Roy Hodgson Has Resigned - Next England Manager Thread

Big Sam did say he'd be suited to Inter or Real Madrid so confidence definitely not an issue.

Hopefully he gets the nod

Beefy78

SantryRed wrote: »

West Ham were in danger of becoming a yo yo club with the Championship and then he came in, got them up, and made them a comfortable mid table side. I fail to see any abject failure there. Bilic came in and moved them to the next level in one season, no guarantee they'll continue as high as they did if the quality of the usual top 4/5 begins to increase again.

No they weren't. West Ham are a huge club who self-destruct every six or seven years. They should never have even got relegated with the squad they had and any manager worth anything should have got them promoted the following season, and most more convincingly than the 'skin of their teeth' Play-Off Final win that Allardyce managed. The bulk of their fan base never liked him because of the football that he plays.

He achieved the absolute minimum he was expected to at West Ham. He failed at Newcastle. He did a great job at Bolton and obviously did very well to turn Sunderland around last year when they looked dead and buried.

A_Sober_Paddy

Beefy78 wrote: »

No they weren't. West Ham are a huge club who self-destruct every six or seven years. They should never have even got relegated with the squad they had and any manager worth anything should have got them promoted the following season, and most more convincingly than the 'skin of their teeth' Play-Off Final win that Allardyce managed. The bulk of their fan base never liked him because of the football that he plays.

He achieved the absolute minimum he was expected to at West Ham. He failed at Newcastle. He did a great job at Bolton and obviously did very well to turn Sunderland around last year when they looked dead and buried.

Huge club, really? Huge?

Cortina_MK_IV

I'd snigger at calling West Ham big club, let alone huge.

A_Sober_Paddy

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

I'd snigger at calling West Ham big club, let alone huge.

I nearly choked on my curry reading it

Beefy78

West Ham are a huge club. I grew up 40 miles from Upton Park and they were still by far the biggest club in the area, dominating the footprint of the local club and dwarfing the support of the clubs that dominate this side of the Irish Sea.

Regardless, the idea that they were saved from obscurity by Big Sam Allardyce doesn't hold much water. Not winning the Championship that season was a major underachievement.

Nesta99

If i'm bored some day i'll put together an algorithm to some way define a clubs status as a 'big club' or whatever to help sort such debate out. Say on a graded scale of 1-10 points in categories such as Roll of Honour, Average Attendances, How recently roll of honour was added to, Infrastructure, Budget, or net transfer spend, International players in the squads, Youth Development, Worldwide market appeal, Average league placings, Catchment area and % ratio to attendance, European Co-Efficient. Anything else do people think could be included?

So Manchester United as an example (marked in terms of domestic rather than international comparison):

RoH : 10
Average attendance 10
Recent success 7 (have to think about weighting of competitions eg League v Cup v CL etc)
Infrastructure 10
Budget 8 or 9
Transfer spend 10 (could think of relative success of players purchased maybe).
International prestige or market 10
Youth Development 7 (youth promoted to senior team over 10 years?).
Average league finishes 6 or 7 (Over 10 or 20 years?)

Total 79.

If somone would do the same for just the above example for Liverpool, West Ham, Arsenal, to Bournemouth or Watford for contrast just to see if a system like this works and seems to fit ok? Maybe its been done somewhere. But i'm a bit sick of the 'big club' debate especially between Man Utd and Liverpool fans who rabbit on about 27 years since last title but more EC/CL wins. Any takers? Maybe end up in a specific thread with a bit of debate on how the ratings should be.

Not having a go Beefy or anything, I lived in Essex and know what you mean with West Ham being well followed. We might save a few lives by preventing anyone choking while reading a boards footy post! :P

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Nesta99 wrote: »

If i'm bored some day i'll put together an algorithm to some way define a clubs status as a 'big club' or whatever to help sort such debate out. Say on a graded scale of 1-10 points in categories such as Roll of Honour, Average Attendances, How recently roll of honour was added to, Infrastructure, Budget, or net transfer spend, International players in the squads, Youth Development, Worldwide market appeal, Average league placings, Catchment area and % ratio to attendance, European Co-Efficient. Anything else do people think could be included?

So Manchester United as an example (marked in terms of domestic rather than international comparison):

RoH : 10
Average attendance 10
Recent success 7 (have to think about weighting of competitions eg League v Cup v CL etc)
Infrastructure 10
Budget 8 or 9
Transfer spend 10 (could think of relative success of players purchased maybe).
International prestige or market 10
Youth Development 7 (youth promoted to senior team over 10 years?).
Average league finishes 6 or 7 (Over 10 or 20 years?)

Total 79.

