You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should Hodgson go?
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
burning blue soul
Well-Known Member
what the FA need is a complete change in attitude and a new commitment to modernize the coaching structure in england, in order for that to happen a new younger generation who are more accepting of change, and who understand the modern game need to be appointed (i wouldnt mind gary neville being given a ten year mandate in the position). this will not happen though, the fa will not change and woy will stay. in 2016 we will again be shit (or not even get there) and the same questions will be asked.
its a shame really the the game in our country is run by so many fucking clueless cunts!!!!!
the only silver lining is the investment made by city in producing new players, though this could take 10 years to come into fruition.
its a shame really the the game in our country is run by so many fucking clueless cunts!!!!!
the only silver lining is the investment made by city in producing new players, though this could take 10 years to come into fruition.
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,218
I don't rate Hodgson but on balance I don't see much benefit in dispensing with him.
Unlike recent tournaments I found England's performances relatively encouraging. Hodgson did go some way to address some perennial failings. He did introduce a crop of young players and actually played them. We did try and play some positive football. Our ball retention wasn't great but it wasn't god awful. We even passed the ball which is major plus point.
What Hodgson didn't do is entirely escape the cult of big players. Gerrard in a two man midfield, in the heat was a mistake. Take either Lampard or Gerrard for the experience but not both. Pick players who fit the gameplan and not the big names and then try and fit the gameplan round them. It was a mistake to have no DM in the squad to bring on late in games to provide cover, break up play and hold on to what would have been a reasonable point against Uruguay. I'd have gone with Barry given he has no pace and relies on his ability to read the game to be in the right place to niggle, disrupt and handball in the middle of the park. Barry wouldn't have jumped for that header like Gerrard. He would have stuck his huge arse into the oppo player to put him off and then fall to the ground to try and win a freekick.
Our obsession and the media obsession with Rooney was farcical. Huge debate about Rooney playing in the wrong position against Italy and everyone calling for him to start in his right position. Why the fuss over one player? Surely the team shape, overall tactics and gameplan are of more relevance and if Rooney isn't the best man in any position in the gameplan then don't play him. If he is the best bet up front or on the left then fine, play him. This though is more of a media obsession but it takes a strong manager to go against the media narrative and dropping Rooney and losing the Italy game would have led to a media bloodbath.
That all said and as much as I have little to no time for Hodgson I think he attempted to try something a bit different. He just didn't go far enough.
Unlike recent tournaments I found England's performances relatively encouraging. Hodgson did go some way to address some perennial failings. He did introduce a crop of young players and actually played them. We did try and play some positive football. Our ball retention wasn't great but it wasn't god awful. We even passed the ball which is major plus point.
What Hodgson didn't do is entirely escape the cult of big players. Gerrard in a two man midfield, in the heat was a mistake. Take either Lampard or Gerrard for the experience but not both. Pick players who fit the gameplan and not the big names and then try and fit the gameplan round them. It was a mistake to have no DM in the squad to bring on late in games to provide cover, break up play and hold on to what would have been a reasonable point against Uruguay. I'd have gone with Barry given he has no pace and relies on his ability to read the game to be in the right place to niggle, disrupt and handball in the middle of the park. Barry wouldn't have jumped for that header like Gerrard. He would have stuck his huge arse into the oppo player to put him off and then fall to the ground to try and win a freekick.
Our obsession and the media obsession with Rooney was farcical. Huge debate about Rooney playing in the wrong position against Italy and everyone calling for him to start in his right position. Why the fuss over one player? Surely the team shape, overall tactics and gameplan are of more relevance and if Rooney isn't the best man in any position in the gameplan then don't play him. If he is the best bet up front or on the left then fine, play him. This though is more of a media obsession but it takes a strong manager to go against the media narrative and dropping Rooney and losing the Italy game would have led to a media bloodbath.
That all said and as much as I have little to no time for Hodgson I think he attempted to try something a bit different. He just didn't go far enough.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 19,965
Nothing's changed at the FA:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuxxFy8kIrw[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuxxFy8kIrw[/video]
1961_vintage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 15,047
No he shouldn't. He's an uncomplicated, dignified football man and with a genuine passion for seeing a successful England team.
The problem goes far broader and deeper than one individual and the scapegoating of the present incumbent manager.
However - the removal of that self-serving egotistical wanker Dyke would be a good start.
