The Roy Hodgson Question.

lordgoat

Iago wrote: »

Personally I think a number of things went against Hodgson in his time at Liverpool. The boardroom shenanigans didn't help anybody, there were still a number of the squad still loyal to the previous manager and the club as a whole was rocking and lacking in confidence.

He attempted to instill his version of order on that but rather than go with it I don't think the squad bought into it and therefore didn't play to the best of their ability as a result. He then allowed himself to become frustrated by that and lost the fans by virtue of the things that he said and didn't say respectively.

Ultimately I think he's a very good manager, but he was probably too nice when it came to dealing with pampered superstars.

Pretty much spot on. You should post more often dude.

LuckyLloyd

He's gone from Liverpool, good riddance. What he does for the rest of his career is an irrelevance for me. The club has moved on for the better.

yosemite_sam

Melion wrote: »

He found his level with teams like Fulham and WBA.

Deluded Liverpool fans thinking their club was too big a job for him, without doubt Liverpool are a special club who haven't been Champions in 20 years makes them far too big for Roy

The Muppet

Kess73 wrote: »

True since 1972 United fans have been pretty patient with managers, but there was a spell between 1969 and 1972 where United had four managers and the fans certainly did not back two of them.

Can you name the 4 managers united had beween 1969 and 1972 , and explain the part the fans played in their sacking.

bamboozling

As others have touched on Roy tried to bring a different attitude to the club. The players were not in tune with this and thus Roy struggled to get the best out of the players. This, coupled with the turmoil at the time and the way in which he spoke to the media, ensured he was a failure at the club.

Roy of course failed to help himself by signing muck such as Koncheskey and Poulson, letting Aquilani go on loan when it was painfully obvious how short we were in that department and of course playing Meiriles out of position.

Then of course there was also the tactics such as failing to press the opposition in their half, sitting back on a one goal lead and at home and generally going out not to lose games rather than win them.

These tactics are accepted if they work, an example being Houllier at Liverpool, the tactics were accepted due to there success but ensured a swift downfall when they ceased to function properly.

These tactics work well at the likes of WBA and Fulham but with a genuine big club with Champions League and league ambitions they will not be accepted.

Still I'm pretty sure West Brom fans are delighted with the job he has done, unbeaten in 7 having lost 13 of the previous 17 before he joined.

Roy's problem is that he's a firefighter rather than a developer. He is the living example of Belá Guttman's philosophy that 'The Third Season is Fatal' without any of the success to encourage such methods.

Some managers are excellent at one club and poor at another or vice versa.

Hardly something new thats happened here.

bradlente

I'd consider his time at Blackburn quite the blip too,Suprised nobody on the thread has mentioned that period of his career yet.Too much argument here revolving around 6 months at Liverpool imho.

Hes won loads of trophies in Scandinavia and his record in Italy with Inter isn't bad at all,wonder how he left there,was it a boardroom dispute or bad results I wonder,because his record there looks decent.

Then theres his stellar run with Fulham and great run so far with WBA.Saved both from relegation and brought 1 on an unprecedented Euro run.

I think hes a decent manager,not too far from the likes of Harry Redknapp.He might not of won as many major trophies as the man but hes bankrupt less clubs:P
Bringing Kevin Davies in as the replacement for Alan Shearer at Rovers is certainly up there with the worst buys in history however.

I think he'll get another crack at a big job if he dosn't retire soon.Big job being Everton Villa Newcastle etc.

NukaCola

The Muppet wrote: »

Yeah?

Being a Liverpool fan yourself Muppet I suppose you would know

Kess73

The Muppet wrote: »

Can you name the 4 managers united had beween 1969 and 1972 , and explain the part the fans played in their sacking.

Totally off topic as your question is but

McGuinness came in 1969
Busby came back in 1970 as a stand in after McGuinnes flopped
Farrell came in 1971
Docherty came in 1972 after o'Farrell's time was cut short due to poor results

And I said that two, not all four, did not get great backing.



But as this is a Roy Hodgson thread and I don't want to drag it off topic I will leave it there, but feel free to PM me with any questions you have about the club you support.:)

K-9

bamboozling wrote: »

I think its time a proper debate was had on the man.

Why is it that he failed so spectacularly at Liverpool yet was so successful at Fulham and is currently doing a tremendous job at West Brom and indeed has been successful at almost every other managerial position in his 30 year career?

