Please be wrong ,please.

Good point VF. Don't get the Hodgson hate tnh. Did an excellent job at WBA and Fulham and won 10 qualifying games on the trot with England. Yes the Euros were terrible but what manager hasn't had a bad spell? Not my first choice but could do worse.

comment by For Fox Sake (U4263)
posted 7 minutes ago
Good point VF. Don't get the Hodgson hate tnh. Did an excellent job at WBA and Fulham and won 10 qualifying games on the trot with England. Yes the Euros were terrible but what manager hasn't had a bad spell? Not my first choice but could do worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, not my first choice either but would not be devastated. At least he knows and understands the premier league.

Whoever it is needs to keep Shakey and leave everything as it is and not try to bring their ideas. He has to understand the capabilities and strengths of these players and if Hodgson does that and leaves shiitt alone then I won't have an issue.

Hodgson has been a pretty average manager in England and for the England national team he was a disaster. He went into a tournament picking injured, or out of form players, over players bang on form. He had no semblance of a game plan and didn't even know what formation to play. He had no idea of his best team and had players out of position and gave them bizarre roles that didn't suit their ability. This indicated more than just a bad spell.

Wherever you sit on the Ranieri sacking one fact is not really in dispute: it was a very strong decision by the owners. Some would say ruthless. It suggested that they have ambitions to not settle for the historic Leicester position of being somewhere around the 20th best team in the country.

The appointment of Hodgson would suggest that they aren't actually that ambitious at all, but are happy to settle for mediocrity. Hodgson is no more than that and some would say that, at seventy, his performances are declining, but he's definitely not a medium or long term option. If it's short termism we want then why don't we give it to Shakespeare and see where we are at the end of the season.

That's why I'm against any appointment of Roy Hodgson!

comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hodgson has been a pretty average manager in England and for the England national team he was a disaster. He went into a tournament picking injured, or out of form players, over players bang on form. He had no semblance of a game plan and didn't even know what formation to play. He had no idea of his best team and had players out of position and gave them bizarre roles that didn't suit their ability. This indicated more than just a bad spell.

Wherever you sit on the Ranieri sacking one fact is not really in dispute: it was a very strong decision by the owners. Some would say ruthless. It suggested that they have ambitions to not settle for the historic Leicester position of being somewhere around the 20th best team in the country.

The appointment of Hodgson would suggest that they aren't actually that ambitious at all, but are happy to settle for mediocrity. Hodgson is no more than that and some would say that, at seventy, his performances are declining, but he's definitely not a medium or long term option. If it's short termism we want then why don't we give it to Shakespeare and see where we are at the end of the season.

That's why I'm against any appointment of Roy Hodgson!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I absolutely agree. This is why I said he'd have to leave everything alone and not try to implement his ideas. This team essentially picks itself anyway.

As they say in Thai 'Sum Num Na',which means serves you right!

comment by blueinbarca (U3426)

posted 38 minutes ago

As they say in Thai 'Sum Num Na',which means serves you right!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you'd know all about that. How is Gary Rowett doing these days?

comment by blueinbarca (U3426)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
As they say in Thai 'Sum Num Na',which means serves you right!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would serve us right for getting rid of a manager who was destroying everything and was taking us down?

Ranieri deserved to go and it was his fault for trying to change everything. He's only got himself to blame for changing our style of play.

I suspect it is wrong, thorney - The bookies just cover themselves if there are a lot of bets and they might lose a lot of money. This is most likely a response to the news of a meeting this week and people seeing an opening in the betting markets.

If we did get Hodgson, it would be an underwhelming hiring. Historically he's not bad, and he beats the likes of Ryan Giggs hands down, but there are some big problems that come with him. Age has been mentioned, the way that he fell apart at two major championships for England (granted with a very strong qualifying campaign in between), and serious concerns over whether he'd be able to impart the attacking, aggressive, energetic style of play that this squad probably needs. He'd be very much a 5/10 kind of signing that would probably provide stagnation but could be a total disaster. Either way, uninspiring.

comment by blueinbarca (U3426)
posted 11 hours, 56 minutes ago
As they say in Thai 'Sum Num Na',which means serves you right!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what if he does a Ranieri and wins the title after failing at international football? Will that "serve them right"?