Hodgson Out?

[Guest ttfn]

That's rubbish. Of course it's the managers fault. He's the manager at the end of the day and it's your fault when you're the manager. He picks the squad, he picks the 11, it's his tactics.

Hang on - if England had gone to Brazil with a FoxesTalk select XI and got hammered every game would it have been Hodgson's fault?

That England squad was arguably the poorest we've taken to a major tournament since 1992 and certainly the first time we've pitched up without any world class players at all in that time.

Hodgson has to shoulder some of the blame but sacking the manager for failing to get the best out of a very limited group of players in 1 of the 2 tournaments he's been in charge doesn't seem right.

[Nick]

Though I appreciate you're comments, rather than the typical Finnegan type diatribe.

 

Wow.

 

Just wow.

[Haydos]

yeah but I was funny...

And then I gave you my view..

 

You did...after a bit of goading

[Corky]

Hodgson's failing, for me, was trying to appease the masses. They wanted free-flowing, exciting football and "it didn't matter if we went out as long as we had a go". They wanted the kids playing, Sterling, Barkley, Shaw, not the players who'd been there and not done it. So Hodgson tried to do that and failed.

 

In Euro 2012, when he was slated for the negative football (though we scored five goals in the group stage), we had discipline and a structure. It wasn't pretty but it was more effective and we could defend.

 

This time, Hodgson got caught between two pillars, if you like. The first game was encouraging but a defeat left us with a difficult situation needing to win two games. I think he wanted to go back to the more rigid style of two years ago but knew he had to go for it as well, meaning we gave a really mixed performance where we looked solid at times, entertaining but also wide open (start of the second half). The third game doesn't really matter, we were out and he gave other players a game.

 

This squad was also a different make up to previously, lots of young, untried players at a major tournament. But it is a results business and he failed on that front.

[Samilktray]

Can you imagine the media and fans reaction to every bad result if we had a German in charge?

Klinsmann wouldn't even give us a 2nd look if we came for him. The USA is probably a more attractive job for many different reasons.

[Hirsty The Blue 94]

We certainly have no English alternative, and the FA have been insistent on an English coach after the Capello rubbish. Therefore Roy should, and will stay up to the end of his contract in Euro 2016, hopefully providing an improvement and development of the younger players. Then hand the baton over to Gary Neville, and continue the progression from within.

Ofcourse all this relies on us actually improving in the next 2 years and the youth players living up to their promise. Think he needs to abandon the 4-2-3-1 system though. England aren't good enough and never have been to control possession in midfield with only 2 centre midfielders. You will get away with it against the shit sides in qualifying but in the major tournaments we don't control possession of games and always look light in the middle. An attacking 4-3-3 or even 3-5-2/ 5-3-2 is a system much more suited to us in the players we have.

[Stadt]

Football has moved on from possession football now, we try to copy the successful trend but we do it too late and get left behind.

[Fox92]

Hang on - if England had gone to Brazil with a FoxesTalk select XI and got hammered every game would it have been Hodgson's fault?

That England squad was arguably the poorest we've taken to a major tournament since 1992 and certainly the first time we've pitched up without any world class players at all in that time.

Hodgson has to shoulder some of the blame but sacking the manager for failing to get the best out of a very limited group of players in 1 of the 2 tournaments he's been in charge doesn't seem right.

 

Course it would be his fault, he's manager. Doesn't matter where you work, with management comes responsibility.

 

Oh he doesn't have any "World Class players" does he? Well neither have Greece and Costa Rica yet they've got further than us.

[Rob1742]

That's rubbish. Of course it's the managers fault. He's the manager at the end of the day and it's your fault when you're the manager. He picks the squad, he picks the 11, it's his tactics.

You could have the best manager ever and you wouldn't be able to create a good England team at this moment. You cannot polish a turd.

[Guest ttfn]

Course it would be his fault, he's manager. Doesn't matter where you work, with management comes responsibility.

Oh he doesn't have any "World Class players" does he? Well neither have Greece and Costa Rica yet they've got further than us.

I don't see how the performances of Costa Rica and Greece have anything to do with England. Their performance is just as likely (and indeed is widely accepted) to be indicative of their over-performance relative to resource than our under-performance.

The first paragraph in your response is such an absurdly absolutist way of looking at the role of the manager.

[Fox92]

You could have the best manager ever and you wouldn't be able to create a good England team at this moment. You cannot polish a turd.

I think the best manager ever would have done something, because that's why they are the best managers ever.

[Guest ttfn]

I think the best manager ever would have done something, because that's why they are the best managers ever.

Exactly. Hodgson is not the best manager ever. The best manager ever is either dead or selling his wine collection depending on who your persuasion.

Nobody is saying he did a great job, just an acceptable one with the resources at his disposal.

[Fox92]

I don't see how the performances of Costa Rica and Greece have anything to do with England. Their performance is just as likely (and indeed is widely accepted) to be indicative of their over-performance relative to resource than our under-performance.

The first paragraph in your response is such an absurdly absolutist way of looking at the role of the manager.

You said we don't have any world class players, I was pointing out neither do teams like Costa Rica yet they got further than us.

We won't go anywhere with Hodgson in charge.

Exactly. Hodgson is not the best manager ever. The best manager ever is either dead or selling his wine collection depending on who your persuasion.

Nobody is saying he did a great job, just an acceptable one with the resources at his disposal.

As an England fan though, I don't feel he is doing an acceptable job.

[Beliall]

Hodgson would have failed managing this brazil team

[Guest ttfn]

You said we don't have any world class players, I was pointing out neither do teams like Costa Rica yet they got further than us.

