hodgson talking tomorrow night??

mrsblue said:

Has Harry ever been convicted of my criminal activity?
Suarez has been guilty of racism and biting opponents!

Your point does not make any sense with respect.

Click to expand...

He certainly hasn't, and I was only quoting common rumour. However, you made the point that in your opinion he could be a serial money launderer for all you cared hence the comparison.:smile:

mrsblue said:

Would love to see the FA panel explain in full why Redknapp was overlooked!

Rednapp's managerial record in this country,

6 trophies
Prem manager of the year
Prem manager of the month 7 times

Managed 1353 games with a win ratio of 40.58%.

Versus


Roy

Europa league runner up

Managed 295 games with a win ratio of 35%.

Click to expand...

I see once again you are distorting the facts to meet your agenda. Hodgson's career win ratio is 43.06. And that's a career that spanned seven years longer than Redknapp's, so all the more impressive to maintain a better win ratio over a longer period of time. It also spans several different countries, and international appointments, so many different cultures, languages and footballing backgrounds to overcome whilst performing at a better ratio than Harry.

But you carry on using all of Harry's career against 10% of Hogdson's career if that's the only way you can make Harry appear better. Also comparing honours from 28 years of management versus six of Hodgson's, yep, that's definitely a fair comparison, not tipping the scales in favour of your agenda again at all....

And he managed it without compromising his own integrity as well.

Blue_Wes said:

I see once again you are distorting the facts to meet your agenda. Hodgson's career win ratio is 43.06. And that's a career that spanned seven years longer than Redknapp's, so all the more impressive to maintain a better win ratio over a longer period of time. It also spans several different countries, and international appointments, so many different cultures, languages and footballing backgrounds to overcome whilst performing at a better ratio than Harry.

But you carry on using all of Harry's career against 10% of Hogdson's career if that's the only way you can make Harry appear better. Also comparing honours from 28 years of management versus six of Hodgson's, yep, that's definitely a fair comparison, not tipping the scales in favour of your agenda again at all....

And he managed it without compromising his own integrity as well.

Click to expand...

I did state in this country!

Roy boosted his win ratio by managing those powerhouse clubs such as Halmstads,Orebro,Neachatel,Viking,Whilst Malmo even the likes of you or me could manage them to honours.

mrsblue said:

Whilst Malmo even the likes of you or me could manage them to honours.

Click to expand...

Roy Hodgson took over in 1985. He led the club to two Swedish Championships in 1986 and 1988, and the club won Allsvenskan five years in a row between 1985 and 1989. At the time, the championship was decided by play-offs between the best teams after the end of the regular season; this arrangement was in place from 1982 until 1992. The club reached the play-off final four times between 1986 and 1989 but only managed to win the final twice. Apart from Allsvenskan and Swedish Championships, the club won Svenska Cupen in 1984, 1986 and 1989.[26]

Other than finishing as runners-up in Allsvenskan in 1996, the team did not excel in the 1990s, as the club failed to win Allsvenskan and Svenska Cupen throughout the entire decade. The 1990s ended with relegation from Allsvenskan in 1999.

So erm bollocks again.

Napster said:

Roy Hodgson took over in 1985. He led the club to two Swedish Championships in 1986 and 1988, and the club won Allsvenskan five years in a row between 1985 and 1989. At the time, the championship was decided by play-offs between the best teams after the end of the regular season; this arrangement was in place from 1982 until 1992. The club reached the play-off final four times between 1986 and 1989 but only managed to win the final twice. Apart from Allsvenskan and Swedish Championships, the club won Svenska Cupen in 1984, 1986 and 1989.[26]

Other than finishing as runners-up in Allsvenskan in 1996, the team did not excel in the 1990s, as the club failed to win Allsvenskan and Svenska Cupen throughout the entire decade. The 1990s ended with relegation from Allsvenskan in 1999.

So erm bollocks again.

Click to expand...

Aghh I now see why he was given the England job .

mrsblue said:

I did state in this country!

Roy boosted his win ratio by managing those powerhouse clubs such as Halmstads,Orebro,Neachatel,Viking,Whilst Malmo even the likes of you or me could manage them to honours.

Click to expand...

Yeah but it's an unfair comparison. You can't just pick and choose which parts of Roy's career you want to compare.

If you're comparing 26 years of Harry's career against six years of Roy's, then of course Harry is going to have more silverware, you've given him over four times as long to achieve it.

Also, Roy's win ratio is dragged down by appointments such as Finland, a tiny nation who are expected to lose far more than they win, but despite this, he lost just five times in 22 games, including two draws v Portugal, a win and a draw v Poland, a win and a draw v Belgium, a draw v Serbia, all those were qualifying games, not meningless friendlies, otherwise you could add in a 0-0 draw with Spain as well. All results he had no right to achieve with a nation as small as Finland, as you point out the bigger Scandanavian teams are hardly powerhouses, and Finland is the smallest of those nations. It's why the FA and Finnish media were happy with the fact he had the lowest win ratio and offered him a new contract, because they appreciated he had a harder qualifying group than any previous manager, and yet still took them within three points of qualification and was achieving excellent results in drawing with teams expected to roll them over.

Yet you still get people not actually looking at the bigger picture, banging on about his lowest win ratio for them. It's why the people in charge appreciate how good an appointment he is, because they don't just look at the stats, they look at the actual work work he does, the results he achieves, (for some nations a draw is celebrated as a win, and rightly so in Finland's case, imagine the glee at avoiding defeat in Portugal, Belgium & Poland for little Finland), the progress he makes with squads.

