Quote:
Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf
Most managers play with what they have, if they have lasted as long as Hodgson has it is because they have adapted to a game that has changed over the last 20 years.
He obviously had to play a style with Fulham that was different than one he could play with a higher pool of talent and pay structure. I am not saying he is Mourinho or anything, but give him a chance with a better quality team. As Rube said Spurs have done fine with an English manager and it was criticized when they hired him.
if people don't like Hodgson who did they want?
|
He plays the same brand of football everywhere. Extremely cautious, attacking sparingly.
Now if you look at his 20 year career, you'll quickly see a pattern that he consistently has a large amount of draws at each and every club.
There's a difference between Redknapp and Hodgson. Redknapp spends to get his teams to where they are. There is no arguing that. Hodgson hasn't and can't here.
Redknapp wasn't a manager du jour such as Hodgson. Redknapp showed he could win, and as I said the owners paid for that. His winning percentage at Pompey was in around 47%. Hodgson's at Fulham is under 40%, Blackburn was 35%. His best ever tenure was a midtable Inter club where he was at 44% and this was almost 15 years ago.
His English record doesn't suggest much, he's being hired for that Europa League run, which is the only thing he's achieved in Europe. His domestic success is not good at all, unless you want to look at Scandanavia...