We won't go anywhere with Hodgson in charge.

As an England fan though, I don't feel he is doing an acceptable job.

And I am saying that they got further than us because they OVER-performed, not because we UNDER-performed.

Why does their progress mean we've done terribly? Why can't we just accept that they did really well and we did quite badly?

Just because some teams with worse players than us did well it doesn't automatically mean we did badly.

In 2002 the South Koreans and Turks went further than us with inferior players. Did we do badly in that tournament? No, of course we didn't, we just had the mis-fortune to run into Brazil in the quarters and then failed to take the opportunity to beat them when they went down to 10.

We did ok then, we didn't do ok this time, but we stunk the place out in 2010 and we certainly can't be accused of that this time out.

[MC Prussian]

Again what has this got to do with England?

 

We're talking about Germany here.

Well, compared to Germany's national team and its mid- to long-term strategy, England still suck. Sadly.

[Guest Col city fan]

Well, compared to Germany's national team and it's mid- to long-term strategy, England still suck. Sadly.

You are right. The Germans are currently much better than England. The Bundesliga does need some team(s) to compete with Bayern though. This season was farcical. Its a little twee for folks to be hailing German League football as better than British. When one team monopolises like Bayern Munich, it clearly isnt

[Pride_Of_The_Midlands]

Well, compared to Germany's national team and its mid- to long-term strategy, England still suck. Sadly.

 

Germany are the number 1 European country in football history and they have an extra 30 million people compared to us.

 

Nothing to be ashamed of.

[Jimmy]

Germany are the number 1 European country in football history and they have an extra 30 million people compared to us.

 

Nothing to be ashamed of.

they also have an FA that is in control and a league that actively helps the national team, neither of which we have

[MC Prussian]

Germany are the number 1 European country in football history and they have an extra 30 million people compared to us.

 

Nothing to be ashamed of.

Greece won Euro 2004.

 

They have a population of roughly 11 million people.

 

Your point is...?

[Guest ttfn]

Greece won Euro 2004.

 

They have a population of roughly 11 million people.

 

Your point is...?

This is a complete straw man argument though.

Whether Greece performed a miracle once in the last 100 years is irrelevant when discussing whether England are performing at the level they should be.

 

Why England Lose ("Soccernomics" in later editions) will tell you that England are pretty much pre-destined to be a Quarter Final or last 16 team. The problem from England's perspective is that that is obviously an average position that they've modelled, and when we actually did have a squad that was capable of going much deeper into a competition than that they invariably failed at the QF stage. So now, when we perform in a predictably poor fashion given the lower calibre of player available, we are (overall) under-performing compared to that average tournament finish that we should be achieving. 

 

Meanwhile the Germans consistently perform at or above the expected level. Overall, the Germans are doing well - we're only just about performing at expectations.

[Jimmy]

Well what's the population of Costa Rica?

[MC Prussian]

This is a complete straw man argument though.

Whether Greece performed a miracle once in the last 100 years is irrelevant when discussing whether England are performing at the level they should be.

 

Why England Lose ("Soccernomics" in later editions) will tell you that England are pretty much pre-destined to be a Quarter Final or last 16 team. The problem from England's perspective is that that is obviously an average position that they've modelled, and when we actually did have a squad that was capable of going much deeper into a competition than that they invariably failed at the QF stage. So now, when we perform in a predictably poor fashion given the lower calibre of player available, we are (overall) under-performing compared to that average tournament finish that we should be achieving. 

 

Meanwhile the Germans consistently perform at or above the expected level. Overall, the Germans are doing well - we're only just about performing at expectations.

I was moreso poking fun at POTM, who thinks that bringing up the population argument equals making a point.

The population may have an influence on the amount of potential starlets you're able to scout, but it isn't essential on how the national football team performs.

It's what you do with the resources at your disposal that creates the kind of success England has been craving for for so long.

 

In that regard, England have been pretty woeful and wasteful with how they've exploited their own talent over the past ten to fifteen years, you may argue.

I've already pointed out that there are signs of recovery though and that the current crop, with the addition of more hungry up-and-comers, will be a much more worthy unit comes Euro 2016 (which I expect England to reach like a walk in a park).

 

And as for Hodgson, I'd give him another two years and then take it from there once the tournament in France is over. He'll be closing in on 68 by then and is highly likely to retire altogether.

He's done so much on an international and national level and pretty much seen it all.

[Thracian]

The problem with England is too many unjustifiably inflated egos and too few shrewdly capable managers. Good managers don't give a toss about media tacticians or footballing reputations...as the successful but much maligned Sir Alf Ramsey demonstrated.

Based on consideration of your available assets and known opposition, good managers pick the players they want to do the jobs they require doing. Then they work on the detail based on various eventualities.It's that simple and needs no complication. It's not a consensus, it's a dictatorship with the success, or otherwise, of the work being apparent on match day and - in our case - it was lacking  

Either people show they subscibe to your requirements or they're no damned use to you. Hodgson just doesn't quite have it. Pleasant in many ways, diplomatic, enthusiastic. But a managerial genius? No way that I've ever noticed.

People might point to his mostly minor successes in Europe and most particularly Sweden. But even I beat national champions in Europe and it didn't mean I was good enough where it really mattered, not by a distance.

[Manwell Pablo]

Greece won Euro 2004.

 

They have a population of roughly 11 million people.

 

Your point is...?

 

Russia have a population of 140 million people and are an absloute bag of wank.