You need to look at the wider picture, he is so much better than the Sun's managerial poster boy, in so many different ways.

What are the 6 trophies 'Arry has won?

I can only think of the FA Cup with Portsmouth.

Blue_Wes said:

Yeah but it's an unfair comparison. You can't just pick and choose which parts of Roy's career you want to compare.

If you're comparing 26 years of Harry's career against six years of Roy's, then of course Harry is going to have more silverware, you've given him over four times as long to achieve it.

Also, Roy's win ratio is dragged down by appointments such as Finland, a tiny nation who are expected to lose far more than they win, but despite this, he lost just five times in 22 games, including two draws v Portugal, a win and a draw v Poland, a win and a draw v Belgium, a draw v Serbia, all those were qualifying games, not meningless friendlies, otherwise you could add in a 0-0 draw with Spain as well. All results he had no right to achieve with a nation as small as Finland, as you point out the bigger Scandanavian teams are hardly powerhouses, and Finland is the smallest of those nations. It's why the FA and Finnish media were happy with the fact he had the lowest win ratio and offered him a new contract, because they appreciated he had a harder qualifying group than any previous manager, and yet still took them within three points of qualification and was achieving excellent results in drawing with teams expected to roll them over.

Yet you still get people not actually looking at the bigger picture, banging on about his lowest win ratio for them. It's why the people in charge appreciate how good an appointment he is, because they don't just look at the stats, they look at the actual work work he does, the results he achieves, (for some nations a draw is celebrated as a win, and rightly so in Finland's case, imagine the glee at avoiding defeat in Portugal, Belgium & Poland for little Finland), the progress he makes with squads.

You need to look at the wider picture, he is so much better than the Sun's managerial poster boy, in so many different ways.

Click to expand...

Ok fair point,Roy has had 290ish games in this country with his ratio being 35% so I just checked Harry's last 278 games which include relegation(Hughes fault) with QPR and Harry's ratio increases to 46%.

Love the Premier League MotM awards counting towards Redknapp's honours sheet.

Yorkshire Blue said:

What are the 6 trophies 'Arry has won?

I can only think of the FA Cup with Portsmouth.

Click to expand...

Intertoto Cup with West ham maybe, the Play Offs is probably one of them. I'm not really sure.

Edit:
Bournemouth Div 3 (Fourth Tier) & Football League Trophy (JPT)
Wet Spam: Intertoto Cup
Portsmouth: League One (Second Tier) & FA Cup
QPR: Play Offs

For a manager who spent over £200 with one club, let alone over his entire career, a career spanning thirty one years, one major honour is a very poor return. Value for money he is not.

mrsblue said:

Ok fair point,Roy has had 290ish games in this country with his ratio being 35% so I just checked Harry's last 278 games which include relegation(Hughes fault) with QPR and Harry's ratio increases to 46%.

Click to expand...

I don't get why you would focus on this country though, aside from the fact Roy's is massively hampered by the fact he has a 15% win ratio at Bristol City, when the bank pulled the plug on him as caretaker manager and all the players were walking out on the club.

As England manager you're not going to be playing English clubs only. You're going to be playing a multitude of nations with differing football backgrounds and ethos'. Surely it would be more beneficial to have managers that have more experience of how the opposition prefer to play, how they set up, how they train, what their strong points are. Having your experience limited to your own country as opposed to the opposition doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

If you want to do a comparison between the two, the closest you'll get is West Ham v Fulham, as both are small clubs with similar ambition, whom both managed for a good period of time for a fair assessment.

But I still don't get just looking at just parts of peoples career's as a comparative work, you're denying yourself all the information?

Let's take aside the fact I just don't like Harry, and look at him objectively.

I don't think Harry is a terrible manager, but he is very heavily reliant on having massive resources at his disposal, Portsmouth, Tottenham & QPR being prime examples. At West Ham, he was very fortunate that the Youth Team manager (His name escapes me - ESB??) produced one of the best production lines of young players of our generation. He's not this astute wheeler dealer type he's made out to be, he spends a lot of money on a lot of players and relies heavily on players at the ends of their career, and foreign players too. That sort of managerial style will not fit the national side. He can't just go out and buy another two or three players in the hope one will work. He can't rely heavily on the old guard as the nation will not progress, and the manager after will suffer the consequences - Portsmouth, Southampton.

Compare that to Roy's measured, patient, studious approach, using a huge wealth of knowledge garnered from across the Europe (Harry's never ventured outside London or the South Coast). He's had previous of changing and improving a nations footballing philosphy as well (Sweden) no rush job. He's had experience working with and excelling with limited resources as well, which sadly as a nation is where we find ourselves. Look at what he's done, he's introduced a new style of play, a side that attacks and adopts the philosophy of successful European managers, a style that most of our players are now used to playing thanks to the likes of Mourinho, Mancini etc. He's bringing in youth, and used the Costa Rica game to show that rushing them all in at the same time would be counter productive, to halt that plan half way through would be such folly, and I really don't want the national side to adopt this knee jerk philosophy the Premier League now has to managers, or we'll never progress.

Blue_Wes said:

At West Ham, he was very fortunate that the Youth Team manager (His name escapes me - ESB??) produced one of the best production lines of young players of our generation.

Click to expand...

Carr. But then, Redknapp's never been one to particularly respect the people he's worked for or with.

i am not a hodgson fan,but i expect in 2 years time we will be feeling &talking about the same things(sadly)..but if i had to choose between Harry & roy, it would be Roy everytime..i really believe, this day & age, if you have experienced managing abroad(more the better),then you learn a lot of different ideas..but as i wrote before,Hodgson is the best of a bad bunch