Redknapp on the FA, England job and Hodgson

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2013 at 16:57

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.

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2013 at 18:44

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.

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2013 at 20:42

I bet you can't wait to read his reasons for turning the Newcastle job down again

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2013 at 23:40

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.

BaZ87 · 10 Oct 2013 at 12:10

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?

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.

BaZ87 · 10 Oct 2013 at 13:22

Who has he accused of being a bad manager?

BaZ87 · 10 Oct 2013 at 21:57

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....

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.

BaZ87 · 10 Oct 2013 at 22:10

I think we ended up getting one

BaZ87 · 10 Oct 2013 at 23:00

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?

I'd rather have football men making football decisions. Have you bankers and media men to run the business side of things.

BaZ87 · 11 Oct 2013 at 00:04

Moses said:
Why's someone from a football background necessarily better at managing a large organisation than someone from a banking/media/whatever background?

Imo it's somewhat childish to disparagingly refer to Greg Dyke as a 'media man', as though that's terrible. It's not as though he just did a bit of PR for the local bakery... he ran a massive organisation [£5bn revenue/23000 employees/etc] which just so happened to be a media organisation... and has also held board roles at Manyoo and Brentford. He has demonstrable experience in football and managing a massive institution within which there are many, many differing areas.

Where did I suggest that somebody from a footballing background should be running a large organisation or that Greg Dyke shouldn't?

As I said, have your bankers and media guys overseeing the running of the organisation but the major footballing decisions should be taken by people within football who are far more qualified to make these decisions.

It's widely believed that Hodgson was Bernstein's man. You can't tell me that Berstein was the best qualified man to choose the next England manager.

It's good to see that Dyke's setting up a commission, including the likes of Hoddle, to look into improving the national team's fortunes but I'm still a bit sceptical. Will we actually see anything change or is this just a bit of PR? And if and when the time comes to replace Hodgson will he be looking to the likes of Hoddle again or will he pick his own man like Berstein did?