The problem goes far broader and deeper than one individual and the scapegoating of the present incumbent manager.
However - the removal of that self-serving egotistical wanker Dyke would be a good start.
A lot of the passes in the opponent's half were down purely to Italy's own defensive tactics.BobKowalski said:I don't rate Hodgson but on balance I don't see much benefit in dispensing with him.
Unlike recent tournaments I found England's performances relatively encouraging. Hodgson did go some way to address some perennial failings. He did introduce a crop of young players and actually played them. We did try and play some positive football. Our ball retention wasn't great but it wasn't god awful. We even passed the ball which is major plus point.
What Hodgson didn't do is entirely escape the cult of big players. Gerrard in a two man midfield, in the heat was a mistake. Take either Lampard or Gerrard for the experience but not both. Pick players who fit the gameplan and not the big names and then try and fit the gameplan round them. It was a mistake to have no DM in the squad to bring on late in games to provide cover, break up play and hold on to what would have been a reasonable point against Uruguay. I'd have gone with Barry given he has no pace and relies on his ability to read the game to be in the right place to niggle, disrupt and handball in the middle of the park. Barry wouldn't have jumped for that header like Gerrard. He would have stuck his huge arse into the oppo player to put him off and then fall to the ground to try and win a freekick.
Our obsession and the media obsession with Rooney was farcical. Huge debate about Rooney playing in the wrong position against Italy and everyone calling for him to start in his right position. Why the fuss over one player? Surely the team shape, overall tactics and gameplan are of more relevance and if Rooney isn't the best man in any position in the gameplan then don't play him. If he is the best bet up front or on the left then fine, play him. This though is more of a media obsession but it takes a strong manager to go against the media narrative and dropping Rooney and losing the Italy game would have led to a media bloodbath.
That all said and as much as I have little to no time for Hodgson I think he attempted to try something a bit different. He just didn't go far enough.
You ask 10 City fans which Premiership player they would like City to sign and I reckon at least 8 would say Barkley, yet Hodgson did not start him. It wasn't rocket-science.
bluemanc1994
Well-Known Member
No he shouldn't. Apart from the results, the overall play hasn't been too bad. It's individual errors defensively that has cost us in both games, as well as not being able to take our chances. I think 95% of people agreed with his team selections bar 1 or 2 players. Hodgson shouldn't take all the blame for our exit at all. He has overhauled the squad since becoming manager, bringing in young players, and removing the older generation.
Sacking Hodgson won't make us any better, it will still be the same squad. No new manager will call up anybody differently than what Hodgson has done in his 2 years. I believe in giving Hodgson the next Euro's in 2016 before looking at his position. With the youngsters 2 years older and hopefully lots of PL/CL experience, we will continue to grow and should expect to do a lot better in France and then the next WC. This isn't a disaster by any stretch of the imagination in my opinion. Should we fail in France though, then i'd replace him, but not until after that tournament.
Sacking Hodgson won't make us any better, it will still be the same squad. No new manager will call up anybody differently than what Hodgson has done in his 2 years. I believe in giving Hodgson the next Euro's in 2016 before looking at his position. With the youngsters 2 years older and hopefully lots of PL/CL experience, we will continue to grow and should expect to do a lot better in France and then the next WC. This isn't a disaster by any stretch of the imagination in my opinion. Should we fail in France though, then i'd replace him, but not until after that tournament.
Blue Haze
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised anyone wants to keep Hodgson. He's mediocre.
England need a manager who is defensively organised. Someone who can get crazy workrate from the players to make up for the lack of talent. Persisting with Hodgson is a waste of time.
England need a manager who is defensively organised. Someone who can get crazy workrate from the players to make up for the lack of talent. Persisting with Hodgson is a waste of time.
Blue Haze said:I'm surprised anyone wants to keep Hodgson. He's mediocre.
England need a manager who is defensively organised. Someone who can get crazy workrate from the players to make up for the lack of talent. Persisting with Hodgson is a waste of time.
Have to agree.
To go out in straight sets in a group that will unlikely feature a side that will play in the semi finals says it all.
In World Cup football the buck stops with the manager.
Jose Mou should take over even if the his boss namely Mrs Jose is against it.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 27,339
Anyone who picks Henderson or Welbeck over Milner deserves the sack. That said would anyone else do any better with the current bunch of players? Probably only Pullis who would at least make England difficult to beat.