PDA

View Full Version : How long before Roy Hodgson is on his bike?



Nobbynumbnuts
01-01-2011, 11:09
I said on here that Hodgson would be history by New Year when many were saying he was the man for the job. Okay, i've missed the mark, he's still there but his position is becoming increasingly untenable and a couple more bad results will have the board coming out and saying his job is safe. ;)

Liverpool have a history of standing by their managers but that was before the 'new guys' took over. The financial considerations of not qualifying for the Champion's League and the prospect of them slipping into, heaven forbidd, the relegation zone :10641: will surely make them reconsider. :mml:

Do they stand by him or cut their losses while they still can? Who would replace him?

martpark
01-01-2011, 14:17
I said on here that Hodgson would be history by New Year when many were saying he was the man for the job. Okay, i've missed the mark, he's still there but his position is becoming increasingly untenable and a couple more bad results will have the board coming out and saying his job is safe. ;)

Liverpool have a history of standing by their managers but that was before the 'new guys' took over. The financial considerations of not qualifying for the Champion's League and the prospect of them slipping into, heaven forbidd, the relegation zone :10641: will surely make them reconsider. :mml:

Do they stand by him or cut their losses while they still can? Who would replace him?

I agree they are piss poor but it comes from years of neglect also. Hodgson might be out of his depths but they'll probably wait until summer when other managers become available, such as Pep Guardiola.

Nobbynumbnuts
02-01-2011, 11:51
I agree they are piss poor but it comes from years of neglect also. Hodgson might be out of his depths but they'll probably wait until summer when other managers become available, such as Pep Guardiola.

'And now the The end is near...............' :piano:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8235362/Liverpool-set-to-delay-search-for-Roy-Hodgson-successor-as-prospect-looms-of-Kenny-Dalglish-return.html

Liverpool set to delay search for Roy Hodgson successor as prospect looms of Kenny Dalglish return
Liverpool’s owners are so determined to end Roy Hodgson’s reign as manager that they are now prepared to delay the search for his long-term successor until the summer and install a caretaker until June, raising the prospect of an emotional return to the club for Kenny Dalglish.

Despite Saturday’s last-gasp win against Bolton, Hodgson’s persistent failure to elicit consistent results and performances from his team, as well as the breakdown of his relationship with the club’s fans, has convinced Fenway Sports Group to bring forward their initial plan to review his position in the summer.

Even after deciding they must act swiftly to replace the 63 year-old, the group’s principal backers, John W Henry and Tom Werner, had hoped to make the first managerial appointment of their reign a permanent one. They are believed to have examined the credentials of a number of candidates, including the Porto manager Andre Villas Boas and Marseille’s Didier Deschamps.

The difficulty and cost associated with enticing the right long-term appointment midway through the season, however, has now forced FSG to rethink their strategy, with the group now thought to favour introducing an interim manager before installing their preferred candidate in June.

Liverpool’s fans made clear their belief that Dalglish should be handed the position, in the short-term at least, during Wednesday night’s defeat to Wolves, offering ironic chants of “Hodgson for England” and singing the Scot’s name. That Anfield yesterday recorded its lowest Premier League attendance since 2004 — just 35,400 watched the game — is an equally telling statistic.

Dalglish had hoped to be offered the manager’s job, which he occupied between 1985 and 1991, after the dismissal of Rafael Benitez last summer, informing the club’s then hierarchy that he would happily take charge until owners to replace the despised regime of Tom Hicks and George Gillett could be found.

martpark
15-01-2011, 21:53
Well, now the axe has fallen, what place will Liverpool end up in? I'm guessing 7th.

Nobbynumbnuts
15-01-2011, 22:03
Well, now the axe has fallen, what place will Liverpool end up in? I'm guessing 7th.

At best a couple of places higher than they are now. Liverpool have done nothing to persuade me that they are not in terminal decline.

Nobbynumbnuts
16-01-2011, 10:02
BBC are reporting today that West Ham have Martin Jol and Big Sam as alternatives to O'Neil should things fall through. They have promised him money for players and his first signing would be Robbie Keane.
West Ham starting to get ambitious for a change. They need to finalize things, time is running out.

Matt24
16-01-2011, 10:19
Well, now the axe has fallen, what place will Liverpool end up in? I'm guessing 7th.

they're going down, and no amount of 'unbuyable tradition', talismanic management or bleeting can save them, hurrah...probably not but I can still dream

martpark
16-01-2011, 11:07
BBC are reporting today that West Ham have Martin Jol and Big Sam as alternatives to O'Neil should things fall through. They have promised him money for players and his first signing would be Robbie Keane.
West Ham starting to get ambitious for a change. They need to finalize things, time is running out.

Is Big Sam really ambitious? I think Grant is not so bad. Given time and money he could have competing but like a lot of managers who come in after years of mismanagement at the board level, like Svennis at City and Roy at Lpool, he'll get the blame.

Gypsy
16-01-2011, 14:24
Is Big Sam really ambitious? I think Grant is not so bad. Given time and money he could have competing but like a lot of managers who come in after years of mismanagement at the board level, like Svennis at City and Roy at Lpool, he'll get the blame.

Sorry MP, but you could not be more wrong.

