Football 2009/10 Season continues

[chand]

Was listening to the radio before and Brian Reade was going on about how Hodgson is such a great appointment because he has vast experience of the Premier League, which isn't all that true really; he's managed in the PL for a whopping four seasons in his career, fewer than Benitez had! And one of his four seasons (the one at Blackburn) was widely considered an enormous failure.

I think he'll do alright although how far he can take that squad I dunno, competition for the top four is likely to be even stronger this season than it was last.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Whipping an average squad to overperform on a budget? Sounds like the right guy for the job!

Hodgson made a number of sensible buys like Duff, Schwarzer, Murphy and Hangeland (that was Woy, wannit?) that added and improved their squad for little cost. He also found a way to get Gera and Dempsey to contribute. Liverpool is a different kettle of fish, but Hodgson did a great job with what he had, so Liverpool fans have reason to be cautiously optimistic. If he gets the best out of the team, and keeps his star players they have it in them to qualify for the Champions League again, and with a few astute signings (it's amazing how not having much cash can actually stop you wasting it- I bet Roy could've found Liverpool a more useful and fit midfielder for Liverpool than Aquilani for a quarter of the price), they aren't far away from being a top European side.

[chand]

Hodgson made a number of sensible buys like Duff, Schwarzer, Murphy and Hangeland (that was Woy, wannit?) that added and improved their squad for little cost.

Murphy was signed by Lawrie Sanchez the summer before Hodgson arrived, someone must have told Sanchez that Murphy played for Northern Ireland. I'd say Schwarzer, while a good signing, was something of a no-brainer since Niemi had to retire, Kasey Keller had gone back to the States, and Schwarzer was an out-of-contract PL keeper looking for a move. The rest were good buys, although spunking £10.5m on Andy Johnson was a bit of a fuck-up, and signing 90-year-old Jari Litmanen who never played was an odd one.

[rudi]

The word is that he only has £15m to spend which sounds awful but that assumes no one will leave, I suppose. If he gaets to keep any Stevie M$e, Torres or Macherano money it starts to look a little more doable I suppose.



Anyway, I think we're as into talk of the season to come as it's possible to get so, before all the signings kick off, I think I'll start a new thread if that's OK?

Any obections...? 5, 4, 3... no? Smashing.

[Geraint]

Seems a really sensible appointment - he's already proven himself in the transfer market without spending mega-money, and more importantly he's shown he can get consistently good premier league performances out of average players like Aaron Hughes, Chris Baird and Dickson Etuhu. Without a change of ownership, 'success' for Liverpool in the next few years is staying within reasonable distance of 4th place and having some good cup runs. Chances are that they'll lose at least one of their current 'stars' so the paper-thin squad becomes an even bigger issue (and Benayoun has now joined Chelsea so even some of the better backup is off) so you need someone that can pick up a Hangeland on the cheap or somehow push on Lucas to the player he was hyped as a few years back.

I'm a bit baffled as to how a manager as well travelled, successful and internationally respected as Hodgson could be less attractive a hire then Kenny Dalglish, who hasn't worked as a manager in almost exactly a decade, and hadn't even been coaching in that time until a year ago tomorrow. Surely Keegan showed that you can't spend half that time out of football and come back hitting the ground running? His record was hugely mixed too - he's never managed a club that weren't already successful when he took over, and he's never taken a job without money to spend. His time at Newcastle was a dismal failure, inheriting a decent squad that only needed a bit of defensive strengthening to be a superb one. Instead he signed his idiot son and actually played him in real match situations, as well as £3.5m on Stephane Gui'varch (!).

[thehungerartist]

I'm a bit baffled as to how a manager as well travelled, successful and internationally respected as Hodgson could be less attractive a hire then Kenny Dalglish, who hasn't worked as a manager in almost exactly a decade, and hadn't even been coaching in that time until a year ago tomorrow. Surely Keegan showed that you can't spend half that time out of football and come back hitting the ground running? His record was hugely mixed too - he's never managed a club that weren't already successful when he took over, and he's never taken a job without money to spend. His time at Newcastle was a dismal failure, inheriting a decent squad that only needed a bit of defensive strengthening to be a superb one. Instead he signed his idiot son and actually played him in real match situations, as well as £3.5m on Stephane Gui'varch (!).

