I'm no fan of 'Arry, but as this tournament will be the last for quite a few of the established England players, my thinking is one last throw of the dice. Get (quick fix) 'Arry to go in & there & put an arm round some of the more high maintenance ones & see if he can get them to perform................one last time before they retire & just suck up more club football money. Theres also the Rio & Terry problem which no-body seems to want to address, god its going to be awful! Thank God for Saints, no need to worry about the international side show! Good luck Roy.
I reckon it'll just be those 4 as strikers as Walcott will no doubt be included and is more than capable of playing up front.
I would have liked Stuart Pearce but Hodgson was always the natural choice. Everyone seems to think that Harry is a successful manager but he has only won one trophy in his life. Hodgson was winning things abroad before he managed in this country. My only fear is his demeanour. If things start to go wrong, the press will absolutely slaughter him whereas Harry might have got away with it for a bit longer.
Never wanted Harry...you can't wheel and deal with the England squad. Hodgson has international experience at least. Not insulting Hodgson, but, if we were going for an Englishman, we were fishing in a very small pool. On Solent, they asked NA if he'd like the job...one day, he said.
Ideal appointment. Top man. Harry would have been a disaster. Glad they waited until now to sort it out too as it screwed up Spurs' season.
But the point is (not having a go at you) that we have too often worried what the press may think or want rather than who is best. Whoever is appointed at this short notice is going to struggle in the Euros then be under pressure from the media, so they can't win; we should have stuck with Capello but he was feeling the media strain too.
A lot of the best international managers are in their mid 60s and continue into their 70s. Ukraine had an 80 year old at one point. Experience is an asset, apart from in football where we always seem to think younger is better.
It is typical of the FA to flounder around and then come up with the option that most people will be disappointed with. I've nothing against Roy Hodgson, as he's a perfectly capable manager who will probably do every bit as well as Harry would given the same players. And for all of other people's opinions, they don't have to make the decision and there was no great pool of eligible English managers to choose from. But this is no great decision by the FA. They have a long history of failing to seize the moment and they've done it again. Back when they had the chance, they appointed West Ham's then manager Ron Greenwood over Brian Clough and Peter Taylor. Now that's a measure of the FA. It appears that they have no clear vision for what they want. Why should I say appear in the same sentence as clear vision..? Because they don't see the value of being clear about their intentions, which leaves everyone in the same fog. Roy Hodgson might be the right man for the job, but it will seen as yet another FA screw-up. It would be a laugh if he told them where to shove their prized job and went back to WBA.
Hodgson is younger than Capello and Redknapp! Trappatoni is managing Ireland (and doing an excellent job) at the age of 73, so no reason Roy can't stick around. I think anyone who knows anything about football will be pleased with this appointment and relieved that Harry won't be getting it.
Nothing wrong with experience, in fact it's a pre-requisite of an England manager. Like other elder statesmen of football, he must keep himself in good shape, but I can't see him staying on into his 70s. He'll probably get sacked like the rest before then.