If somone would do the same for just the above example for Liverpool, West Ham, Arsenal, to Bournemouth or Watford for contrast just to see if a system like this works and seems to fit ok? Maybe its been done somewhere. But i'm a bit sick of the 'big club' debate especially between Man Utd and Liverpool fans who rabbit on about 27 years since last title but more EC/CL wins. Any takers? Maybe end up in a specific thread with a bit of debate on how the ratings should be.

Not having a go Beefy or anything, I lived in Essex and know what you mean with West Ham being well followed. We might save a few lives by preventing anyone choking while reading a boards footy post! :P

I don't think anyone's THAT bored!

bucketybuck

Nesta99 wrote: »

If i'm bored some day i'll put together an algorithm to some way define a clubs status as a 'big club' or whatever to help sort such debate out. Say on a graded scale of 1-10 points in categories such as Roll of Honour, Average Attendances, How recently roll of honour was added to, Infrastructure, Budget, or net transfer spend, International players in the squads, Youth Development, Worldwide market appeal, Average league placings, Catchment area and % ratio to attendance, European Co-Efficient. Anything else do people think could be included?

So Manchester United as an example (marked in terms of domestic rather than international comparison):

RoH : 10
Average attendance 10
Recent success 7 (have to think about weighting of competitions eg League v Cup v CL etc)
Infrastructure 10
Budget 8 or 9
Transfer spend 10 (could think of relative success of players purchased maybe).
International prestige or market 10
Youth Development 7 (youth promoted to senior team over 10 years?).
Average league finishes 6 or 7 (Over 10 or 20 years?)

Total 79.

Your ratings just show how pointless an exercise this would be. A 7 for recent success despite winning the last trophy that was available and more in the last few years than 99% of clubs? 7 for league finishes despite winning the league constantly? 7 for youth development when the leagues are absolutely flooded with ex-United youth players?

Nesta99

bucketybuck wrote: »

Your ratings just show how pointless an exercise this would be. A 7 for recent success despite winning the last trophy that was available and more in the last few years than 99% of clubs? 7 for league finishes despite winning the league constantly? 7 for youth development when the leagues are absolutely flooded with ex-United youth players?

I knew if I picked Manchester United someone would spit the dummy if 12 out of 10 wasnt given for everything. Or Liverpool fans because because there weren't minus scores. I should have known better!!!:rolleyes:

If you you handn't been so blinded by Red Rage I have considered your eh concerns. Initially by asking people general opinion, Then with trophies I said that each could be weighted eg League being more important than cup. Youth players ok fair observation and that's the sort of input I asked for but minus the stamping feet and going purple in the face. I anticipated some subjective opinions. Apologies I didnt intend to pull things off topic too much or cause the Old Trafford cavalry to come charging in.

On night shift yes it can be that boring. Ilike stats and stuff anyway

bucketybuck

Nesta99 wrote: »

I knew if I picked Manchester United someone would spit the dummy if 12 out of 10 wasnt given for everything. Or Liverpool fans because because there weren't minus scores. I should have known better!!!:rolleyes:

If you you handn't been so blinded by Red Rage I have considered your eh concerns. Initially by asking people general opinion, Then with trophies I said that each could be weighted eg League being more important than cup. Youth players ok fair observation and that's the sort of input I asked for but stamping feet and going purple in the face. I anticipated some subjective opinions. Apologies I didnt intend to pull things off topic too much or cause the Old Trafford cavalry to come charging in.

On night shift yes it can be that boring. Ilike stats and stuff anyway

How precious. Stamping feet? Red rage?

The point of noting how inaccurate your ratings were was to emphasise how pointless such a ratings system would be in the first place. You trying to pass it off as coming from some disaffected United fan doesn't change that in the slightest, and frankly just makes you look a little silly.

Nesta99

If you say so! You never look at the ratings that players get in match report, or movie ratings? Of course it can be a bit arbitrary. I believe FIFA rankings do not always accurately reflect the true ability of a country and its is an objective results based system. Grey areas around people opinion, enough of a sample of peoples opinion and patterns emerge. I dont mind looking silly at all this wouldnt be the first time and wont be the last. It is my experience that Manchester United and Liverpool fans are the most obstreperous around in general. Very 'precious' indeed. I'm being as accurate as your "(winning) more (trophies in the last few years than 99% of clubs?" contention!

Cortina_MK_IV

EDDIE HOWE is set to be interviewed by the FA for the England manager’s job.

The Bournemouth boss is on the FA’s shortlist of candidates to replace Roy Hodgson - along with Sam Allardyce and Jurgen Klinsmann.

Allardyce held provisional talks with the FA’s Dan Ashworth and David Gill at the latter’s home last week and remains the favourite to take over while Klinsmann has also held discussions.

But Howe is also regarded as a strong candidate and will meet with technical director Ashworth next week when he returns from Bournemouth’s pre-season tour of the US.

