-
Roy Hodgson is like the embarrassing uncle who will not stop making daft remarks at family gatherings
England coach's comments regarding Raheem Sterling’s ‘tiredness’ and Brendan Rodgers’ training methods feel rather too much like a trip down memory lane, writes Chris Bascombe
It was Roy Hodgson’s introductory press conference as Liverpool manager.
He sat in the Anfield trophy room, flanked by the European Cups and memorabilia of the club’s greatest achievements, utterly convinced of his right to be there but well aware his immediate challenge was to reassure a sceptical fanbase.
Many did not want his predecessor, Rafa Benitez, to leave. Others thought his eventual successor, Kenny Dalglish, should have been sitting in his seat.
Hodgson had to get to work, to ensure he said the right things as much as did them, and this was a chance to make a positive first impression.
He must have gazed around the room that day and felt that weight of history. The reminders were everywhere, not least a montage of the club’s iconic managers staring statesmanlike at the spoils of victory.
A question was put to Hodgson, the equivalent to teeing up an easy volley into the top corner.
“Who would you say are your greatest influences as a coach, Roy?”
A matter of inches away was a portrait of Bill Shankly, alongside another of Bob Paisley and Joe Fagan. The ears of those Liverpool Gods must have been pricked as they awaited the response.
Hodgson paused.
“Don Howe,” he said.
Taking up the brace position is not customary during an interview, but never has so much resistance been required to do so.
This is the Hodgson many remember on Merseyside - a manager whose foot needed a restraining order from his mouth. Hodgson’s comments regarding Raheem Sterling’s ‘tiredness’ and Brendan Rodgers’ training methods feel rather too much like a trip down memory lane.
The defence then, as it is with his comments regarding Sterling’s ‘tiredness’ this week, is he is honest.
That’s true enough. Go back to that day in July, 2010. Evidently Liverpool’s legends had no impact on Hodgson’s footballing philosophy – or certainly were not foremost in his thoughts - so there was no reason to say they were. Equally, he may not have been aware that coaches such as Howe were perceived as the antithesis of the continental style pass and move game that enabled Paisley to win three European Cups.
Missing from Hodgson’s answer was not dishonesty, but tact, foresight, diplomacy and a huge dose of common sense. What might have prompted a chuckle if he’d proved a good Liverpool manager became more serious for him because this trend for misjudging his audience would pollute his brief reign at Anfield. The list of inappropriate, alienating remarks can be easily traced with the use of a well-known search engine.
Some would demonise Hodgson for this, but he seemed more like the embarrassing uncle who could not stop making daft remarks at family gatherings.
For such an experienced manager, there seemed to be a bumbling, naïve innocence to Hodgson as he rambled on for five more minutes than required and turned what would have been a reasonable answer into an incendiary one. It became tempting to turn up to his weekly briefings with a spade rather than a dictaphone. His answers were so accident-prone you needed the St John’s Ambulance crew on standby. Some wanted to rip his heart out every time he spoke and others thought it was nothing the removal of his vocal chords could not solve.
Given the circumstances in which he took the job, no Liverpool manager has required more PR advice, and yet he seemed totally incapable of absorbing it. Many in football may actually like this about Hodgson – he’s strikes you as far more old school than his namedropping of obscure philosophers and their nobel prize winning books would have you believe.
The flip side of this was the perception of a bloke whose response upon seeing an inferno raging all around him was to order a few more gallons of petrol.
“A genuinely nice bloke completely out of his depth,” was how one senior Anfield man put it on the day Hodgson left.
When Gerard Houllier, Benitez and Brendan Rodgers took over at Anfield they embraced the role of humbled custodian, sounding as if they’d spent weeks in the Anfield museum. They enthused and galvanised their audience by doffing their cap to the grandees and vowing to evolve a winning philosophy.
While cynics mocked the soundbites they had genuinely thrown themselves into every facet of Liverpool life. Supporters bought into the message and all three recovered from troubling starts to their rebuilding process because gave the impression they knew what they were doing and things would get better.
There are those who maintain Hodgson was dismissed after six months at Anfield solely on footballing grounds, but there was far more to it. Rodgers’ results at Anfield six months into his reign, for example, were little different to Hodgson’s and yet the mood was entirely different.
It was not ONLY Hodgson’s dire football that was his undoing – although clearly that sealed his fate - but a broader lack of wisdom and incapacity to understand that in the modern game looking and sounding the part becomes even more important when your competency as a coach is under scrutiny.
Anyone who has seen how Hodgson operates knows when the cameras are on his remarks can never be taken entirely at face value because he has a history of asking those who heard them to reassess what he said, reconsider them in a different context and then accept his genuine remorse if they’ve had an unintentionally negative impact.
“I apologise if I have offended anyone. It was not my intention,” is a recurring Hodgson follow-up. There never seems to be a sinister intent, but the effect still causes some to spit out his name on Merseyside rather than speak it.
You can imagine him flicking through the newspapers today fretting as to whether he really meant to deliver such a critical message, pondering whether another phone call is required to reassure Rodgers.