People on this forum questioned the sacking of Di Matteo vehemently and wondered aloud the wisdom of brining in Hodgson. But before he was sacked Di Matteo had lost 13 out of his previous 17 games and West Brom seemed to be staring relegation in the face. Now they are 10th and will not get relegated.

Hodgson has done very well at West Brom, he's unbeaten in 7 and is playing entertaining football as in every game both teams have scored and scores like 3-3, 3-2 and 2-2 have been witnessed.

Is it that Liverpool was a blip on his record rather than a true reflection of the man's managerial capabilities?

Or has he, as some point out, merely found his level?

Thing is I don't remember entertaining football under Roy and we did have a few high scoring matches, Manchester City and Blackburn spring to mind!, eh, high scoring opposition.

He was supposed to be this well organised and excellent defensive coach yet our Goal difference was shocking, -3 and -12 Away.

1 Away win and worst Away record barring Wolves who won their single Away game at guess? Liverpool!

Meireles is interesting, Roy went and he scored something like 5 in 6 and often playing RM.

A fit Torres was under performing and was playing deeper and deeper and Reina was playing more and more long balls.

I'd have sympathy for him but I suspect he is one of these managers who gets the best out of average players. Liverpool have loads of average players but Kenny immediately played to their strengths, pressing and attacking. Given players who can actually play he's lost, happened at Blackburn too.

dreamers75

Melion wrote: »

He found his level with teams like Fulham and WBA.

Fairly sure him and Daglish have the same record as liverpool manager this year.

Roy is a decent manager but needs the support of the players, WBA players are footballers, Pool players obviously prima ****ing donnas who couldnt cope with the expectation of having to do a job.

Sir Gallagher

dreamers75 wrote: »

Fairly sure him and Daglish have the same record as liverpool manager this year.

Roy is a decent manager but needs the support of the players, WBA players are footballers, Pool players obviously prima ****ing donnas who couldnt cope with the expectation of having to do a job.

Every team has their Prima Donnas from top to bottom, todays footballer is a prima donna in his very nature i doubt Liverpool have any more or any less than any other club but i'm sure you'd like to think they do as you're obviously not a fan. It was Roy's job to get the best out of these players, HIS job and he failed. Lots of people would have you believe Roy was the victim in all of this and it was all the players and fans fault, if that was the case what's the point on having managers at all.

jesus_thats_gre

dreamers75 wrote: »

Fairly sure him and Daglish have the same record as liverpool manager this year.

Roy is a decent manager but needs the support of the players, WBA players are footballers, Pool players obviously prima ****ing donnas who couldnt cope with the expectation of having to do a job.

You know what, this about sums up my feelings on the subject.


The players didn't give him a chance but the club couldn't afford to wait any longer. It wasnt realistic to expect a wholesale clear out of the squad in the short term and there was a possibility that the club could face relegation.

From them clubs perspective, all in the context of it being taken over, it made more sense to bring in someone who could motivate the squad as it existed.

Hannibal

dreamers75 wrote: »

Fairly sure him and Dalglish have the same record as liverpool manager this year.

Liverpool under Hodgson:
--Home

---

Away

---

-P W D L F A W D L F A Pts
20 6 2 2 17 8 1 2 7 7 19 25

Win %: 35%
Loss %: 45%
Goal Diff: -3
Clean Sheets: 6

Liverpool under Dalglish:
--Home

---

Away

---

-P W D L F A W D L F A Pts
11 3 2 0 9 4 3 0 3 9 7 20

Win %: 54%
Loss %: 27%
Goal Diff: +7
Clean Sheets: 5

Liverpool under Benitez 2009-2010
--Home

---

Away

---

-P W D L -F -A W D L -F -A Pts
38 13 3 3 43 15 5 6 8 18 20 63

Win %: 47%
Loss %: 29%
Goal Diff: +26
Clean Sheets: 17

LuckyLloyd

dreamers75 wrote: »

Fairly sure him and Daglish have the same record as liverpool manager this year.

Roy is a decent manager but needs the support of the players, WBA players are footballers, Pool players obviously prima ****ing donnas who couldnt cope with the expectation of having to do a job.

How can people think this?

