Roy Hodgson - Was 4 Months Too Long at Liverpool

[Deleted member 16999]

Rankings mean nothing, aren't Wales ranked 3rd in the world at the moment?

Pardew?? Curbishley/Big Sam

None of them for me, Would you take any of them at Anfield, they wouldn't have got on any list for you's.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Italy failed and got rid of their manager, others did too yet the FA gave him an improved contract. Madness. That WC group wasn't that hard really was it, they had the best training base they could've had, extra time to prepare etc and still failed miserably.

The Italian guy resigned after they got beat by Uruguay and in the matches against us Euros and WC they were both matches that coukd've gone either way, Uruguay were a better team than us then so was it really that much of a surprise, disappointment yes, surprise no.
But that's my point, he gets no slack when we have difficult games and no backing when he wins the ones we should, As I said before if he'd of gone after WC whoever would be in charge now couldn't of done any better.

 

[Hobbit]

Major competitions won = zero

Doing well at bottom half of the table clubs = yes

Ferguson won a major European comp with Aberdeen - something Hodgson failed to do as well as two league titles in Scotland when they had a very strong league

Hodgson is perfect for England - manages to qualify them then disappoint - he was shocking for us his track record pointed to him not being good enough but for a club with higher ambitions

Well and truly turned around bottom half clubs, some of which were on the point of relegation. And got various clubs into Europe. Did wonders with the Swiss.

And Fergie did achieve with Aberdeen, but in a country whose teams are no better than those in many of the smaller countries in Europe that Hodgson managed in. Scotland, a strong league back then? 5 teams mixed in with Sunday afternoon pub teams. And Fergie didn't have international management when he went to Utd, unlike Hodgson when he went to L'pool. Apart from L'pool, where he wasn't given a fair crack, where has Hodgson actually not improved a team? Can't argue one bit with what Fergie achieved down the years.

Remind me of Brenda's CV he took to L'pool...

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Well and truly turned around bottom half clubs, some of which were on the point of relegation. And got various clubs into Europe. Did wonders with the Swiss.

And Fergie did achieve with Aberdeen, but in a country whose teams are no better than those in many of the smaller countries in Europe that Hodgson managed in. Scotland, a strong league back then? 5 teams mixed in with Sunday afternoon pub teams. And Fergie didn't have international management when he went to Utd, unlike Hodgson when he went to L'pool. Apart from L'pool, where he wasn't given a fair crack, where has Hodgson actually not improved a team? Can't argue one bit with what Fergie achieved down the years.

Remind me of Brenda's CV he took to L'pool...

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ferguson won one of the three main European Comps , Scotland at that time had teams getting into the European Cup semi finals - they were a damn sight stronger in the 80's

Hodgson has improved teams but it's not top level teams and winning comps - it's saving teams from relegation - there is a world of difference. Also managing international teams doesn't automatically suggest doing well at top clubs - Scolari won a WC yet bombed at club football. Even with the Swiss - it's getting small teams to qualify and then nothing - it's reaching a level but then not taking the next step forward. Hodgson has managed for nearly 40 years yet has failed to win a trophy in a top league - he took over a Blackburn team recently winning the title and started them on the path to relegation. Hodgson as manager has won nothing of any standing in European Football

He is a manager who is perfect for the mid to bottom half of table teams - just like Pardew , Pulis , Allardyce - all good managers keeping teams mid table in the Prem but not good enough for the top teams

And yes Rodgers shouldn't have been given the job as well - I didn't want him nor Hodgson or even Kenny for his second stint

 

[Papas1982]

Ferguson won one of the three main European Comps , Scotland at that time had teams getting into the European Cup semi finals - they were a damn sight stronger in the 80's