There should be no anger at Anfield regarding Hodgson’s comments today. There will be a touch of bewilderment that – without a trace of irony - he questioned the training methods at a club where some senior professionals were fatigued with the sheer tedium of his sessions.
Privately, it may also be asked if the FA are planning to pay 50 per cent of Sterling’s next contract since they evidently believe they are entitled to interfere in how the club that pays his wages manages their employee – a player whose rapid elevation as England’s most exciting player is in large part due to his current manager’s man-management.
Most of all, however, there should be a shrug of the shoulder and hope (probably forlorn) that Hodgson’s comments are seen for what they are - the latest in a multitude of examples of the current England manager’s struggles to keep his brain and vocal chords working in harmony.Leave a comment:
-
I love this Raymond fella. Didn't mince his words with Moyesiah and certainly isn't here.
All the Engerlund fans criticising Sterling saying he should be ashamed of himself... the kid is 19 years old playing against fully grown professionals.
They should be counting their blessings that there is English talent like this as opposed to the unspectacular workhorse ****e they are used to.Leave a comment:
-
-
Not sure who this guy is:
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 59 mins 59 minutes ago
Embarrassing to see dinosaur Hodgson questioning the fitness regime of the forward thinking manager Brendan Rodgers.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... l-training …
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
Roy Hodgson's incompetence must be frustrating for educated managers like Brendan Rodgers who travelled the world. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29602050 …
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
England manager Roy Hodgson once again made himself look extremely stupid. He is the perfect example of a typical uneducated English coach.
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
So there's much evidence that insufficient recovery, accumulation of fatigue & slower nervous system are dramatically increasing injury risk
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
If the signal from the brain arrives later in the muscles this means the brain has less control over body during explosive football actions.
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
Thirdly accumulation of fatigue due to insufficient recovery makes the nervous system slower. The signal from brain to muscles travel slower
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
If explosive players do not get extra recovery time & are treated in the same way as other players, they accumulate fatigue in their body.
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
This is why explosive players like Sterling need longer recovery time after a game to get rid of fatigue compared to less explosive player.
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
Fast muscle fibres recover slower compared to slow muscle fibres because less blood & oxygen is running through these fast muscle fibres.
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
Secondly, Sterling is not only a young but also an explosive player. They have many fast muscle fibres compared to less explosive players.
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
Young players who develop more fatigue during the game need longer time to get rid of this fatigue otherwise they accumulate fatigue in body
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
Firstly, 19-year old players do not have a fully matured body yet. So for them the game demands are higher & will develop much more fatigue.
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
According to Hodgson, there is no evidence that certain players (Sterling/Sturridge) need longer recovery time compared to other players.
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
Another shocking example of why English managers are becoming extinct is England national team manager Roy Hodgson.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 92549.html …
Raymond Verheijen @raymondverheije · 1 hr 1 hour ago
In his new book, Harry Redknapp wonders why English managers are becoming extinct. Well, just read the book and you understand why.Leave a comment:
-
Every article gets me more annoyed. It will baffle me forever how this cunt of a man and truly dreadful manager has come and got what the media consider 2 of the 3 biggest jobs in English football. And shock horror he's made a complete mess of both of them, who could have predicted that?!
I'm not sure I'd even wish him on Man Utd anymore, I loathe them but he's a spineless fraud who sucks the joy out of everything he touches, I wouldnt wish him on any kids going to their first games even if they are Mancs. A 67 year old man who will happily hide behind a 19 year old lad to protect himself. But we've seen that before after the Northampton game.
In about 6 months at the club as our manager he showed more disrespect and disdain for our fans and club than Ferguson a manager of our fierce rivals did in about 20 years! And he's still doing it now. I've lost count of the amount of times he's had to apologise for being an offensive prick, was only the Gerrard and Rooney thing the other day, the "Since I came here the famous Anfield support hasn't been here" "I want the fans to become supporters" after 42k turned up after xmas in the freezing cold to watch us get outclassed on our own pitch by bottom of the league Wolverhampton ****ing Wanderers and loads of other examples.
The worst though is how negligent he is of his players, he doesn't seem to give a **** about mental or physical condition, a 19 year old lad thrown under a bus so he could protect himself (Just how hapless England were v Estonia seems long forgotten already, it was a set up before the game to protect himself incase it happened and it did), Daniel Sturridge complains of an injury so gets played for 90mins in a meaningless friendly days later to "test his resolve", then came the "They are better getting injured now” line. Incredible. Arrogant, self serving scumbag who just refuses to adapt his methods despite glaring medical evidence. There must be people advising him differently aswell surely but we've seen first hand just how arrogant and stuck in his ways this man is so it wouldn't be a surprise if it was going in one ear and straight out of the other. He's poison, negligent and a disease on this sport. I despise him more than I've ever despised anyone in football.Leave a comment:
-
Roy Hodgson’s broken relationship with Liverpool is damaging for all
Tony Barrett
Updated 1 minute ago
Raheem Sterling’s omission from the England team for a Euro 2016 qualifying match and the furore it created both have the same symptom – Roy Hodgson’s chronic failure to communicate effectively.
