Surely it's just the normal cycle of build-up/pull-down?
Hodgson: Massive wanker
- Thread starter Silver Sean
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Slightly, but the pull down for recent foreign managers has been for performances better than the shite Hodgson serves up
Ginger Pirlo for fucks sake
That may well be part of it, but in general they like anyone who's always ready to talk to them, as Hodgson has been so far. The problem for them is that his inadequacy is now so clear that they can't go on backing him without losing whatever shreds of credibility they had left.
So does the watch.
Keeping his job clearly depends on keeping the media onside. Dont think the FA have the stomach for much public criticism. This might have been the first domino. Hopefully.
Its waterproof to 150,000hostile atm though you cant drown it. in p.latitudes
Or crush it with tryuths.
Talksport reported on it like Hodgson finally found a backbone & had a go at the press & the players. Then reported that the players put in a extra hard shift to impress, proving it worked.
I dunno what Hodgson has on the press, but it must be fucking big!
Maybe they're clutching at straws, hoping this shows they might have been right about him after all. They'll know they weren't when the results fail to improve, probably starting tomorrow.
He definitely is. He has a particularly grating sanctimonious smugness in respect of the utter mediocrity he extracts from teams under his charge. And don't dare question the steaming turd he's serving up to you.
"How many clubs have I had in 35 years? What do you mean, do my methods translate? They translated from Halmstads to Malmo to Orebro to Neuchatel Xamax to the Swiss national team. The question is quite frankly insulting, I suppose."
35 years in football. No trophy outside of Scandinavia. Wanker.
Plus, if I remember rightly what one or two of our Scando colleagues have posted on here, nobody rates him there either.
Much of the Myth of Hodgson arose due to the pathetically blinkered and badly educated nature of British football hacks. He started to charm them by letting it be known that he liked to read novels, including ones by Saul Bellow. Of course, they didn't ask him any pertinent questions about such novels, because most had never heard of them, let alone read them. But after a quick search they found these were deemed 'high brow' fare, so they wrote about how clever and cultured Roy was. It was much the same when his strange habit of using slightly unfamiliar words in press conferences was first noted. They ignored the fact that, most of the time, they were mispronounced and misused; again, they were just impressed he seemed to have a bigger vocabulary than the likes of Allardyce and Redknapp. Then, of course, he could boast about all the FIFA and UEFA committees/conferences/events he had attended, and - ignoring the fact that masses of time servers get invited to these things - they were dazzled by how well-regarded he must be by European grandees. Add to that his trick of not discussing formations and tactics in the abstract, but rather discussing them, quite simplistically but intimidatingly, by referring to them via particular obscure foreign teams, with a few foreign words and funny accents, and it left the hacks feeling as though they were in the presence of an incredibly 'worldly' master coach.
It established a pattern: drop in on, say, Fulham when they were winning a few games, praise his past, invite him to mention some Italian coaching terms, ask him what novel he was reading at the moment, then write pretty much the same glowing article as the last time. It didn't matter how basic and unimaginative his team was actually playing. Who cared about the likes of Fulham anyway? Besides, such shortcomings were always the fault of his players, never his own approach.
At Liverpool, unless you were a Merseyside-based hack, it was much the same. The problems were Benitez's legacy. The novels and fancy words were Roy's. The myth still held up.
It's only now these idiots have finally helped Hodgson to get the England job that they can see for themselves, on a regular basis, what a rigid, limited, cautious and old-fashioned mediocrity he is. And suddenly they couldn't give a toss which JP Donleavy or John Updike novel he's happily re-reading. They just realise he doesn't answer questions, he struggles to analyse tactical problems and he snaps angrily when presented with stats that underline how wretched his team has performed.
Like in the old Hollywood horror movies of the 1930s (which no doubt Roy will volunteer he has on Criterion blu-rays, with helpful commentaries), they've just realised they've created a monster.