Fromvert

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How can people think this?

homerjay2005

Roy is a good manager, his time at liverpool was a disaster due to many many
reasons -

he took over a club on a huge downward slope, Rafa had just left amid much public opposition from the fans, the team was the 7th best in the league the season before and thats the standard of players he had at his disposal.

the fans didnt want there from the start and never supported him from day 1. he was too nice for the club, they wanted a man who could be hated by other clubs, like most of their managers were in the past. Having Dalglish hanging in the background making noises about wanting the job didnt help, most people wanted him and this lessened the respect for Roy even more.

the team suffered as a result of this lack of support in the manager, they didnt get behind the team as much as they should have done. this has helped, to improve liverpool as mush as having a new manager in, the fans lifted when roy left and this then lifted the players.

the players let him down, some of them are not good enough to play for the club, but they seemed to escape any blame what so ever.

in torres, he had a problem of a player who was off form for close on 2 years now. last year it was the injurys the liverpool fans blamed it on, this season it was the poor football roy was playing, now we have seent he true torres, a man so far off form, he is unrecognisable. he didnt want to play for liverpool and despite 9 goals, the right decision would have been to sell him in the summer.

several top players left liverpool in the 12 months before he took over, Alonso,Mascherano, Yossi, Aurelio, not having a decent back up striker, the whole robbie keane fiasco, Hypia retiring and then the debacle with Aqualani. the squad was very unstable when Roy took over, 100% down to the previous manager and his lack of man management.

roy did a few things wrong, thats for sure. 2 dud signings in Konchesky and Poulsen, Cole was a disaster and Merilles took a few months to settle in. he didnt exactly have millions at his disposal.

Roy also had a horrific start to the season fixtures wise, Arsenal, City, United all in the first 4 weeks of the season is not easy, 2 away from home. People forget Roys liverpool beat chelsea also. i dont think the new manager is essentially doing a better job, just moral has raised and things are generally more stable.

and above all else, people forget the turmoil off the pitch. at one stage, liverpool were looking at administration, never going to be let happen really, but that talk was affecting the club, the players, the fans and it didnt help matters on the pitch really. the new manager has got the support of the board and the fans, got 21million for suarez even before Torres was sold and promises of more in the summer. that also has lifted the club.

summation - Roy was on a hiding to nothing really and while he didnt cover himself in glory, he was made a scapegoat in a suituation that had many many contributing factors.

Hannibal

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Roy is a good manager, his time at liverpool was a disaster due to many many
reasons -

he took over a club on a huge downward slope, Rafa had just left amid much public opposition from the fans, the team was the 7th best in the league the season before and thats the standard of players he had at his disposal.

in torres, he had a problem of a player who was off form for close on 2 years now. last year it was the injurys the liverpool fans blamed it on, this season it was the poor football roy was playing, now we have seent he true torres, a man so far off form, he is unrecognisable. he didnt want to play for liverpool and despite 9 goals, the right decision would have been to sell him in the summer.

several top players left liverpool in the 12 months before he took over, Alonso,Mascherano, Yossi, Aurelio,

roy did a few things wrong, thats for sure. 2 dud signings in Konchesky and Poulsen, Cole was a disaster and Merilles took a few months to settle in. he didnt exactly have millions at his disposal.

People forget Roys liverpool beat chelsea also.

summation - Roy was on a hiding to nothing really and while he didnt cover himself in glory, he was made a scapegoat in a suituation that had many many contributing factors.

a) There was as much support for Rafa staying as there was for him leaving, people wanted new owners before a new manager. Having been to Anfield for 9 league games last season I didn't see any public opposition to Rafa.

b) Last season Torres played 22 and scored 18 in the league, how can this be described as off form?

c) Hodgson sold Mascherano and Benayoun so they didn't leave in the previous 12 months. And he re-signed Aurelio.

d) Poulsen, Konchesky, Brad Jones cost a combined £12.8m. He didn't have millions at his disposal but neither did Benitez. We had to sell to buy since 2007 and Hodgson got the job by saying he could buy better bargain players and do better with the current squad than Benitez, this proved not to be the case. Konchesky and Jones are now on loan at Championship clubs.

e) While Hodgson's Liverpool beat Chelsea, they were also beaten at Anfield by Blackpool and Wolves and we had a negative goal difference when he left after 20 league games and were also 12th place in the league.

5starpool

I reckon there is an excellent chance that Hodgson won't last all next season at WBA, but there won't be a thread about that if it doesn happen probably.

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

So then this is really another thread to attack LFC with is it?

Jazzy

Deleted User wrote: »

hes not wrong though

SlickRic

considering this is the OP...

bamboozling wrote: »

I think its time a proper debate was had on the man.

Why is it that he failed so spectacularly at Liverpool yet was so successful at Fulham and is currently doing a tremendous job at West Brom and indeed has been successful at almost every other managerial position in his 30 year career?

