Redknapp on the FA, England job and Hodgson

BaZ87

BaZ87

BaZ87

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
47,366
The thread on Glenn Hoddle's appointment at the FA reminded me to post this. The other day an extract from Redknapp's autobiography was published in the Mail. It covered the whole England job situation where he talks very openly and although we're going to get people slaughtering him simply because he's Harry Redknapp, I thought he's spot on with a lot of what he says.

A few of the key points taken from the extract:

- The FA wouldn’t know a good manager if their lives depended on it
- England are painful to watch, they just don’t have an identity
- Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard both wanted me to get the job
- Brendan Rodgers was ready to be my No 2. We’d get England passing again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...decent-England-manager-lives-depended-it.html

In what world was David Bernstein the most suitable person to appoint the next England manager? Redknapp doesn't go as far as to directly say Hodgson got the job because he's a yes man but I think it's safe to say that Hodgson got the job more because of the type of character rather than manager he is/was. It was a very similar situation when Hodgson got the Liverpool job. He was appointed by a banker wanting somebody to toe the party line.

I also think it's fair to say that Redknapp's spot on about the state of the England side. The standard of football currently being played by England is a joke and like Redknapp says the national side has lacked any sort of direction since the days of Hoddle. Even when we had a bit of success (success being used very loosely) under Sven & Capello, the team never had any real identity. Both were forever fiddling around with systems and tactics trying to find a way of shoehorning all the big names into the side.
 
Redknapp gets slaughtered because of outbursts like this. ****s off people left, right and centre and it's all done with the aim of making himself look better at the expense of someone else just like Hodgson did at Liverpool.

In 30 odd years of management he's basically won an FA Cup, which is more or less the same level of success Hodgson, and in no way was he ever the right man for the job despite believing his own hype.

As for the managers we've had, I'd take Capello back over every single one of them bar Ramsey.

The only thing I'd agree with is England are painful to watch but they have been since Venables was manager in 96.
 
Ignore the "I'm ****ed off at not getting the England job" part of what he's saying and read what he says about the FA, why Hodgson was appointed and the state of the side. It's all true.

What qualifies David Bernstein to appoint the England manager? The FA board shouldn't be made up of bankers and media men. There should be ex players and managers on the board and their role should be to make these footballing decisions, not an accountant or ex BBC employee.

Hodgson was appointed because he wasn't going to cause any controversy. He wasn't going to question the FA (like Capello did with the Terry situation), there wasn't going to be any tax evasion cases and very simply he would be the FA's yes man.

Capello was a very good manager however could you say what England's style or identity was under him? I'm not sure I could. As an International manager I'm sure it's difficult to input an overall philosophy on a side when there's not a huge pool of players to choose from (you obviously can't buy & sell players to fit your needs) and the players you have available are changing every time the side meets up however I don't think Capello even tried. He introduced some discipline into the side but other than that he was a game by game manager, picking the squad or team for that game with no long term vision.
 
Redknapp missed the part where he said he was a self involved, self important ******** who is always out for number one and whose self belief is only matched by his self delusion.

Or is that another part of the book?
 
He had a good job at Spurs, a club that backed him through his legal troubles, but decided to flirt with the FA instead. Now he's managing in the Championship.

I'll take anything he says with a massive pinch of salt.
 
I didn't want this to become a debate on Redknapp personally, more what he said on the FA and the state of the England side.
 
FA are run by idiots, sure, they were considering Redknapp, they were idiots to do so. England don't need an identity they need better players. As for passing, England were actually beginning to play well a while back, mostly when Rooney was out when we played Wilshire(before he got injured) Lampard and Parker, the team actually had some strength and some passing ability and attacking drive.

Carrick, crap, half the team is so badly over rated it's a joke. Redknapp would quickly find if he tried a "beautiful passing game" like Barca/Spain, that England trying to play pretty would be torn apart.

I don't for a second thing Redknapp would have played a vastly different team, he'd have picked Carrick, and Walker, and turned the whole thing into a lads weekend away type feel. Thing is Spain play how they play, when a team with half the quality of players tries to play the same way, against crap teams it will work fine, against good teams they will get destroyed. Redknapp is showing what his problem was at Spurs, inability to be consistent, zero tactical awareness, making a team that can attack but can get eaten alive quite often against top teams. England's route with the current quality of player available is NOT the Spain game, they will never have a hope in hell of matching top teams playing football that is beyond the capability of the players we have.


I'm not really sure why you're saying Redknapp is bang on when two of the points are most likely made up (hey, Rio and Rooney phoned me and said they wanted me to be the manager, no really) and Rodgers was lined up as a no.2, really, will be interesting of Rodgers would back that up, international management tends to be(but not always) the end of a career, would Rodgers have given up a better paying prem manager job to be a no.2 to a complete toss pot who didn't have the job?