Howe, 38, would become the youngest Three Lions boss in history if he went on to land the job ahead of Allardyce.

But his appointment would represent a huge gamble by the FA, who are looking to land someone capable of winning the World Cup within the next six years.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/530398/Eddie-Howe-interviewed-England-job

Bateman

Not sure if he's already been mentioned on this thread, but I think they could do a lot worse than having a look at Roberto Mancini...

smileyj1987

Bateman wrote: »

Not sure if he's already been mentioned on this thread, but I think they could do a lot worse than having a look at Roberto Mancini...

I think you need a disciplinarian to take over the job and well I don't think Mancini has that in him.
I mean look at ballotelli and city he seemed to get up to all sorts of mischief and Mancini seemed to defend him a lot ! Where as most managers got shot of him , other then that I would say Mancini is worth a shot because he knows English football because of his time at Manchester City.

Dirty Dingus McGee

smileyj1987 wrote: »

I think you need a disciplinarian to take over the job and well I don't think Mancini has that in him.
I mean look at ballotelli and city he seemed to get up to all sorts of mischief and Mancini seemed to defend him a lot ! Where as most managers got shot of him , other then that I would say Mancini is worth a shot because he knows English football because of his time at Manchester City.

I always thought Mancini was renowned for being a bit of a disciplinarian.

Paully D

Talk on the Sunderland forum from a couple of reliable posters that Allardyce has been offered and accepted the England job. They say it'll be confirmed early this coming week.

JoeA3

Steve Bruce is "in talks" now, WTF.:pac:

JoeA3

JoeA3 wrote: »

Steve Bruce is "in talks" now, WTF.:pac:

:D

The master tacticians of world football will quake.

kfallon

Alex Bruce will be trying to change his passport.....

Johner

Steve Bruce or Sam Allardyce for the job?

Christ.

HalloweenJack

The FA really haven't a clue.

First off, by going for an English manager, they are immediately limiting the pool of possible managers just for a bit of jingoism. Then they are pushing for two particular candidates, one who would be way more suitable than the other, and yet aren't going all out to get the better one.

Bruce hasn't even assembled a squad for the season at Hull. I read a piece today that they have fourteen outfield players currently available.

LiamoSail

HalloweenJack wrote: »

The FA really haven't a clue.

First off, by going for an English manager, they are immediately limiting the pool of possible managers just for a bit of jingoism. Then they are pushing for two particular candidates, one who would be way more suitable than the other, and yet aren't going all out to get the better one.
.

You can't really criticise the FA for looking for an English manager when something like 60% of the population want rid of foreigners. Finger on the pulse I'd say

kfallon

LiamoSail wrote: »

You can't really criticise the FA for looking for an English manager when something like 60% of the population want rid of foreigners. Finger on the pulse I'd say

I think they missed a trick with Klinsmann tho, he was very well received in England during his 2 spells at Spurs. Now I know the thought of a German managing England would usually be too much for the knuckle draggers over there but I think this might have been an exception especially with the older generation of fans who remembered Jurgen's time in the Premier League.

Also did very good jobs on the International stage with Germany & USA. Seems very media friendly too and I couldn't see him causing any of the scandal that the likes of Sven or Hoddle (even Venables to a degree) brought to the job.

But, alas, the English are stuck in their ways!

Beefy78

Maybe wait for the appointment before criticising too much, eh?

And the Brexit/racist insults are way OTT by the way, cheers.

LiamoSail

LiamoSail wrote: »

You can't really criticise the FA for looking for an English manager when something like 60% of the population want rid of foreigners. Finger on the pulse I'd say

Ach, I'm not sure I'd read some agenda on the part of the FA to sacrifice the possibility of success on the basis that they want to appeal to some section of the population. I'm sure most British football fans would gladly see the likes of Aguero, Kante and Payet at their club, managed by Mourinho or Wenger etc.

Dirty Dingus McGee

If Bruce gets it then they've really lost their minds.

If he wasn't part of the old boys club in the game in England and a former Man Utd captain he'd be viewed as being a completely bog standard manager (which he is) and nowhere near good enough to be even considered for the England job.

pavb2

Looks like It will be Allardyce, bad news for Sunderland I feel especially so close to the start of the season.

Cortina_MK_IV

ITV and BBC calling it as Sam.

Sam Allardyce: Sunderland boss will be named as new England manager.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/36850753

theteal

According to BBC, Allardyce to be appointed in the next 24 hours. The lads in the office here are astonished. . .





I think it's great craic

mansize

Brexit means Brexit then!

Harry Palmr

Sam Allardyce will take no **** from the players and install some tactical discipline as well.

