasnât: Rafa Benitez at Anfield, Harry Redknapp at England, both boat-rocking characters, perceived to have baggage, who like to do it their way. It was a safe, old-school, heâs a respected Englishman whoâs earned his shot at the national job appointment. It was Graham Taylor Mark II. And I fear his end may prove as undignified as the Turnipâs when his head is turned into a piece of fruit or veg after a crushing defeat against a decent side. Which could be as soon as the November play-offs against, say, Belgium in Brussels (âSprout of this Worldâ) or next summer after an early plane home from Brazil (CopacaBanana?) Lettuce pray Iâm wrong.
I know Bluff, I think for the same reason as it wasn't given to Clough. The suits at the FA don't like the idea of a man who expects the job is his and don't like the idea of being told that through the media. It puts all the power in the hands of the manager. Its a self defeating stance however. Hire a mouse, you'll get scurrying.
Its quite funny to see the man they hounded out (Capello) on top of his qualifying group having won 4 out of 4 games and not conceded a single goal in those 4 games. That group includes Portugal btw. England's record in these qualifiers under Hodgson is actually dire. Yes, they have 3 wins and 3 draws and are unbeaten, but you've got to look at the fixtures they've actually won. Moldova (a) 5-0 win Ukraine (h) 1-1 draw San Marino (h) 5-0 win Poland (a) 1-1 draw San Marino (a) 8-0 win Montenegro (a) 1-1 draw So basically they've not managed to beat a single decent team they've come up against so far. They really need to up their game or they won't even be making the playoffs.
Kind of sounds like us! For me personally, Hodgson represents the old style, the old methodology and has not got round to being up to date with the modern game. He can be the best man manager in the world but if you don't keep up with how teams are playing and the new style that is/can be played then you will get left behind.
I actually thought Hodgson would be a decent manager for England due to the fact he knows how to set a team up that isn't the favourite and able to get results against better teams like he did at Fulham & WEst Brom by being the udnerdog. The problem is, in qualifying, England are the favourites (like we were for a lot of games) and he doesn't know how to go and beat a team that we are expected to beat (San Marino being an exception). We've already seen that he can set a team up to beat Spain & Brazil, and that could be good if we get to the WC. Before we've had managers walk the qualifying but then not know how to set up a team that isn't as good against better teams (Portugal, Germany, Brazil etc) where as now we have the complete opposite. If, and that's a big if, Hodgson get's us through the qualifying stages then I reckon we could reach the semi's due to Hodgson's ability to set up a team as an udnerdog against the bigger teams.
Most people beat Brazil these days though, they are quite ****. They've only won 1 out of their last 6. And that was on penalties after actually losing the game (2nd leg) in 90 mins. And it was Capello that beat Spain 1-0 (if you aren't talking about another game). He doesn't really have the tactical ability to beat the big sides, he just has the ability to make his team well organised and hard to beat. They'll still probably get beat just that it won't be a pasting like if you tried to go toe to toe with the top sides like Capello did against Germany. When you manage someone like Fulham you get credit for restricting a team like Man Utd to a last minute goal or only lose by a goal or two. That isn't good enough for England or the fans, and that's going to be his problem.
My mistake, it was Capello, but overall point still stands. He is decent at making his teams hard to beat. Like I say, it might not be pretty and it might not get us through qualifying but I bet we wouldn't lose 4-1 to Germany like we did under Capello as we'd be much harder to beat. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather he wasn't manager even though I'm not overly fussed by England but fact is England shouldn't be anywhere near the top 10 of the world rankings and once most England fans realise than we are underdogs when competing against most other sides in the WC then we'll always "underachieve". Tournament football is all about not losing, as that allows you to atleast get it to penalties, and who knows, we may just win a shoot out as we are due one!
That is a good point Biscan. Italy have been famous for the clean sheet first win later approach over the years but its always had an underpinning of quality. Yep, Roy has taken the right approach about being realistic about just how good the England team really is on the world stage but it slips too quickly into embracing mediocrity & then finding excuses to justify it. You only need to look at that Italy England game (& that's not one of the greatest Italy sides) to see the difference between "hard to heat" and out and out negativity: setting up believing you're going to get beat. Players can too easily hide behind Roy's approach.
I like how Hodgson always talks about his 35 year career. The fact is, he's done nothing more than ok. Not bad, not great. Bright spots with Malmo and Copenhagen (who were in and around the top of the table when he took over, and continue to be today) followed by average spells with Inter, Blackburn, Udinese and UAE. He hasn't particularly excelled to a great extent anywhere, and whenever he does do well he has a habit of 'moving up' and doing poorly. And the pattern is much the same more recently: did well with Fulham, came to Liverpool and was poor. Did well with WBA (although what Clarke has done with them suggests they may have been better than Hodgson made them look) and is now doing poorly with England. He's got a level, and that level suits the likes of Fulham and WBA. it doesn't, nor will it ever, suit Liverpool or England. He can get less talented players to rise up to a certain notch, but players who are already above that notch (Gerrard is a good example) will only be dragged back down to it by him.
The comparisons with Liverpool brought back horrible memories! At the end of the day he's poor and as a nation we're bang average and have been for a long time.
Lowering expectation especially. "We've got home games with our biggest rivals so should be okay". Might struggle to qualify. All nonsense and reminds me of "we're in a relegation battle" nonsense he came out with with us. Twewible.
Capello was the best manager we had since Sir Bobby Robson. He was hounded out just because he couldn't master the English language