Isn't it funny that the FA never spoke to Redknapp.... but he had the no.2 lined up ready to go?

The first two are commonly held ideas about the FA being useless... so why are we talking about Redknapp's opinion on the FA. He was completely ready to jump in and take the job if offered, yet says the FA can't choose a manager to save their lives, he was on the shortlist, but they never spoke to him.

Like everything he says, he changes his mind. ALl the newspapers are ripping apart his take on history vs what he said/did at the time. He left Pompie for a different job, his choice, but now years later the owner shoved him out the door and he's the hard done by party who can't understand the fans hating him because it was never his fault. Nothing is his fault when he gets to write history, funny that.

For the record, I bet you multiple players texted any potential candidates to say they want them to be manager... it's called sucking up, they probably texted Roy as well.

Does it matter, should we pick the manager based on who the team likes the best, or who would do the best. In any other industry would higher ups pick the workers best mate to be manager, or someone who would get some work done?
 
Harry the attention seeking moron as always sucking up to his press buddies whilst running football clubs into the ground and linning his dogs bank accounts.

Only to be expected from a man with so little class.
 
drunkenmaster said:
I'm not really sure why you're saying Redknapp is bang on when two of the points are most likely made up (hey, Rio and Rooney phoned me and said they wanted me to be the manager, no really) and Rodgers was lined up as a no.2, really, will be interesting of Rodgers would back that up, international management tends to be(but not always) the end of a career, would Rodgers have given up a better paying prem manager job to be a no.2 to a complete toss pot who didn't have the job?
Click to expand...

I don't care and didn't comment on whether players wanted Redknapp to get the job, whether Rodgers was going to be his number 2 (Redknapp does say it was only going to be for the Euros btw) or generally why Redknapp didn't get the job/whether he should or not. I stole the Mail's bullet points summarising the extract and then discussed the points I agreed with bellow.

With the commission being put together by Greg Dyke, Redknapp's comments on the state of the FA & the England side are relevant. I could have post it in the Glen Hoddle thread but I didn't want to turn that into a 'reasons why I dislike Harry Redknapp' thread.
 
Last edited:
I really don't get why people like Redknapp, sure he comes out with some funny quotes sometimes, but he's just a bit of a ****. He's not really done anything as a manager, other than win an FA cup, which is impressive, but given the people he's accusing of being bad managers have often won a lot more than him, he should really shut his mouth

Can't stand the guy
 
Well he's come out after Hodgson has been named manager and specifically said the FA can't choose a manager to save their life. However naive you want to be he's calling Hodgson incompetent and incapable of managing England.

As for the two points you don't care about, again my point was of the 4 points you listed, 2 are commonly held views by everyone about the FA being rubbish.... these are hardly unique Redknapp views, and the other two are fiction.

Gerrard has come out today and said he did not text Redknapp, as such if Redknapp is simply rewriting history as he's always tended to do, why should anyone care about the other views, which aren't unique to him anyway.

There is no reason to take any of his views seriously, some are completely made up "facts" some are things he isn't the only one saying, he's an undeniable ****.

I simply don't understand the thread, why you posted it or why Redknapp's views were required.

If your question is, why is a non football man choosing the next England manager, I'm struggling to understand where the link to Redknapp is, why a new thread, the link to Redknapp, why post other made up points, the link to Redknapp, what on earth makes the simple question not part of the other thread? He isn't even remotely close to the first person to ask the question.
 
Last edited:
I think it was just a general comment on the fact that we've got accountants, bankers and media men making footballing decisions. He wouldn't be wrong had he said that the FA's recent appointment was a terrible one though.
drunkenmaster said:
I'm struggling to understand where the link to Redknapp is....
Click to expand...

The link to Redknapp is because it's Redknapp who has said these things. As I said to Pigeon, ignore the parts of the extract where Redknapp comes across bitter at not getting the England job and concentrate on what he's saying about the FA and the state of the England side. The point of the thread was to hopefully discuss those points and Redknapp's comments gave a starting point.

I could have put it in the Hoddle thread however that thread was started to discuss the rights and wrongs of Hoddle being employed by the FA after his comments about disabled people. Also as I said, I didn't want to turn that into an I hate Harry Redknapp thread.
 
Moses said:
Who'd you rather have in charge of a major organisation - the ex footballer and manager Kenny Dalglish, or the ex accountant David Gill? :p
Click to expand...

I'd rather have football men making football decisions. Have you bankers and media men to run the business side of things.
 
Well if you listen to that moron on talksport acting the sycophant (Sagers or something?) he was suggesting that Stan ******* Collymore should be on it.

There is no one stupider and more self serving (bar Redknapp) than Collymore. He even suggested Jack Wilshire trololololol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom