He had more success with England than recent managers. I think he deserves consideration.

Did you hear his co-commentary on itv last night ?   That alone should be enough to rule him out  for consideration.

Back in 2004, I had an insider perspective for the selection process for an Olympic team event, and there was so much politics and other factors involved. The great players were selected obviously. After that, when you had many good but not great players competing for a limited number of slots, merit took a back seat. The coach was pressured by the national sports body to select certain players. Officially the coach had autonomy, but the pressure from the sports body was immense.

Some national sports bodies really do give the coach complete autonomy. It was that way under the previous regime at this sports body until new people came in.

I don't think for one second that Hodgson had, in practice, complete autonomy. Greg Dyke was previously a Manchester United board member. You don't think there was pressure to play Rooney and select Rashford out of the many players who would be equally qualified for that spot? You don't think there was pressure to play the new media darling Harry Kane? It's telling that Kane was the only player assigned to all official media sessions and photo shoots during the tournament. Not Rooney the captain nor Cahill the vice captain, but Kane.

Mind you, this can happen at the club level too.

interesting.  Thanks

Good grief, Arsene Wenger now being mentioned as possible England manager, that has to be a wind up surely ?

Some national sports bodies really do give the coach complete autonomy. It was that way under the previous regime at this sports body until new people came in.

I should have clarified that this isn't always a good approach either. Coaches can have conflicts of interest and be vindictive, unfair, biased, or outright stupid.

I'm not here to gloat in any way (Scotland didn't even qualify, ffs), just to share my observations.

 

I know that a number of people have compared this team to the Chelsea team of the 15-16 campaign, and I suppose there is a lot of truth in that; in so much as, a number of players under-performed.  However, I think taht the selection of players from the outset was shocking.  One recognized winger.  Wilshire being picked when he'd been out for ages.  Rooney being used in whatever role he was in (did someone say shoe-horned?), it was all a massive set up for failure.  And a lot of that has to ride on Roy's shoulders

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Roy have a history of picking players on merit?  It's as if he doesn't want to upset the fans of the "bigger teams" by leaving their players at home.  He certainly seems to have done that with Wiltshire, and Rooney, and constantly starting Kane...etc.

 

I also think that there was a level of arrogance among the English players.  It's to be expected considering how much media coverage they (and their "WAGS" get).  However, it is the same media that will tear them to shreds if they fail to live up to the hype (hen calling them over-paid nonces????).  Seriously, how many times are we going to hear about "the spirit of 66," when no team has even looked like sniffing that level of greatness in recent memory (maybe 86 and 90)?

 

Now the inevitable "senior players lost confidence in Roy" stories to come out.  It's as if the players are completely devoid of criticism.  It's why I am excited that someone like Conte is coming in to Chelsea... no excuses.

 

I think with the over inflated price of British born players, this is merely going to exacerbate the issue too.  They'll look at their price tag, and use it as a benchmark for other players too.  Seriously, Lallana could look at himself and think "I'm only a few Million cheaper than Eden Hazard...I must be great."  And that's not necessarily a dig at Adam, just an example of how ridiculous prices are....i suppose the ultimate would be Sterling!!!

Great post - than you.

interesting.  Thanks

It was. The "not picking on merit" thing being explained so clearly was very helpful.

He had more success with England than recent managers. I think he deserves consideration.

TWENTY YEARS AGO!

Ignoring his comments relating to his spiritual beliefs which in my opinion should be enough to keep him away from the England set up forever.

What's he done in the last decade to be considered relevant in football anymore?

Because he got us to a quarter final is that the basis for considering him?

Why not bring Sven or El Tel back? f**k it let's dig up Alf Ramsey, maybe he'll inspire the team.based on past glories?

 

 

I think with the over inflated price of British born players, this is merely going to exacerbate the issue too.  They'll look at their price tag, and use it as a benchmark for other players too.  Seriously, Lallana could look at himself and think "I'm only a few Million cheaper than Eden Hazard...I must be great."  And that's not necessarily a dig at Adam, just an example of how ridiculous prices are....i suppose the ultimate would be Sterling!!!

 

 

 

Yep. Indeed. Interesting.

 

But, it's not so simple like that, Mad_Mac.

It's not mathematics.

 

 

 

I would have had Scotland on the Euro.

 

Scotland has more football players then Iceland.

A country that likes to think of itself as football royalty has won only six knockout matches in tournaments since 1966. The last occasion was 10 years ago against Ecuador.

Before that it was Denmark in 2002, Spain (via penalties) in 96, Belgium and Cameroon in 1990 and Paraguay in 1986.

And 1990, not well-deserved, Zola.

 

 

We still have a Platt trauma.

And 1990, not well-deserved, Zola.

 

 

We still have a Platt trauma.

 

What a finish though and what a great delivery by Gazza!!

A country that likes to think of itself as football royalty has won only six knockout matches in tournaments since 1966. The last occasion was 10 years ago against Ecuador.

Before that it was Denmark in 2002, Spain (via penalties) in 96, Belgium and Cameroon in 1990 and Paraguay in 1986.

 

Don't get sucked into that stat, it sounds way worse than it really is.

 

 

World cup knockout games for England since 66.

70 - Only one KO game for England in the QF, which we drew with Germany and lost after extra time.

74 - Two group stages, the only knockout game was the final (and third place play off)

78 - DNQ

82 - Again Two group stages, this time only 3 knockout games, two semi's and the final.

86 - Rd 16 England beat Paraguay 3-0, QF lost to the hand of God.