Beefy78

I'm going to need a safe space for a while lads

Agent Coulson

All joking a side I think he will do a very good job as England manager.

Corholio

Who really knows how he will do as manager to be honest. All this stuff that he won't take any crap and will instill some tactics in the team were the same things that were said about Hodgson. He'll get plenty of breathing space for quite a while anyway because they will coast through the qualifiers like they always do.

sword1

Agent Coulson wrote: »

All joking a side I think he will do a very good job as England manager.

He will keep em up if they are in a relegation battle ,as for winning trophies, doubt it

thebaz

given that England have some young good ball players coming through , last thing they need is a hoofball manager , that will probably steamroll ther way to WC 2018 , before another calamitous collapse when the long ball to Carroll is outed by better and more subtle team .

PS and I like Big Sam , done a great job at Sunderland , but has limitations at the very top.

NukaCola

Not sure how Sam Allardyce has gotten the England job. Bang average. However now that he has got it, it may well suit him.......I doubt it though, he'll be scapegoated hard and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't last longer than the WC.

IvySlayer

Allardyce has a lower win rate (34%) in the PL than Hodgson (35%)

JPA

Oh my. They think this is the answer to Hodgson? He's an average manager with an average career taking over a team with expectations he's never experienced. He's not a bad manager but he's not going to achieve much more than what went before.

Paully D

I'm devastated.

Allardyce is a manager I had always wanted at Sunderland and I really thought we had finally cracked it with him at the helm. 1 defeat in 12 games to end the season (which was against the champions), players such as Kone, Kirchhoff and Khazri brought in for a combined total of £15m quid, all who had a huge impact in keeping us up. I had such high hopes going into this season, well, that we might be able to avoid a relegation battle for once but it's all relative. There was such a buzz around the place.

In a way it's hard to begrudge him getting to achieve his dream, but on the other hand I don't really give a **** about it when it has such a negative effect on my club.

Thanks for a job well done last season and good luck. That night against Everton was special. In a way though, I hope he looks back in the future and regrets it. I am a bitter man. :pac:

eagle eye

IvySlayer wrote: »

Allardyce has a lower win rate (34%) in the PL than Hodgson (35%)

Where are those stats from?

eagle eye

JPA wrote: »

Oh my. They think this is the answer to Hodgson? He's an average manager with an average career taking over a team with expectations he's never experienced. He's not a bad manager but he's not going to achieve much more than what went before.

I think you are wrong. He has overachieved at almost every club he has been at. He never got the chance at a bigger club and I believe he would have done quite well.

He has always embraced the scientific side of football and has used it very well.

He took a Bolton side to the Premier league and got them finished well inside the top half for a couple of seasons. He took a Blackburn side that looked certain for relegation when he took over to a top ten finish in two seasons. He took West Ham from the Championship back to the Premier league and left them in very good shape when he departed. He saved Sunderland last season.

Newcastle weren't willing to give him the time he needed to get things right. They were doing alright under him but playing a really defensive game because that it what he does when he arrives at a club first. Newcastle got rid of him, they were 11th at the time, finished 12th that season and were relegated that season.

I don't see failure anywhere he went.

Skylinehead

eagle eye wrote: »

Where are those stats from?

http://www.transfermarkt.com/sam-allardyce/leistungsdatenLigenNational/trainer/445

http://www.transfermarkt.ie/roy-hodgson/leistungsdatenLigenNational/trainer/1775

Works out as his figures say, so I guess that.

BoJack Horseman

eagle eye wrote: »

He has always embraced the scientific side of football and has used it very well.

I can't help but think Sam is an upgrade in this respect over Roy...

As Daniel Agger said in an interview in the Guardian wrt Roy's methods:

“I completely lost my desire to come to work because his training sessions were really hard to get through. Not physically but mentally. It was the same and the same and the same. Day in and day out.

JPA

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't see failure anywhere he went.

I never said he was a failure or even a bad manager. But you've just listed some average results at the clubs he managed. Very good for the size of the teams and exceeding expectations but similar to Hodgson before him.
Hodgson ultimately failed when he was put at a higher level than he deserved, Liverpool and England, and I can see the same for Sam.
I'm open to being surprised.

Wow, this is actually happening!

Brilliant stuff

mansize

Mediocre manager for a mediocre team

Hammer Archer

Really hope he does well. At the very least the likes of Noble and Cresswell, who were criminally overlooked under Hodgson, will get the chance they deserve.

Skylinehead

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Really hope he does well. At the very least the likes of Noble and Cresswell, who were criminally overlooked under Hodgson, will get the chance they deserve.

How was Cresswell "criminally overlooked"? Don't get me wrong, good player, but they have him, Shaw, Baines, Bertrand and Rose. All very good left-backs, someone has to give way.