Press Watch:
He still has the odd apologist, because, after all, by being apologists for his incompetence they're really being apologists for their own naivete. Sam Wallace of the Indie is one such (note again the 'coo, wow' mention of Hodgson using a word like 'sophistry' and the 'blimey, he knows about Italian stuff' observation):
Most of his old cheerleaders, however, have thrown down their pom-poms and flounced off to the bar. Here, for example, is Martin Samuel:
It established a pattern: drop in on, say, Fulham when they were winning a few games, praise his past, invite him to mention some Italian coaching terms, ask him what novel he was reading at the moment, then write pretty much the same glowing article as the last time. It didn't matter how basic and unimaginative his team was actually playing. Who cared about the likes of Fulham anyway? Besides, such shortcomings were always the fault of his players, never his own approach.
At Liverpool, unless you were a Merseyside-based hack, it was much the same. The problems were Benitez's legacy. The novels and fancy words were Roy's. The myth still held up.
It's only now these idiots have finally helped Hodgson to get the England job that they can see for themselves, on a regular basis, what a rigid, limited, cautious and old-fashioned mediocrity he is. And suddenly they couldn't give a toss which JP Donleavy or John Updike novel he's happily re-reading. They just realise he doesn't answer questions, he struggles to analyse tactical problems and he snaps angrily when presented with stats that underline how wretched his team has performed.
Like in the old Hollywood horror movies of the 1930s (which no doubt Roy will volunteer he has on Criterion blu-rays, with helpful commentaries), they've just realised they've created a monster.
Press Watch:
He still has the odd apologist, because, after all, by being apologists for his incompetence they're really being apologists for their own naivete. Sam Wallace of the Indie is one such (note again the 'coo, wow' mention of Hodgson using a word like 'sophistry' and the 'blimey, he knows about Italian stuff' observation):
Most of his old cheerleaders, however, have thrown down their pom-poms and flounced off to the bar. Here, for example, is Martin Samuel:
A new shocker: Paddy Barclay, Hodgson's greatest cheerleader, and fiercest critic of 'stupid' LFC fans for not adoring all things Woy, has just announced on live TV (during a discussion of Hodgson's possible successors) that, in his opinion, Brendan Rodgers is 'the best Liverpool manager since Bill Shankly'. What a contrary fellow he is these days.
It seemed a day much like any other when Paddy Barclay entered the offices of the Metro and suddenly realised that Tom Cleverly could well be the new Zidane.
It seemed a day much like any other when Paddy Barclay entered the offices of the Metro and suddenly realised that Tom Cleverly could well be the new Zidane.
Hodgson has just confirmed he is not cracking.
Everything is fine people...let's delete this thread.
Everything is fine people...let's delete this thread.
As far as that flummery from Wallace is concerned, I'm reliably informed (by Juve fans who feel the same about Inter as we do about the Mancs) that Inter couldn't wait to get rid of him, the second time he went there anyway. Said Juve fans were of course hoping he'd stay on.
Let me paraphwase the words of the gweat poet Stevie Smith: 'I'm not dwowning, I'm waving'. Or to put it, or assert it, or, er, to aver it in the words of Mark Twain, that gweat writer and wit whose real name, you may not wealise, was actually, and in a sense still is, Samuel Clemens: 'Weports of my demise have been gweatly exaggerated'. Or let me clear it up even more, er, clearly by citing the eminent Italian author Giacomo Leopardi...
That would be Utopia.
Can we send him to the Dignitas clinic when they get there?
I've read an interview this morning where he said he can't tell the players they have to win against Switzerland as they have easier qualifying games to come. It's almost as if he's already targeting 2nd in the group but he'd take 1st as a bonus. He really shouldn't be in charge of a pub team.
Is he really that defensive? I don't see his sides as defensive at all, they just lack any sort of plan or ideal. It's just a flat side that's expected to be the sum of it's parts, there's no real instruction or intent. We don't sit back, but we don't go gung-ho either, his sides just sit there - no movement or pattern. It's like he takes the blueprint of whatever is the latest fad and he puts a team out in that formation, without the tactical know-how to back it up.
Plain, boring and pretty fucking empty of any real character or definition. Like manager, like team.
I think the reason why Gerrard decided to retire from international football is in that gif.
He's been less defensive for England, but he's still a defensive minded coach in my mind, whose main priority is maintaining shape.
He's got no ability to teach football which allows people to move out of their position, move between the lines and start linking up play. It's stone age shit.
- Status