People on this forum questioned the sacking of Di Matteo vehemently and wondered aloud the wisdom of brining in Hodgson. But before he was sacked Di Matteo had lost 13 out of his previous 17 games and West Brom seemed to be staring relegation in the face. Now they are 10th and will not get relegated.

Hodgson has done very well at West Brom, he's unbeaten in 7 and is playing entertaining football as in every game both teams have scored and scores like 3-3, 3-2 and 2-2 have been witnessed.

Is it that Liverpool was a blip on his record rather than a true reflection of the man's managerial capabilities?

Or has he, as some point out, merely found his level?

...from a Liverpool fan...

no, this wasn't intended as a Liverpool bashing exercise.

some fans will see it as an opportunity to do that, such is life, but it's not been created to have a go at us.

in fact, i'm pretty damn happy that the man can be discussed in a dedicated thread. some important questions have been put out, some answers given, and maybe some people who don't venture into the Liverpool thread might get a better idea of Liverpool fans' gripes with him, rather than a lot of the regurgitated shíte that gets peddled as our opinions.

some football fans should probably get thicker skin in all honesty :pac:

bamboozling

As the OP I agree entirely with Slick.

I created this thread purely to debate the man and his management on a specific thread.

Some people use this as a platform to take potshots at Liverpool, well that's their prerogative, and they have been weeded out already.

I made points in the OP to encourage the debate and to get the thread moving, it is my most recent post where I gave my true views on Roy.

thebullkf

bamboozling wrote: »

I think its time a proper debate was had on the man.

Why is it that he failed so spectacularly at Liverpool yet was so successful at Fulham and is currently doing a tremendous job at West Brom and indeed has been successful at almost every other managerial position in his 30 year career?

People on this forum questioned the sacking of Di Matteo vehemently and wondered aloud the wisdom of brining in Hodgson. But before he was sacked Di Matteo had lost 13 out of his previous 17 games and West Brom seemed to be staring relegation in the face. Now they are 10th and will not get relegated.

Hodgson has done very well at West Brom, he's unbeaten in 7 and is playing entertaining football as in every game both teams have scored and scores like 3-3, 3-2 and 2-2 have been witnessed.

Is it that Liverpool was a blip on his record rather than a true reflection of the man's managerial capabilities?

Or has he, as some point out, merely found his level?

he could've gotten liverpool relegated.

Kenny Dalglish has more winners medals than Roy has prenier league wins.... says it all really. i like Roy. But he hasn't done anything since sweden.
Nearly got Blackburn relegated...the year after they won the league!

thebullkf

The Muppet wrote: »

Bull****, he showing that he is a quality manager when given support.

The players and fans are the reason he failed at Liverpool, the players have said as much through the club captain

would you like him to replace Fergie?

K-9

Benny wasn't sold under Roy I don't think.

Paul Tomkins had a decent piece on it, a bit OTT to me but most of it made good points.

boards.ie - View Single Post - Superthread Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 10/11

• Calling the players who lost in the Carling Cup the ‘B team’, and blaming it all on them.
• Not defending Torres, saying Alex Ferguson has a right to his opinion; that opinion being that Torres is a cheat.
• Criticising the fan protests. (He’s backtracked on these last two points, but the damage was done.)
• Picking a (virtually) full-strength team away in the Europa League, and expecting Torres’ muscles to be 100% three days later. I thought he was going to use the ‘B’ team in the early stages, as he did at Fulham?
• Not buying a striker; I know Rafa struggled to find one at the right price, but it was the clear priority of the summer. Aquilani was bought to replace Alonso, and was now fit; and so, instead of going for Meireles and then not using him properly, why not keep Aquilani and buy a striker?
• Leaving it to the 80-minute mark in several games to make the first change, when a result was needed. (One of the TTT subscribers sits behind the manager’s dugout, and said he’d never seen a Liverpool manager so passive during a match.)
• And do we really want to see Kyrgiakos as a centre-forward late in games against Northampton and Blackpool? Admittedly it nearly worked, but if we have to resort to desperate long-balls rather than try and play through lesser teams at Anfield, it’s a sign of grave concern.
• Alienating Agger. Potentially a world-class centre-back. But doesn’t fit Roy’s style, which involves not taking chances with footballers in defence. One of the best players at the club, but not utilised.
• Loaning out Insua and Aquilani, without sufficient replacements. (Might not all be Roy’s fault, this one, with Insua apparently offered to clubs by the Reds’ hierarchy.)
• Paying £5m for mediocre players who are near the end of their careers (Konchesky, and the frankly risible Poulsen). Paying £11m for Meireles – a very good player – and using him as a wide midfielder (albeit one forced to play horribly narrow). Saying Rafael Van Der Vaart doesn’t fit the profile of the kind of player he was interested in.

Biggest Error
And the biggest one of all: taking a team with players suited to pressing and rather than working with what he had, trying to reverse it. If anything was broken under Benítez, it was his relationship with Carragher and Gerrard, and one or two less-influential players.
The tactics were not the issue (look at how they were often successfully deployed at the World Cup) and maybe now people are seeing that.
Liverpool pressed high and hard – and fast from the start – and it suited Torres, Kuyt and Gerrard. It made it easier to create chances, because errors were forced. It gave the game some energy.
It now suits Samuel Eto’o at Inter: “With Mourinho we played on the counter-attack, with Benítez we press more and that’s better for us forwards because we win back the ball higher up the pitch and create more chances.”
Eto’o has 11 goals already this season, after just 16 last time. Torres has … one.

Last season I noted that Rafa was the only manager to get more than an average amount of goals from Torres. At the time, I wasn’t sure if it was just coincidence, or maybe due to the very detailed and specific advice Rafa gave him (which Torres said was incredible). Now, I’m starting to think it was mostly tactical.
Torres’ goal record in Spain was not the best; consistent, yes, but never above 13 from open play in a season (in one year he scored six additional goals from the spot). For Spain, it’s a decent international record, but not outstanding. (Spain also press, but they often delay the final pass; Torres needs the ball earlier.)
For Torres under Hodgson, it’s … one goal in nine games.
Now, he hasn’t been 100% fit. And it’s early days. But he wasn’t fully fit for large parts of the previous two seasons. And he still got 14 in 24, and 18 in 22, in those two Premier League campaigns. Often he was coming back from injury, but rarely did he look this out of sorts. Rarely was he so starved of service, so isolated; an island within Anfield.
Perhaps the new style of play doesn’t suit him? He’ll always be a great striker – pace, power, eye for all types of goal – but the tactics were always tailored to his strengths. Now it seems tailored to the strengths of Bobby Zamora.

Now, if Roy wants to change the team’s entire style, that’s down to him. But it can be argued that it makes more sense to work with what he has (or for the club to employ someone to do so), in a way that suits the players, than force his ideas onto them; especially as he doesn’t have the money to buy those who’d fit better into his system. (Not being funny, but right now, Emile Heskey would probably be better at what Torres is being asked to do.)
The style – which Hodgson has made clear he’s carried with him for 35 years – is being forced onto the players. If it works, great. If it doesn’t? Buck. Stops. There.

The next few weeks are vital in the future of the club, and so any decision can wait until that is resolved, and until after the Everton game. Win that game, and Roy might have a chance of taking his ideas into a new regime (if one finally arrives).

Oh, his reaction to that Merseyside defeat didn't help either. Also after the ownership issues got sorted it should have been a weight of his shoulders, instead it seemed to be a bigger chip!

He really was always a temporary manager, nearly a caretaker until things got sorted of the field, once that was dealt with and results didn't improve, barring a 4/5 game spell in November, it was always a matter of time.

Big names were approached like Blanc but they weren't going to take over while the club was for sale in the Summer so top range managers weren't an option, which is telling.

As for Kenny working in the background as homerjay2005 said, I wouldn't put too much into it, that was ignored in the Summer and only arose again when things got desperate.

God knows how he'd have handled Torres going! People scoff at Liverpool being involved in a relegation scrap, I'm not so sure, I don't think he would have handled that departure anyway well at all and it would have completely finished the team and morale.

donfers

hodgson is effective with clubs that drastically need their defense organised i.e. clubs in the bottom half who are a bit cavalier and leaking too many as they try in vain to play like Brazil as progressive young foreign coaches like Martinez and Di Matteo perhaps put too much emphasis on technical-based play, thinking if they play in the style of Barcelona, they will get results, thus filling up the team with a mishmash of various mercenaries from across Europe many of whom are fairweather players with a questionable work ethic albeit with decent technicl ability ......he would have been equally as good a manager at Wigan, weed out a few of the dodgier foreign lads and organise the defense, that's all the guy is capable of doing

he will never ever be a successful manager of a team that wants to win stuff, why? because his teams lack ambition in attac

at liverpool his signings were ****

at liverpool his tactics were ****

at liverpool his comments to the media were defeatist and ****

at liverpool his body language was ****

at liverpool the team's performances unde rhim were ****

at liverpool his results were ****


a manager is responsible for the team, when the pool haters want to have a dig at the club and say the players didn't play for him, they fail to acknowledge that even if this were true, that it is Hodgson's fault they don't feel inspired to play for him or have confidence in him

the guy has been in the game 30 years and has only won a few titles in Scandinivia yet he seems to have a very high opinion of himself for someone who has achieved so little of substance in the game apart from fighting off relegation a few times with teams that were a mess and taking Fulham to the UEFA cup final (a tournament that has very little credibility these days)

he likes the sound of his own voice and seems to fancy himself as a very articulate and intelligent commentator on the game and the media lap it up but actually the guy is the biggest ****-spouter I've ever seen in the footballing world and trust me there is quite a few contenders for the role (so possibly that is his crowning achievement).....so because he has basically sucked off the media and cultivated a nice relationship with the cosy little clique of brit managers headed by fergie and including the likes of moyes, fat sam, steve bruce, pulis, redknapp etc., this has somehow translated into the guy being hailed as manager of the year (an accolade he never tires of referencing in interviews) and a nice guy and tactical genius - when sky sports and the xenophobic clique of fergies little clan are all saying something is true, I tend to believe the opposite and at Liverpool Hodgson proved that......he is mediocre, he was a pretender, stick to the relegation threatened clubs roy or take over from fergie when he goes, that way you'll please all the pool fans and the man u fans who seem to rate you so much

Hannibal

thebullkf wrote: »

he could've gotten liverpool relegated.

Kenny Dalglish has more winners medals than Roy has premier league wins.... says it all really. i like Roy. But he hasn't done anything since sweden.
Nearly got Blackburn relegated...the year after they won the league!

He took over Blackburn two years after they won the league, finished 6th in 1997/98 and left them while bottom in December 1998. He spent £7.5m on Kevin Davies, £5.5m on Christian Dailly, £4.25m on Nathan Blake, £10m combinded on Anders Andersson and Martin Dahlin. Bear in mind that was in 1997 and 1998 when he done that.

Hodgson has never won anything outside of Scandinavia. He won the Swedish league 7 times between 1976 and 1989 and the Swedish cup twice then won the Danish league in 2001 and has never won anything else apart from a couple of Supercups in Denmark and Sweden. He left Blackburn bottom of the league in December 1998 when he was sacked, even though Brian Kidd turned it around they still went down. This ranks in terms of squad worth as the worst relegation in modern times.

There is absolutely no defence for what he done at Liverpool. If given more time he would have left us in a worse rut than what Souness did. He was given big money to spend at Blackburn and bought them a load of disasters, then only other time since at Liverpool he wasted the best part of £15m with only Meireles flourishing after he left. At Internazionale he mishandled Roberto Carlos which led to him leaving to join Real Madrid. He has consistantly shown he can't handle big players or any type of expectation.

Whatever about his tactics,his handing of the media was just disastrous.

The way he spoke about UTD being interested in Torres and the way he talked about defeats/draws to smaller clubs.

It was like watching a corner shop owner being made a fortune 500 CEO.There is an air of prestige amongst historic clubs like Liverpool,he didnt understand this and was well on his way to destroying any intimidation/respect the name might have when playing other teams.

Hannibal

Perla Broad Velcro wrote: »

Whatever about his tactics,his handing of the media was just disastrous.

The way he spoke about UTD being interested in Torres and the way he talked about defeats/draws to smaller clubs.

It was like watching a corner shop owner being made a fortune 500 CEO.There is an air of prestige amongst historic clubs like Liverpool,he didnt understand this and was well on his way to destroying any intimidation/respect the name might have when playing other teams.

Everytime I seen him open his mouth my heart stopped. He said nothing after Ferguson accused Gerrard of cheating while Nani was at his usual antics in the same game.
"Northampton Town are formiddable opposition" He tried throughout his time at Liverpool to bring down expectations as much as possible.

daithijjj

Dotsey wrote: »

He took over Blackburn two years after they won the league, finished 6th in 1997/98 and left them while bottom in December 1998. He spent £7.5m on Kevin Davies, £5.5m on Christian Dailly, £4.25m on Nathan Blake, £10m combinded on Anders Andersson and Martin Dahlin. Bear in mind that was in 1997 and 1998 when he done that.

