Roy Hodgson for England??

Fixed it

 

my point was exactly that - if players are in form they go and play regardless of age / past history etc...
terry isn't my favourite player by a long shot, but if he's the best form CB we have going into the euro's he'll play
you can't have a team full of 30+ players, the same as you can't have a team full of young un's, its a mix of both.

what gets on my nerves is players getting into the team cos of who they are or have been in the past and being played out of position
gerrard on the left wing etc, the lampard / gerrard continual discussion that they can't play together etc, james milner ?????

theres always an exception to the rule and thats downing - a left winger who cant cross a ball, oh and add milner in there as a winger with the same problem

 

See I'm brutal. I think you have to go the German route. If you know you don't have the players to win, what will serve your national team best? Blooding youngsters. I think if you are looking to win it, then you need a good mix between experience and youthful exuberance with maybe a slight favouring to form players and players at their peak or very experienced. I just think if you don't have the players, your best bet is to take only enough experienced players to see the team not get tanned and otherwise put some faith in the youth. Obviously it helps if they are in form but I don't think its the be all and end all in this particular circumstance. At the next tournment those young players will be the players entering their best years. The knowledge of how these tournaments work, the demands they place on your body and mind is vital.

In terms of players playing out of position this should not really be necessary. I think back to France 98 and how France managed their squad. They played three different formations in the group stages. Zidane just adapted to all three as did other players. I then look at our treatment of Scholes. Rigid 442, Scholes will have to go left. You have to get more of a club feel and have players who can adapt. England should have been built around Scholes to a certain extent. We should never have even selected a formation that would not have seen him in the middle of the park for us! How did we end up picking formations that didn't involve him being central? For years we've had our heads up our arses as far as international football is concerned.

 

Results in major tournaments would suggest otherwise. That's how you can judge international sides on a consistent basis. England are one of the best of a bunch of 'second division' European sides nowadays. They're good enough to beat the likes of Croatia, Ukraine, Sweden and would probably win if it was just these sides. But the fact is we're not good enough to win a tournament which is the litmus test for how good an international side is. We couldn't beat a poor Algerian side in the last World Cup and were lucky to scrape a draw against the USA nevermind being outclassed by the Germans. Friendlies are meaningless.

Don't believe the hype of the press, Sky Sports or the fact that we're English and like to think we are the best. We're really not.

 

I'm not saying it isn't a reasonable opinion - - it's just a pet peeve when people put forward subjective opinions and precede them with the word Fact

 

Understandable - Should probably have started it off differently. Does my head in that having sat through tournament after tournament the England side let us all down continually. Foreign managers don't care. If anyone can turn this current lot into something then Hodgson probably can.

 

Why take Hodgson if thats the case? He never trusts youngsters as proved by his time at Fulham, Liverpool and now West Brom. He's had numerous talented young players at those clubs yet elected to play the more "experienced" players over them even if they are inferior players. At Fulham he had Chris Smalling who is excelling for United but he only got rare Europa League appearances for Fulham and was always behind Baird/Kelly in the pecking order, which is ludicrous when you compare their talent. Then at Liverpool he favoured playing Poulsen over Lucas just because he had won stuff in the past and was captain of the Danish team. Lucas was 10x the player Poulsen was at that point yet Hodgson persisted with him until about October in the first team.

Its pretty much a fact that England have not got the best out of Gerrard/Lampard/Scholes etc because they've never been played in their best positions. Lampard has been played too deep, Scholes has been played out wide and Gerrard has either been played outwide or too deep. England should've made a choice between Lampard and Gerrard ages ago, and it should've been Gerrard ahead of Lampard every god damn time.

 

Can you imagine him after the first game of Euro 2012 when England play France and they trounce England...

Woy: "Wiibewwy and Giwood weely wan us wagged today!"

 

Someone with a bit of foresight could have played a midfield trio of Scholes, Gerrard and Beckham/Lampard. Problem is we were stuck rigidly in a 442. Hodgson is a very good manager with an excellent record. Would he have been my choice? No I'd have gone for Hoddle but he wasn't really an option. I'm against someone like Harry who is just a motivator and doesn't have the tactical awareness for international football. Hodgson is a very good option.

I get that you don't like him because he had a rank short period with yourselves but he has a very good record otherwise, and more than anything has managed a national side a major competition. To be honest with yourselves I think he was just a bad appointment, the fans never took to him from the off. I think he made some poorish signings but was on a restricted budget from what I can see. He had Kenny looming large in the background and to honest it was farcical. I know what you're saying but when you sign a player you have to give them games or they'll never adapt. I also seem to remember Lucas being a figure of fun for a while at Liverpool!

He has given plenty of young players a chance too. Maybe not so much in the PL because he has been at clubs where you need a bit more experience to remain competitive. Smalling is poor example to be honest and actually suggests the opposite of what you're suggesting. When he joined Fulham he was 17 or 18yr old from non league. He was only there one full season and made 18 apps with 12 of those coming in the league. The following season for Man U he made 33 apps with 16 coming in the league. He of course got a lot more european and cup action for Man U given the games they play and policy they can adopt towards the cup. It would appear looking at that, that Hodgson recognised Smalling's value just as much as Fergie and was brave enough to throw a young lad from the non league straight to the lions.

To be honest I never expect to hear a Liverpool fan say much good about Hodgson. The board weren't honest and were in turmoil, he bascially had a thankless task. The money wasn't there. He was just the wrong guy too because Liverpool fans wanted something different. Its like us with Fat Sham. He was on a loser from the off because he played the wrong kind of football. If something is bad fit its silly to try and make it fit.