The reason I and many others favoured a heart over head appointment is that - if the stories coming out of the club are to be believed - then it won't make a blind bit of difference who is coaching the team as over the next few years the club will be stripped to ensure the owners pick up every last cent and maximize profit from their 'investment'.  As such,  I'd rather have someone at the helm who cares about the future of the club, rather than its pretty hopeless present.

My dissatisfaction has nothing to with a delusionary clamour for a Mourinho/Capello-style trophy manager, or misplaced snobbery that Hodgson is not good enough for LFC - I'd have even been happier with Alex McLeish or Phil fucking Thompson - it's because I'm worried this is a political appointment.  For all his flaws as a manager (many of which were exposed last season), Benitez fought his damnedest to prevent the asset strippers from going about their business in peace which, contrary to what may be printed by certain journalists, was the primary reason he was dismissed.  Make no mistake, there is/was still huge support for him on Merseyside.

As for the football itself: Hodsgon has a grand total of 9 away wins in his last three full seasons in the Premier League so, as a supporter of a team which was woeful on the road last year, forgive me if I decide to keep the champagne on ice.  I'd go into his transfer history too but since he won't have any actual money to spend that would be fruitless.

[phes]

As for the football itself: Hodsgon has a grand total of 9 away wins in his last three full seasons in the Premier League so, as a supporter of a team which was woeful on the road last year, forgive me if I decide to keep the champagne on ice

.

Worth noting that Fulham's away record has long been terrible, with 3/2/5/4/1/1 being the number of away wins they'd taken in the years leading up to his appointment. So you can at least say he improved on their woeful previous two years and stabalised them a little. A lot of friends have commented on how poor Fulham's supporters have been vocally, both at home and away and that can't help.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Nice of Geraint to crowbar in his Keegan bigotry despite it being only very tenuously connected to what he was saying.

Of course Keegan's mixed record of actually doing a great job (so he had money? so did the other title challengers didn't they?), and Bobby Robson's record of actually doing a great job are but mere deflections from the obvious failures that they were....

Funny how you're prepared to bring out any caveat going to defend Allardyce's appalling tenure in charge, yet Keegan and Bobby Robson's every flaw is dissected by you as if they carry overriding importance to your proxy-reality that they were somehow shite. Newsflash: no they weren't, you perverse man.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I'd have even been happier with Alex McLeish or Phil fucking Thompson

Hahaha. Oh, this is classic.

[thehungerartist]

People have short (or perhaps selective?) memories - Hodgson might be flavour of the month at the moment but the knives will be out for him just like they were for Robson.  Then, later, the revisionism.

Hahaha. Oh, this is classic.

Er... you do realise I wasn't being entirely serious there, right?  Who LFC appoint as manager is incidental.  The only provisos being don't kick up a fuss and go running to the press when transfer budgets vanish (as happened last summer) and when players are bought/sold by the managing director without consultation (as is happening this summer).

[chand]

.

Worth noting that Fulham's away record has long been terrible, with 3/2/5/4/1/1 being the number of away wins they'd taken in the years leading up to his appointment. So you can at least say he improved on their woeful previous two years and stabalised them a little. A lot of friends have commented on how poor Fulham's supporters have been vocally, both at home and away and that can't help.

It was one away win last season, and it came on the opening day. At a Portsmouth side who were meeting each other for the first time. I suppose you could argue that they gave up on the league to concentrate on the Europa. He certainly improved on the hilarious mess Lawrie "let's buy the Northern Ireland team" Sanchez made, but in league terms, the only thing that really marks Hodgson's tenure as better than Coleman's mid-table years in charge was their 7th-place finish in 08-09, a season of complete mediocrity outside the top four where a surprisingly low 53 points was good enough for 7th (10 points fewer than last season), largely because of Spurs' early-season implosion. A yawnsome West Ham team were only two points behind.

[Geraint]

Nice of Geraint to crowbar in his Keegan bigotry despite it being only very tenuously connected to what he was saying.