If you decide to fire Zola then by definition you must replace him with someone demonstrably better. Otherwise, what was the point?

Grant is not demonstrably better - in fact he is the worst West Ham manager in history - and if you take just last season his record at Pompey was no better than Zola's at the Hammers over the same period. So why replace Zola with someone no better?

His performance at Chelsea was dire in the extreme, the players claiming that they never saw him, Steve Clarke did everything.

So where is the evidence to suggest that Grant could have been a success?

He is an empty suit, a complete charlatan who should never have been appointed and performed for West Ham exactly as he did at Pompey and Chelsea.

Allardyce will be a disaster - he doesn't play football and that is the most important thing at the Boleyn. O'Neill does not convince me - he spends a lot of money but never quite delivers (Celtic excepted).

Personally as a Hammer I'd like to see Hughton get it. A great manager treated shabbily by Jongleurs.

Liverpool fans have made me laugh over the last few days on various blogs - they really do seem to believe they have a divine right to win. They all still think whoever comes in will spend £100m and everything will be OK again.

The team left by Houllier plus two additions of Benitez won the CL. Then Benitez spent a Net £130m and left a team far worse than the one bequeathed by Houllier, and FIFA Fair Pplay rules mean you cannot do that anymore even if you want to.

The premium now is on managers who can improve sides without spending a fortune - like Hughton, Hodgson, Di Matteo, Holloway, Coyle etc

martpark
16-01-2011, 20:54
Sorry MP, but you could not be more wrong.

If you decide to fire Zola then by definition you must replace him with someone demonstrably better. Otherwise, what was the point?

Grant is not demonstrably better - in fact he is the worst West Ham manager in history - and if you take just last season his record at Pompey was no better than Zola's at the Hammers over the same period. So why replace Zola with someone no better?

His performance at Chelsea was dire in the extreme, the players claiming that they never saw him, Steve Clarke did everything.

So where is the evidence to suggest that Grant could have been a success?

He is an empty suit, a complete charlatan who should never have been appointed and performed for West Ham exactly as he did at Pompey and Chelsea.

Allardyce will be a disaster - he doesn't play football and that is the most important thing at the Boleyn. O'Neill does not convince me - he spends a lot of money but never quite delivers (Celtic excepted).

Personally as a Hammer I'd like to see Hughton get it. A great manager treated shabbily by Jongleurs.

Liverpool fans have made me laugh over the last few days on various blogs - they really do seem to believe they have a divine right to win. They all still think whoever comes in will spend £100m and everything will be OK again.

The team left by Houllier plus two additions of Benitez won the CL. Then Benitez spent a Net £130m and left a team far worse than the one bequeathed by Houllier, and FIFA Fair Pplay rules mean you cannot do that anymore even if you want to.

The premium now is on managers who can improve sides without spending a fortune - like Hughton, Hodgson, Di Matteo, Holloway, Coyle etc

I don't know how good your memory is but I've seen West Ham get relegated, so not the worst or close to the worst. I agree Zola was let go because of cost cutting but he was no great shakes and had a worse record than Grant at Pompey. I thought Zola should have been kept but I don't hold the purse strings.

I'm sure you remember Grant took over Pompey in the relegation zone with the club in complete disarray. I've never seen a Prem team as bad organisation wise. They couldn't pay their players. How many coaches could motivate that team or would want to motivate that team? Grant took them to an FA Cup Final (something Man City or West Ham haven't done in decades) which qualified them for the Europa League. They were docked 9 points for failure to pay a number of entities and therefore no European holiday.

I think West Ham supporters would be pleased to get into Europe through any means necessary but supporters like Liverpool's and I think West Ham's demand success without any basis for it. Both have been underfunded for years.

Grant took Chelsea to the League Cup Final, European Cup Final and within a whisker of the title. If that's such an easy task, take a look Carlo Ancelotti now. Also Grant had a higher winning percentage in his 56 games in charge than Ancelotti at Chelsea. His winning percent this year is much higher than Zola's, who left WHU with a measly 28% winning percent.

He's everybody's favourite whipping boy but is effective in difficult circumstances.

martpark
16-01-2011, 21:00
If you want to see why West Ham are in the proverbial, look at this list of players of the year at WHU. Not a bad group of players. Lest we forget Rio Ferdinand and his brother.

2002 Sébastien Schemmel Joe Cole
2003 Joe Cole Jermain Defoe
2004 Matthew Etherington Michael Carrick
2005 Teddy Sheringham Mark Noble
2006 Danny Gabbidon Marlon Harewood
2007 Carlos Tévez Bobby Zamora
2008 Robert Green George McCartney
2009 Scott Parker Robert Green
2010 Scott Parker Alessandro Diamanti

Matt24
18-01-2011, 12:11
Martin O'neil said he wouldn't go to West Ham this morning, and had a good poke at the backroom boys at the 'ammers, Mick McCarthy has come out as an unlikely champion of gentlemenly behaviour in the management of the beautiful game, and Avram baby says he's just getting on with it and going nowhere - ac cording to the Sun, he's preparing an audacious swoop to bring Jo 'King of Irons' Cole back to the pearly kingdom, bonkers or what?
Fat Sam installed by March, relegation confirmed 10 days later, either way JC in the championship next season, opinions please.

Matt