Hodgson has never won anything outside of Scandinavia. He won the Swedish league 7 times between 1976 and 1989 and the Swedish cup twice then won the Danish league in 2001 and has never won anything else apart from a couple of Supercups in Denmark and Sweden. He left Blackburn bottom of the league in December 1998 when he was sacked, even though Brian Kidd turned it around they still went down. This ranks in terms of squad worth as the worst relegation in modern times.

There is absolutely no defence for what he done at Liverpool. If given more time he would have left us in a worse rut than what Souness did. He was given big money to spend at Blackburn and bought them a load of disasters, then only other time since at Liverpool he wasted the best part of £15m with only Meireles flourishing after he left. At Internazionale he mishandled Roberto Carlos which led to him leaving to join Real Madrid. He has consistantly shown he can't handle big players or any type of expectation.

This has all been done to death in the liverpool thread but anyway. The only blackburn fan i know on here (eagle eye) made a great post on his time at blackburn. Blackburn had a big portion of players who were bad eggs. Tim Sherwood led a 'revolt' because he didnt want to spend more time in blackburn than he had to as he had business interests in london. He got a few other lads to back him up (lads who also didnt want to train twice a day). He had Chris 'im too good for england B' Sutton being a prima donna around the place. Virtually half of the squad had no interest. The next two managers in there after hodgson did just as bad because there was a core of players acting the cnut.

He got Switzerland to 3rd in the fifa world rankings, beating the current world champions at the time to top of his group.

His time at fulham is different to blackburn in so much as those players were more professional, put their head down and got on with it and were rewarded with a great run in the europa.

Having said that i agree with the highlighted bit. Allthough the players do have to have a look at themselves also.

In a nutshell, Hodgson will do well at a club who cant give him cash to buy players and a club who gives him a bit of time. He hasnt done anything at west brom for me that Roberto Di Matteo couldnt have done in time. Thats the life of managers these days. A merry go round and decisions being made by people who have no clue about football, they just happen to have made money in an unrelated field and think football is similar.

Its slightly ironic for me, i think both hodgson and benitez are better managers when they take over other peoples teams, when it comes to assembling their own teams i think both men have major flaws.

The Muppet

thebullkf wrote: »

would you like him to replace Fergie?

If he got the job I'd support him and give him time to sort out whatever problems there were. I could have adopted the approach that fergie was out of his depth in the english league when he took over at United, How much of a mistke would that have been?

I understand Hodgson had to go when he did , it's the reasoning behind that differs from some liverpool fans even though the players have agreed with my reasoning

stumpypeeps

The Muppet wrote: »

If he got the job I'd support him and give him time to sort out whatever problems there were. I could have adopted the approach that fergie was out of his depth in the english league when he took over at United, How much of a mistke would that have been?

I understand Hodgson had to go when he did , it's the reasoning behind that differs from some liverpool fans even though the players have agreed with my reasoning

"Three years of excuses and it's still crap. Ta ra Fergie." That was the general sentiment at United in 1989.

The Muppet

stumpypeeps wrote: »

"Three years of excuses and it's still crap. Ta ra Fergie." That was the general sentiment at United in 1989.

Your point is?

stumpypeeps

The Muppet wrote: »

Your point is?

Just adding a little context to the opinion you had offered. Well played if you genuinely held a belief that Ferguson should have remained. He was wholly unpopular with the majority of United fans.

It's funny how it's almost exclusively non-L'pool fans that are sticking up for Hodgson here ! Says it all really

Something I posted before about Hodgson...

There was a breakdown between Hodgson and the players and also between Hodgson and the fans.

• Hodgson had lost the fans.

• Lost the players in my opinion.

• Fans were staying away from anfield in protest, something unheard of.

• The team was playing shocking football. Tactics were a disgrace.

• He was playing players out of position. Meireles on the wing springs to mind, currently playing superb stuff for us.

• He had a pop at the fans

• He criticised a Liverpool player (Johnson) publicly.

• Describing wins over Bolton and nobody's in the Europa Cup as "famous victories"

• Not to mention 9 league defeats by January and 1 away win keeping the club in and around the relegation places.

• Failed to stick up for Torres when Fergie criticised him

There's more too.

If I was an opposition fan I'd have liked him to stay at Liverpool too tbh

K-9

rarnes1 wrote: »

It's funny how it's almost exclusively non-L'pool fans that are sticking up for Hodgson here ! Says it all really

Something I posted before about Hodgson...

There was a breakdown between Hodgson and the players and also between Hodgson and the fans.

• Hodgson had lost the fans.

• Lost the players in my opinion.