Hodgson has improved teams but it's not top level teams and winning comps - it's saving teams from relegation - there is a world of difference. Also managing international teams doesn't automatically suggest doing well at top clubs - Scolari won a WC yet bombed at club football. Even with the Swiss - it's getting small teams to qualify and then nothing - it's reaching a level but then not taking the next step forward. Hodgson has managed for nearly 40 years yet has failed to win a trophy in a top league - he took over a Blackburn team recently winning the title and started them on the path to relegation. Hodgson as manager has won nothing of any standing in European Football

He is a manager who is perfect for the mid to bottom half of table teams - just like Pardew , Pulis , Allardyce - all good managers keeping teams mid table in the Prem but not good enough for the top teams

And yes Rodgers shouldn't have been given the job as well - I didn't want him nor Hodgson or even Kenny for his second stint

my opinion on hodgson is that he was more than suitable for a club that was in Liverpool position when he got the job. But, that he wasn't big enough for what the fans want Liverpool, to be. Which is understandable completely.

Re Scolari, the blokes won 17 domestic trophies. Just didn't do well in his stint in Europe. If managers are only good if they win in Europe I'd say there's quite a few managers we may never value.

 

[Hobbit]

my opinion on hodgson is that he was more than suitable for a club that was in Liverpool position when he got the job. But, that he wasn't big enough for what the fans want Liverpool, to be. Which is understandable completely.

Re Scolari, the blokes won 17 domestic trophies. Just didn't do well in his stint in Europe. If managers are only good if they win in Europe I'd say there's quite a few managers we may never value.

Totally agree. The uproar when Hodgson got it ahead of Saint Kenny was deafening. Outside looking in at the petty squabbling and back stabbing going on at a great club with L'pool's history was disappointing to say the least.

As for Hodgson dragging Blackburn down!? Seriously?? He dragged them UP... They had barely avoided relegation the previous season, and had been BOTTOM when Ray Harford resigned - Tony Parkes took over till the end of the season. Hodgson joined during the close season and promptly got them into Europe the next 2 seasons. In the 3rd season the team was dogged by numerous injuries, and he was sacked when the club hit bottom.

After L'pool he went to West Brom. As Well as keeping West Brom in the Prem, bringing n some great signings, they beat several top teams as well as Liverpool TWICE.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Totally agree. The uproar when Hodgson got it ahead of Saint Kenny was deafening. Outside looking in at the petty squabbling and back stabbing going on at a great club with L'pool's history was disappointing to say the least.

As for Hodgson dragging Blackburn down!? Seriously?? He dragged them UP... They had barely avoided relegation the previous season, and had been BOTTOM when Ray Harford resigned - Tony Parkes took over till the end of the season. Hodgson joined during the close season and promptly got them into Europe the next 2 seasons. In the 3rd season the team was dogged by numerous injuries, and he was sacked when the club hit bottom.

After L'pool he went to West Brom. As Well as keeping West Brom in the Prem, bringing n some great signings, they beat several top teams as well as Liverpool TWICE.

At the time he was appointed, there was massive issues at boardroom level and the banks were definitely pulling the strings as they wanted there money back. Martin Broughton one of the city's highly regarded money men was put in charge to sell the club after Christian Purslow failed.

There was only Hodgson and Kenny that where on the list of managers and I think most fans wanted somebody we knew and could trust as we were facing a tough time. It was, certainly for me and most people I know a case of better the devil you know.

He did have a lot of support initially but like I've said his "style" showed us nothing.

The results under Kenny in that 2nd half of the season improved massively and the whole club got a massive lift.

 

[Papas1982]

At the time he was appointed, there was massive issues at boardroom level and the banks were definitely pulling the strings as they wanted there money back. Martin Broughton one of the city's highly regarded money men was put in charge to sell the club after Christian Purslow failed.

There was only Hodgson and Kenny that where on the list of managers and I think most fans wanted somebody we knew and could trust as we were facing a tough time. It was, certainly for me and most people I know a case of better the devil you know.

He did have a lot of support initially but like I've said his "style" showed us nothing.

The results under Kenny in that 2nd half of the season improved massively and the whole club got a massive lift.

As ive said earlier. I agree he wasn't a roaring success, but. As much as you say the fans were behind him. I'm not sure he ever had full support with kenny in the shadows.

Im sure the noise levels were raised and the famous anfield atmosphere helped spur the team on with kenny in charge.

Personally i I thought it was a little harsh that Ken never once supported Roy, it looked to me like he enjoyed him failing. He acted completely differently to how Ferguson did when in the stands with moyes in charge.

 

[Hobbit]

At the time he was appointed, there was massive issues at boardroom level and the banks were definitely pulling the strings as they wanted there money back. Martin Broughton one of the city's highly regarded money men was put in charge to sell the club after Christian Purslow failed.

There was only Hodgson and Kenny that where on the list of managers and I think most fans wanted somebody we knew and could trust as we were facing a tough time. It was, certainly for me and most people I know a case of better the devil you know.

He did have a lot of support initially but like I've said his "style" showed us nothing.

The results under Kenny in that 2nd half of the season improved massively and the whole club got a massive lift.

To be honest Stu, managing Liverpool at that time was almost a poisoned chalice even for Kenny. They weren't playing European Champion's league football then and Kenny didn't change that. At best, which understandably wasn't good enough for Liverpool with its rich recent history, they were a pale Arsenal.

Prior to then, the board's continuing squabbles with (probably) your best manager for years in Benitez ruined Liverpool for several seasons.

 

[Hobbit]

As ive said earlier. I agree he wasn't a roaring success, but. As much as you say the fans were behind him. I'm not sure he ever had full support with kenny in the shadows.

Im sure the noise levels were raised and the famous anfield atmosphere helped spur the team on with kenny in charge.

Personally i I thought it was a little harsh that Ken never once supported Roy, it looked to me like he enjoyed him failing. He acted completely differently to how Ferguson did when in the stands with moyes in charge.

That's certainly how it looked to me. Kenny, by the loudness of his silence, in effect stuck the knife in.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

To be honest Stu, managing Liverpool at that time was almost a poisoned chalice even for Kenny. They weren't playing European Champion's league football then and Kenny didn't change that. At best, which understandably wasn't good enough for Liverpool with its rich recent history, they were a pale Arsenal.

Prior to then, the board's continuing squabbles with (probably) your best manager for years in Benitez ruined Liverpool for several seasons.

I agree and that's pretty much what I've been saying since 2010!!

So you agree Hodgson at that time was the wrong appointment from the outset given the conditions he was facing?

Dalglish publicly came out and backed Hodgson himself so I can't agree he stuck the knife in.

I just wish I could erase those 6months he was here from my memory!!

 

[Deleted member 1740]

As ive said earlier. I agree he wasn't a roaring success, but. As much as you say the fans were behind him. I'm not sure he ever had full support with kenny in the shadows.

Im sure the noise levels were raised and the famous anfield atmosphere helped spur the team on with kenny in charge.

Personally i I thought it was a little harsh that Ken never once supported Roy, it looked to me like he enjoyed him failing. He acted completely differently to how Ferguson did when in the stands with moyes in charge.

From my memory your wide off the mark.

Dalglish at least once publicly backed Roy and I'm certain Hodgson himself acknowledged that.

 

[Papas1982]

From my memory your wide off the mark.

Dalglish at least once publicly backed Roy and I'm certain Hodgson himself acknowledged that.

I remember him wishing him well when he first got the job. But his appearances in the crowd, and delight and chants for him whilst hodgson was in charge seemed harsh to me.

Dont nut get me wrong, I can see why the fans wanted hidgson out. He didn't play with style. But he also didn't have 200m to spend. Much like with moves at Utd. He wasn't really backed. People raise konchesky and Poulenc who I agree are poor. But who was he meant to buy with buttons?

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I remember him wishing him well when he first got the job. But his appearances in the crowd, and delight and chants for him whilst hodgson was in charge seemed harsh to me.

Dont nut get me wrong, I can see why the fans wanted hidgson out. He didn't play with style. But he also didn't have 200m to spend. Much like with moves at Utd. He wasn't really backed. People raise konchesky and Poulenc who I agree are poor. But who was he meant to buy with buttons?

He was employed by the club, you can't expect him to stay away . He's a proper club legend and is idolized, of course the fans are always going to sing his name. They still do now, i don't hear how harsh it is on Rodgers.

A manager with over 37yrs of top international footballing experience youd expect him to be able find better players than Poulsen and Konchesky.

 

[Hobbit]

I agree and that's pretty much what I've been saying since 2010!!

So you agree Hodgson at that time was the wrong appointment from the outset given the conditions he was facing?

!

No, I still think that Hodgson is a good manager, and proven as much at many clubs. I think he's worked well and got some great results out of, at times, dross. And it was up to the board to help create the right working environment for Hodgson to work in - it didn't happen. Yes, he's a dour personality and should never be put in front of a camera - part of the job but he doesn't do himself any favours. The expectation following the highs of Benitez's Champion's League performances was high, but achieving it with that board and the RBS forcing almost a firesale it was never going to happen.

Off at a tangent; what caused the financial mess?

 

[Papas1982]

He was employed by the club, you can't expect him to stay away . He's a proper club legend and is idolized, of course the fans are always going to sing his name. They still do now, i don't hear how harsh it is on Rodgers.

A manager with over 37yrs of top international footballing experience youd expect him to be able find better players than Poulsen and Konchesky.

I onlynthink it was harsh that he offered support at first. When he came under fire he kept quiet. I get he's a legend, and understand the fans chanting his name. Just felt he could have done more. But, he wanted the job, so it's clear he would only support Hodgson so much.

All managers make good and bad signings, konchesky at the time was on fringes of England squads and was a steady performer for him. Poulsen was shocking I'll agree lol

 

[Deleted member 1740]

No, I still think that Hodgson is a good manager, and proven as much at many clubs. I think he's worked well and got some great results out of, at times, dross. And it was up to the board to help create the right working environment for Hodgson to work in - it didn't happen. Yes, he's a dour personality and should never be put in front of a camera - part of the job but he doesn't do himself any favours. The expectation following the highs of Benitez's Champion's League performances was high, but achieving it with that board and the RBS forcing almost a firesale it was never going to happen.

Off at a tangent; what caused the financial mess?

In a nutshell 2 crafty yanks bleeding the club. They bought the club with very little of their own money and took plenty out.

When they bought the club LFC had a debt of £40m but it was manageable debt. They ended up plunging it into nearly £350m worth of debt.

They were LBO experts apparently but it backfired. If you get the chance read the book called "an epic swindle".

The board were more interested in selling the club rather than the results/team performance's at that time. I honestly believe Broughton and Purslow used Hodgson.

 

[pbrown7582]

In a nutshell 2 crafty yanks bleeding the club. They bought the club with very little of their own money and took plenty out.

When they bought the club LFC had a debt of £40m but it was manageable debt. They ended up plunging it into nearly £350m worth of debt.

They were LBO experts apparently but it backfired. If you get the chance read the book called "an epic swindle".

they should of asked our experts how to do a LBO properly!

 

[Deleted member 1740]

they should of asked our experts how to do a LBO properly!

It's disgusting how the authorities allow this to happen. Guaranteed the glazers like hicks and gillete have took more out of the clubs than they've put in.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I onlynthink it was harsh that he offered support at first. When he came under fire he kept quiet. I get he's a legend, and understand the fans chanting his name. Just felt he could have done more. But, he wanted the job, so it's clear he would only support Hodgson so much.

All managers make good and bad signings, konchesky at the time was on fringes of England squads and was a steady performer for him. Poulsen was shocking I'll agree lol

He made 5 signings and all 5 were shocking. Konchesky was nowhere near the england squad and even if he was he still wasn't good enough.