The predictable mistake is to view it solely as club versus country, that the will of an employer is being forced upon a resentful, bridling national team which, in turn, is determined not to be dictated to. The reality is more prosaic. This is not the battle of wills that it seems to be.
That the breakdown in the England manager’s communications with Liverpool, his former club, is now absolute cannot be in any question. For the past six weeks, barbs have been traded, mutual suspicion has grown and relationships have deteriorated to the point where it would not be an exaggeration to question whether or not they are already beyond repair. That Hodgson failed to contact Brendan Rodgers for a full month after Daniel Sturridge was injured in training is indicative of an impasse that is damaging all involved.
At the root of the problem is Liverpool’s growing suspicion that Hodgson does not act with the kind of duty of care they expect of an international manager.
Why do they view things this way? Because of comments Hodgson has made even more so than his methods. A year ago, Sturridge suffered another thigh strain while in training with the England squad. Despite struggling with the injury, the forward was pressed into action by Hodgson who used him for the full 90 minutes of a friendly against Germany. That, of course, was the England manager’s right.
Liverpool were disappointed, particularly as Sturridge was not fit enough to start their subsequent Premier League game, which just happened to be the Merseyside derby. But like any other club which has players of international quality any complaints they might have had were undermined by the reality that Hodgson had merely done what he felt was right for himself and the England team. What followed, however, skewed things. Instead of recognising the need for diplomacy to deal with what was a delicate situation, Hodgson gave Liverpool cause for concern and annoyance.
“I wanted to test his resolve a little bit,” Hodgson explained in typically ham-fisted fashion and with that Rodgers’s goodwill to one of his predecessors at Liverpool was put to significant test. Going a stage further, Hodgson then insisted that he wouldn’t “apologise for it” and maintained that players “are better getting injured now (than closer to the World Cup).” The message, to Liverpool at least, was clear – Hodgson was showing scant consideration for the state in which he returned players to their clubs. Gerard Houllier’s analogy about international managers being like joyriders who take cars without permission before abandoning it in a fuel without any petrol needed no greater example.
Had Hodgson kept his counsel and said nothing, Liverpool might only have been dismayed by the state that Sturridge was returned to them . By opening his mouth, Hodgson not only gave them added reason for resentment, he also lost the moral argument. Despite this, Liverpool have continued to provide several players for the national team with six being drawn from Anfield for the World Cup finals in Brazil (more than from any other club) and four for England’s recent double-header against San Marino and Norway. If this is a club v country battle then Liverpool aren’t putting up much of a fight.
Of course, Sturridge’s absence from England’s two most recent fixtures is a major bone of contention. As soon as Rodgers insisted Sturridge would not join up with Hodgson’s squad, further acrimony became inevitable. The Liverpool manager was lambasted in some quarters but Hodgson, wisely and perhaps diplomatically, accepted his verdict and planned without Sturridge who is only now returning to fitness. But the damage had already been done by then.
Hodgson, not particularly wisely and certainly not diplomatically, had made comments that would colour the thinking of any manager and it does not take a major leap of the imagination to presume that they were at the root of Sterling’s withdrawal.
At face value, Hodgson disputing the version of events presented by Rodgers about how Sturridge came to be injured is just a case of a manager protecting his own interests. Whereas Rodgers claimed Sturridge had told England’s medical staff that he required a 48-hour recovery period after games, Hodgson insisted he “had no memory of Daniel telling me that he did not want to train.” Continuing to take Sturridge at his word, alarm bells rang out at Anfield and, although it remains unconfirmed, it appears that Rodgers made it clear to his England contingent that if they had any concerns about their fitness or wellbeing while on international duty they should express them to the manager and his staff.
By admitting that he felt fatigued, Sterling did just that. To his credit, Hodgson acted responsibly and acted in the best interests of player, club and country by naming the winger as one of his substitutes rather than in his starting eleven. His good work was undone once again by what he said rather than what he did, however, as Hodgson made a private conversation public and in doing so put Sterling at the centre of a damaging debate about his commitment to the cause. Like his previous comments about Sturridge, it was all totally avoidable and totally unnecessary.
Hodgson’s ability to say the wrong thing at the wrong time is now well established. Only last week he had to apologise for comments about the Liverpool accent which, though not delivered with any kind of malice, were foolish enough to put himself at the heart of an unnecessary and distracting controversy. At times, his foibles can be endearing like an ageing uncle with a knack of being unintentionally funny when trying to be deadly serious. But on other occasions it can impede his ability to manage England as well as possible because it undermines his admittedly delicate relationship with clubs. There may be a club versus country confrontation going on, but the biggest battle is for Hodgson to find ways of expressing himself in a way that creates friends rather than enemies.
“I think I should speak to Brendan,” Hodgson said after publicly questioning Liverpool’s training regime and there is no question that a managerial tête-à-tête would be in everyone’s best interests. Hodgson and Rodgers could do a lot worse than enlist Steven Gerrard, a future ambassador for club and country who knows better than most the rigours of representing both, to provide insight and guidance.
But more than anything else, Hodgson needs to find a way of reassuring Liverpool that he does have their interests at heart rather than just his own when it comes to looking after players because that is not the impression they have right now.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: