Roy Hodgson

[Buzzo]

I think the poor Afghan people have already been through enough.

[anfieldanfield]

**** it. Every time I read one of his **** quotes I feel an almost uncontrollable rage. I want him to suffer.

****ing hell !

[Craig_H]

I think the poor Afghan people have already been through enough.

[Leyton388]

Someone should tell the **** that the Afgan national team are looking for a new manager!

[Shaggy]

He's a **** Shaggy. You need to move on mate.

**** it. Every time I read one of his **** quotes I feel an almost uncontrollable rage. I want him to suffer, either by virtue of being relegated or getting the England job.

[dom9]

I can't believe I missed those. Maybe it's because I usually avoid the Hodge threads.

[dom9]

He's a **** Shaggy. You need to move on mate.

[Shaggy]

Well the content in the clips was current at the time...think one was after he was appointed and the second after their poxy late draw with Stoke, his 2nd game.

Just read this quote again. It's pitiful, laughable and so Hodgson.

"I've yet to win a Carlsberg Cup tie, or whatever you call it," said Hodgson, who spent most of his managerial career on the Continent, yesterday. "I don't even know what it's called and I've yet to win one. So I've got a 100 per cent record since coming back to England. I've played four, lost four, I think."

[dom9]

Okay here they all are, in order:

Roy Hodgson is summoned to the boardroom - YouTube


Roy Hodgson meets John W Henry - YouTube


Roy Hodgson flies to the US to meet Tom Werner - YouTube


Roy Hodgson meets John W Henry Part 2 - YouTube


Sacked Roy Hodgson appears on Monday Night Football - YouTube



Richard Keys and Roy Hodgson discuss recent events - YouTube


New WBA boss Roy Hodgson chats to chairman Jeremy Peace - YouTube


Roy Hodgson meets WBA chairman Jeremy Peace - part two - YouTube



Roy Hodgson is interviewed for the England job - YouTube

Huh?

I've not seen the West Brom ones. When did yo do those?

[Shaggy]

It's ****ing Sunday League stuff. I've played for managers (well, one ) with more forward-thinking nous than that. It's what we were nearly always told at that level - keep your shape, frontmen work the channels, gamble on flick-ons ("GAMBLE!" ) defenders/midfielders hit the frontmen early, full backs don't cross the halfway line etc. It's unbelievable.

[JohnDoe]

It's amazing really, Hodgson knows only one way to play. Play two strikers, launch it long and deep to make them run the channels. When not in possession, stand off and get back in position, don't press, don't use overlapping full backs... It's archaic.

[doogle]

This is from a West Brom forum after their defeat to Stoke

So familiar


Quote:
What will get us relegated is if we keep playing the style of football we did today, just no adventurism or creativity that we're used to seeing. Playing hoofball just won't work for us. We aren't a hoofball team, we aren't a hoofball club and the players aren't suited to playing hoofball. Hodgson needs to remember that playing football being daring and adventurous was what won us our success last season. If he wants to try and turn us into a Stoke tribute act then he might as well quit now because no good will come of it.

__________________

Another post on a WBA forum
I've tried to steer away from here tonight, partly to avoid the inevitable wrist-slashing, partly so I could have a clear look at the goal before commenting on it, and partly because Stoke make you lose your appetite for the game, whether it be thinking about it or debating it.

So, having had a few hours to calm down and have a few glasses of wine, hopefully these are considered views and not knee-jerk reactions. Some of these may have already been debated on here already tonight, apologies if so.

First off, Stoke. They are without doubt the most anti-football side I have ever seen. It's not that they are simply long-ball; they aren't really. What they are, is a niggly, attritional, desperately negative side, whose sole intention it seems, is to disrupt the play of the opposition. Watching them once a season is quite enough for me, but each to their own, I guess, and Potteries-folk are as strange as they come in any case.

My fear when Hodgson came in, was that we'd become too predictable as an attacking force, and lose fluidity and pace in our play - which was our strength under Di Matteo. His strong adherence to 4-4-2, could become a major problem for us. What's galling, is that we played 4-2-3-1 (or 4-4-1-1), very well under Hodgson at the end of last season, yet despite this strong evidence, he has appeared stubbornly resolved to implement 4-4-2 since the start of pre-season. As I've said before, it's a formation which is rarely used these days due to the fact it's very easy to defend against, unless your side possesses players with outstanding ability and movement.