• Fans were staying away from anfield in protest, something unheard of.

• The team was playing shocking football. Tactics were a disgrace.

• He was playing players out of position. Meireles on the wing springs to mind, currently playing superb stuff for us.

• He had a pop at the fans

• He criticised a Liverpool player (Johnson) publicly.

• Describing wins over Bolton and nobody's in the Europa Cup as "famous victories"

• Not to mention 9 league defeats by January and 1 away win keeping the club in and around the relegation places.

• Failed to stick up for Torres when Fergie criticised him

There's more too.

If I was an opposition fan I'd have liked him to stay at Liverpool too tbh

He just can't hack it at big clubs, that seems harsh, he got a big club at the wrong time, maybe Blackburn too.

He did well at Switzerland, first WC, I remember watching them at that WC, bored me to death, he got the best out of a limited panel.

There's a recurrent theme coming up here.

Hail 2 Da Thief

The pressure of managing LFC overwhelmed Hodgson & he became a wreck of a man who made some truely bizzare statements to the media.
It was best for all parties that he left the club!

Leiva

Hail 2 Da Thief wrote: »

The pressure of managing LFC overwhelmed Hodgson & he became a wreck of a man who made some truely bizzare statements to the media.
It was best for all parties that he left the club!

/thread.

mike65

bamboozling wrote: »

I think its time a proper debate was had on the man.

Why is it that he failed so spectacularly at Liverpool yet was so successful at Fulham and is currently doing a tremendous job at West Brom and indeed has been successful at almost every other managerial position in his 30 year career?

People on this forum questioned the sacking of Di Matteo vehemently and wondered aloud the wisdom of brining in Hodgson. But before he was sacked Di Matteo had lost 13 out of his previous 17 games and West Brom seemed to be staring relegation in the face. Now they are 10th and will not get relegated.

Hodgson has done very well at West Brom, he's unbeaten in 7 and is playing entertaining football as in every game both teams have scored and scores like 3-3, 3-2 and 2-2 have been witnessed.

Is it that Liverpool was a blip on his record rather than a true reflection of the man's managerial capabilities?

Or has he, as some point out, merely found his level?

I just saw that WBA are 4 points above the relegation zone having been beaten at home by Wigan (Wigan!). 8 losses, 5 of them at home. Maybe even this isn't his level.

L'prof

mike65 wrote: »

I just saw that WBA are 4 points above the relegation zone having been beaten at home by Wigan (Wigan!). 8 losses, 5 of them at home. Maybe even this isn't his level.

They're also 4 points off 8th!

mike65

True but they are far from the apparently modest but smooth operation they seemed to be in the latter half of last season and they got beaten at home by Wigan!

Kiwi_knock

Hodgson has been unfortunate this year. Last season Odemwingie was there best player but as soon as he got a new contract at the start of this season he stopped putting in the effort both on and off the field.

I know WBA got booed off the pitch yesterday but I still do not think that Hodgson is in any danger of getting fire. WBA should have enough to stay up.

markesmith

Hodgson's doing a good job at WBA. They're the perrenial 'yo-yo' team, but I'd be surprised if they go down this year. And in Long and (when he tries) Odemwingie they've got a potent strike force. As with any team, he needs time to make his stamp.

I reckon Hodgson would be doing as well this season with Hodgson as they're doing with Dalglish. I mean, a laboured 1-0 win at home to QPR isn't anything to shout about, and 'Pool have had some poor results this season.

The first page if this thread harks back to the bad ol days of the SF

Actually reading throught the whole thread is kinda cringeworthy !

ricero

markesmith wrote: »

Hodgson's doing a good job at WBA. They're the perrenial 'yo-yo' team, but I'd be surprised if they go down this year. And in Long and (when he tries) Odemwingie they've got a potent strike force. As with any team, he needs time to make his stamp.

I reckon Hodgson would be doing as well this season with Hodgson as they're doing with Dalglish. I mean, a laboured 1-0 win at home to QPR isn't anything to shout about, and 'Pool have had some poor results this season.

yes hodgson needs hodgson ?????????????

it could of been 4 or 5 nil to the pool yesterday if it wasn't for their lack of poor finishing which has been their Achilles heel this season.
I think hodgson will keep west brom up but for the people that think he would of succeeded with Liverpool, a club he didn't understand and connect with is delusional.
if Liverpool would of had a prolific striker this season they would defiantly be top 3 at the moment and to be fair dalglish does have them playing nice football unlike hodgsons Liverpool style which was like watching paint dry.