Of course Keegan's mixed record of actually doing a great job (so he had money? so did the other title challengers didn't they?), and Bobby Robson's record of actually doing a great job are but mere deflections from the obvious failures that they were....

Funny how you're prepared to bring out any caveat going to defend Allardyce's appalling tenure in charge, yet Keegan and Bobby Robson's every flaw is dissected by you as if they carry overriding importance to your proxy-reality that they were somehow shite. Newsflash: no they weren't, you perverse man.

Keegan bigotry :D

I think you're kind of exaggerating the arguments we've had over Newcastle managers to emphasise the points you disagreed with

He's by no means a useless manager, but he's not as good as the jobs he's held and had certain consistent flaws for a top-level guy. Him coming back to the Newcastle job after so long not even watching football matches on the telly (which i assume wasn't the case with Dalglish) clearly didn't help him, and possibly is why the Newcastle board + people like Wise were able to walk all over him when it came to transfers + squad composition. As it happens I think he'd make a fantastic number 2/'head coach' at a big club with a good manager, where he could provide his superb motivational skills and attacking coaching without the media pressure that he's never seemed to enjoy and without his tactical and squad balance issues. He could also work well at a club that actually did the Spanish/Italian 'director of football' thing properly, which Newcastle, Spurs etc all seem to fuck up royally whenever they attempt it.

Bobby Robson was a really good manager, and I doubt i've ever said otherwise. That their tactics revolved too much around utilising Shearer in a certain way towards the end of his career is not a controversial claim.

Alllardyce is a cunt and I hate the man, but he is a competent manager, if overrated while at Bolton. I think this turned into a 'negative vs positive football' debate before and I still stand by saying how stupid it is to value 'playing the right way' so highly before results have turned round. Allardyce didn't get anywhere near enough time to turn results around and 'some of his first signings were shit' is true of Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho, Benitez.... The focus of his signings being defensive shows that he had more of a clue where Newcastle needed improvement than any other modern manager, though obviously the players he chose to do this were 'mixed' to say the least. Even Keegan, challenging for the title with a back four of 3 mediocre Englishmen (that he, admirably, got playing well enough to win England caps) and a Belgian midfielder, spent his mid-season kitty on Faustino Asprilla when he already had 2 of the top 4 or 5 strikers in the league - a deal to get a good crowd at the signing and the first few home games, rather than provide any significant upgrade to the team.

[Geraint]

It was one away win last season, and it came on the opening day. At a Portsmouth side who were meeting each other for the first time. I suppose you could argue that they gave up on the league to concentrate on the Europa. He certainly improved on the hilarious mess Lawrie "let's buy the Northern Ireland team" Sanchez made, but in league terms, the only thing that really marks Hodgson's tenure as better than Coleman's mid-table years in charge was their 7th-place finish in 08-09, a season of complete mediocrity outside the top four where a surprisingly low 53 points was good enough for 7th (10 points fewer than last season), largely because of Spurs' early-season implosion. A yawnsome West Ham team were only two points behind.

Coleman did a really, really good job at Fulham on an incredibly tight budget, and also having to deal with losing his best players in record time when a bigger club showed even the slightest interest (Malbranque, Van Der Sar, Saha etc). That he kept them up, including some decent mid-table seasons, in his first job was a hell of a feat, one that everyone's forgotten about because he's done so little of note in his subsequent jobs.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I agree with the Coleman comments, but he had too much of a bunker mentality by the end to develop them, sadly.

I don't get how Keegan is criticised for returning when Allardyce's tenure lasted a short time and he's criticized for not having enough time to turn the results around. He wasn't sacked solely for the results anyway, he was sacked for our appalling appalling performances on the pitch. Shapeless, no attacking pattern, and a shit defence. He didn't add anything to our defence except more dross, and took away our attacking threat that kept us in games to get points.

I really don't see how Keegan deserves this criticism. You're searching for something to throw at him but the reality is his results were excellent and most Newcastle fans alive regard his era as the high point in their support of the club. Most of them are also well aware of our failings at the time.

'Oh Faustino Asprilla was a bit of a luxury signing' doesn't quite match up to '4 managers in a season then relegated'.