Today, we actually played well for the opening 15/20 minutes, with a couple of excellent runs and crosses by Tchoyi, down either flank. During this period, we did pass the ball well, and the movement of Brunt and Morrison (regularly switching positions) and the strikers was very good. We couldn't keep this up though, and as the game went on, we became increasingly direct, reliant on hitting the balls into the channels for the strikers to chase, rather than concentrating on keeping the ball and moving it around Stoke's pack of centre-halves (the 6ft 4in Huth at right-back). So why did we end up playing to their strengths? Manager's orders or players falling into the trap?

Another worrying aspect of our play, is that against the modern tradition (well, bar Stoke), our full-backs hardly ventured into the Stoke half at all. I understand the benefits of retaining a solid shape when we don't have the ball, but should this totally preclude any overlapping from the full-backs at all? Or is it down to the personnel we're using?

As for the goal, it seems to me that while Foster had his hands on the ball, he didn't have the ball in his hands. The foot was high however, and a free-kick should have been given. The Asst ref had the clearer view of course, and the fault lies with him. It was the type of incident we see several times in each game, with a defender attempting to shepherd the ball back to the keeper (or out of play). Foster clearly came out to claim the ball, so Tamas was correct to do this, but he failed to properly block the run of the attacker in doing so. For his part, Foster should have been braver and more decisive.

ffs They need to give him more time

[Shaggy]

Another post on a WBA forum

I've tried to steer away from here tonight, partly to avoid the inevitable wrist-slashing, partly so I could have a clear look at the goal before commenting on it, and partly because Stoke make you lose your appetite for the game, whether it be thinking about it or debating it.

So, having had a few hours to calm down and have a few glasses of wine, hopefully these are considered views and not knee-jerk reactions. Some of these may have already been debated on here already tonight, apologies if so.

First off, Stoke. They are without doubt the most anti-football side I have ever seen. It's not that they are simply long-ball; they aren't really. What they are, is a niggly, attritional, desperately negative side, whose sole intention it seems, is to disrupt the play of the opposition. Watching them once a season is quite enough for me, but each to their own, I guess, and Potteries-folk are as strange as they come in any case.

My fear when Hodgson came in, was that we'd become too predictable as an attacking force, and lose fluidity and pace in our play - which was our strength under Di Matteo. His strong adherence to 4-4-2, could become a major problem for us. What's galling, is that we played 4-2-3-1 (or 4-4-1-1), very well under Hodgson at the end of last season, yet despite this strong evidence, he has appeared stubbornly resolved to implement 4-4-2 since the start of pre-season. As I've said before, it's a formation which is rarely used these days due to the fact it's very easy to defend against, unless your side possesses players with outstanding ability and movement.

Today, we actually played well for the opening 15/20 minutes, with a couple of excellent runs and crosses by Tchoyi, down either flank. During this period, we did pass the ball well, and the movement of Brunt and Morrison (regularly switching positions) and the strikers was very good. We couldn't keep this up though, and as the game went on, we became increasingly direct, reliant on hitting the balls into the channels for the strikers to chase, rather than concentrating on keeping the ball and moving it around Stoke's pack of centre-halves (the 6ft 4in Huth at right-back). So why did we end up playing to their strengths? Manager's orders or players falling into the trap?

Another worrying aspect of our play, is that against the modern tradition (well, bar Stoke), our full-backs hardly ventured into the Stoke half at all. I understand the benefits of retaining a solid shape when we don't have the ball, but should this totally preclude any overlapping from the full-backs at all? Or is it down to the personnel we're using?

As for the goal, it seems to me that while Foster had his hands on the ball, he didn't have the ball in his hands. The foot was high however, and a free-kick should have been given. The Asst ref had the clearer view of course, and the fault lies with him. It was the type of incident we see several times in each game, with a defender attempting to shepherd the ball back to the keeper (or out of play). Foster clearly came out to claim the ball, so Tamas was correct to do this, but he failed to properly block the run of the attacker in doing so. For his part, Foster should have been braver and more decisive.

[Shaggy]

This is from a West Brom forum after their defeat to Stoke

So familiar

What will get us relegated is if we keep playing the style of football we did today, just no adventurism or creativity that we're used to seeing. Playing hoofball just won't work for us. We aren't a hoofball team, we aren't a hoofball club and the players aren't suited to playing hoofball. Hodgson needs to remember that playing football being daring and adventurous was what won us our success last season. If he wants to try and turn us into a Stoke tribute act then he might as well quit now because no good will come of it.

[Shaggy]

Total cunt.



I hate him.

"I've yet to win a Carlsberg Cup tie, or whatever you call it," said Hodgson, who spent most of his managerial career on the Continent, yesterday. "I don't even know what it's called and I've yet to win one. So I've got a 100 per cent record since coming back to England. I've played four, lost four, I think."