90 - Rd 16 England beat Belguim 1-0, then drew to Cameroon in QF and won after ET, semi final drew with Germany lost on pens.

94 - DNQ

98 - Rd 16 England drew with Argentina, lost on pens.

02 - Rd 16 England 3 Denmark 0, QF lost to Brazil 2-1

06 - Rd 16 England beat Ecuador 1-0, QF drew with Portugal lost on pens.

10 - RD 16 England lost to Germany 4-0

14 - No knockout games for England

Total

Played 12 games

Won 5

Lost 7

 

 

 

England have had more success in the WC than all the other home nations and Ireland put together.

That's true, Nibs.

 

 

 

But still, not deserved. 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't get sucked into that stat, it sounds way worse than it really is.

 

 

World cup knockout games for England since 66.

70 - Only one KO game for England in the QF, which we drew with Germany and lost after extra time.

74 - Two group stages, the only knockout game was the final (and third place play off)

78 - DNQ

82 - Again Two group stages, this time only 3 knockout games, two semi's and the final.

86 - Rd 16 England beat Paraguay 3-0, QF lost to the hand of God.

90 - Rd 16 England beat Belguim 1-0, then drew to Cameroon in QF and won after ET, semi final drew with Germany lost on pens.

94 - DNQ

98 - Rd 16 England drew with Argentina, lost on pens.

02 - Rd 16 England 3 Denmark 0, QF lost to Brazil 2-1

06 - Rd 16 England beat Ecuador 1-0, QF drew with Portugal lost on pens.

10 - RD 16 England lost to Germany 4-0

14 - No knockout games for England

Total

Played 12 games

Won 5

Lost 7

 

 

 

England have had more success in the WC than all the other home nations and Ireland put together.

I don't think anybody is using the other home nations as a yard stick, or at least they shouldn't be. Just look at the domestic leagues of those countries for a start.

And it is a bad stat. The fact it almost equates to nearly 50% win rate doesn't take into account the times we haven't got that far - we failed to qualify in 74, 78 and 94. Hardly the record a country that is always talked up as challengers should have.

Our record is the Euros is even worse.

In other news, Darijo Srna has called time on his international career. One of the absolute legends of the game in my opinion, and one of my favourite players. I just loved that he's an school footballer who always played with passion for his team, players like him seem to be getting fewer and fewer. Always thought he could have played for any top team in europe, but you have to respect his loyalty to Shakhtar. 

World cup knockout games for Spain since 66.

 

70 - DNQ
74 - DNQ
78 - Knocked out in group stage.
82 - Knocked out in group stage.
86 - Rd 16 Spain beat Denmark 5-1, QF lost to Belgium on pens.
90 - Rd 16 Spain lost to Yugoslavia 2-1
94 - Rd 16 Spain beat Swizz 3-0, QF lost to Italy 2-1.
98 - Knocked out in group stage.
02 - Rd 16 Spain beat Ireland on pens, QF lost to South Korrea on pens.
06 - Rd 16 Spain lost to France 3-1
10 - Spain won FOUR knockout games and won the WC.
14 - Knocked out in group stage.

Total

Played 12 games
Won 7
Lost 5

Spain have only won 7 knockout games in the World cup in 50 years.

 

Shocking.

If I had time I would pull up Hollands WC record as well.

 

Spain, Engalnd and Holland are usually considered amongst some of the favourites if they are in any tournaments.

Yep. Spain were perennial chokers and the Dutch still are.

Doesnt change the fact that England are colossal under achievers in tournament football.

And France have been, even Argentina.

 

In fact apart from Germany, Italy, Brazil, you would find it hard to find any other country that has not choked on more than a few occasions in WC's, apart from those countries that are never there of course.

 

Yes England are one of those many.

My original point was that it's not just England who are 'talked up' or labelled amongst the favourites, only to disappoint on a regular basis.

Wrong thread!

Edited June 29, 201610 yr by Blue Exile

I think England are one of the worst for it though (Probably on par with the Netherlands) considering they haven't done anything since 66.

Spain and Germany went through a dry patch but have came back and dominated once again...England have never looked like doing anything like that. France have failed to reach the levels of 98 and 2000 but you would imagine they have a chance of winning this one given the draws.

I think Englands big chance has came and gone. A team littered with world class players such as Lampard, Scholes, Terry, Beckham, Rooney, Gerrard should have won something IMO.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36655802

my last post about England in Euro 2016. The real reason why England is out is because of the gaffer. IMHO he didn't have total control of the side. Example, Kane is one of the tallest assets for England, but somehow this guy was taking Free Kicks. Why? Why wasn't England's height used as an advantage on set pieces? Point #2, It seemed that he put players not into situations where they could succeed. Again, I can't understand why Sterling was played on the left flank & Sturridge on the right. Especially knowing that Sturridge is left footed. Another thing, why was Rooney playing a holding role? Would he achieve more as a CAM or a CF? and the guy's belief system is not in touch with the game. This is what The Great Woy had to say about Roberto Carlos:

 

"He told me I would never succeed as LB. I told him he doesn't understand football." - R. Carlos on Roy Hodgson.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but when I saw Roberto Carlos played he was considered to be one of the greatest LB in the game. So how in de phuck this guy gets the job as gaffer for England? This is the question everyone that supports the 3 Lions should be asking. Here in the States, people were pondering if losing to Argentina 4-0 was shameful in the Copa America Centenario. Thanks England, you showed me what is really worse. Thanks for the Laughs.