This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/sep/07/roy-hodgson-england-switzerland-passion

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Roy Hodgson has shown his angry side but can England prove their passion? Roy Hodgson has shown his angry side but can England prove their passion?
(about 17 hours later)
Roy Hodgson could be found in the Berlin suite of the Radisson reminiscing on an earlier part of his long managerial career when he had been “half-promising my wife I would finish at the age of 60”. Several years on, it is fair to say Sheila is probably entitled to ask her husband what happened. Hodgson will be almost 69 by the time the European Championship comes around in two years and nobody should be too surprised if he follows Sir Bobby Robson and Sir Alex Ferguson as football men who said they would not work into their 70s and did precisely the opposite.Roy Hodgson could be found in the Berlin suite of the Radisson reminiscing on an earlier part of his long managerial career when he had been “half-promising my wife I would finish at the age of 60”. Several years on, it is fair to say Sheila is probably entitled to ask her husband what happened. Hodgson will be almost 69 by the time the European Championship comes around in two years and nobody should be too surprised if he follows Sir Bobby Robson and Sir Alex Ferguson as football men who said they would not work into their 70s and did precisely the opposite.
One of the popular misconceptions about the England manager is that he does not have the same fires burning in him as others in his profession. The word people like to apply is “passion” and his little outburst last week, applying some industrial language to pepper his thoughts about the line of questioning, clearly came as a shock to many people. Yet it should not have.One of the popular misconceptions about the England manager is that he does not have the same fires burning in him as others in his profession. The word people like to apply is “passion” and his little outburst last week, applying some industrial language to pepper his thoughts about the line of questioning, clearly came as a shock to many people. Yet it should not have.
“First of all, I’m not a calm person,” Hodgson said. “I never have been a calm person. As any player who has worked with me would attest, there are always moments of extreme anger and viciousness in my coaching sessions. I’d rather be accused of being a bit over-robust [rather than angry] in response to questions I didn’t agree with.“First of all, I’m not a calm person,” Hodgson said. “I never have been a calm person. As any player who has worked with me would attest, there are always moments of extreme anger and viciousness in my coaching sessions. I’d rather be accused of being a bit over-robust [rather than angry] in response to questions I didn’t agree with.
“But is Roy Hodgson an angry person? Has he got a nasty streak? You wouldn’t have to go too far to prove it. The players would come out of the woodwork in no time. If I was guilty of anything the other night, it was of protecting players from unfair criticism and standing up for them. But be careful stereotyping me too much as a calm, collected person.”“But is Roy Hodgson an angry person? Has he got a nasty streak? You wouldn’t have to go too far to prove it. The players would come out of the woodwork in no time. If I was guilty of anything the other night, it was of protecting players from unfair criticism and standing up for them. But be careful stereotyping me too much as a calm, collected person.”
Point made. He had learned a lesson, he said, and would no longer swear in press conferences bearing in mind the fuss it could generate. Yet nobody should really be taken aback that a manager occasionally uses a bit of bad language and, surely, there is a more grown-up debate to be had about whether he was actually entitled to be so wound up, and what it said about the state of the England team that he was.Point made. He had learned a lesson, he said, and would no longer swear in press conferences bearing in mind the fuss it could generate. Yet nobody should really be taken aback that a manager occasionally uses a bit of bad language and, surely, there is a more grown-up debate to be had about whether he was actually entitled to be so wound up, and what it said about the state of the England team that he was.
The question that led to it, most people would say, seemed perfectly legitimate. Unless you think it unreasonable to imagine England might have mustered more than two shots on target against such a limited Norway side. And, if so, does that indicate Hodgson’s team have fallen further than we had thought?The question that led to it, most people would say, seemed perfectly legitimate. Unless you think it unreasonable to imagine England might have mustered more than two shots on target against such a limited Norway side. And, if so, does that indicate Hodgson’s team have fallen further than we had thought?
If anything, Hodgson has had a relatively easy ride in the media, with only isolated calls for his removal since the World Cup (and the only really difficult moment so far in Basel coming when the Daily Star’s correspondent leant against a light switch and unwittingly plunged a televised press conference into darkness).If anything, Hodgson has had a relatively easy ride in the media, with only isolated calls for his removal since the World Cup (and the only really difficult moment so far in Basel coming when the Daily Star’s correspondent leant against a light switch and unwittingly plunged a televised press conference into darkness).
It is clear, however, that the mood is threatening to turn, among the public and in the press box. Before the World Cup, he was “Roy” to the average man on the street; post-Brazil, he has reverted to being “Hodgson”. He has detected it himself – a “slight swing in popularity” was his description – and it is he, more than anyone, who needs a good result against Switzerland on Monday night. He needs it, to put it bluntly, to get everyone off his back.It is clear, however, that the mood is threatening to turn, among the public and in the press box. Before the World Cup, he was “Roy” to the average man on the street; post-Brazil, he has reverted to being “Hodgson”. He has detected it himself – a “slight swing in popularity” was his description – and it is he, more than anyone, who needs a good result against Switzerland on Monday night. He needs it, to put it bluntly, to get everyone off his back.
The alternative would turn the volume even higher but, barring a calamity, losing in Basel would not be a grievous setback for England, now with injury issues surrounding Jordan Henderson and having already lost Daniel Sturridge. Not when the other teams in England’s group are so moderate and a third-place finish could still be enough to qualify via the play-offs.The alternative would turn the volume even higher but, barring a calamity, losing in Basel would not be a grievous setback for England, now with injury issues surrounding Jordan Henderson and having already lost Daniel Sturridge. Not when the other teams in England’s group are so moderate and a third-place finish could still be enough to qualify via the play-offs.
“If the result costs us, we have to make sure we learn from losing the battle and win the war,” Hodgson said. Yet a war in football terms against San Marino, Lithuania and Estonia could probably be decided with a peashooter and Hodgson, thankfully, has not lapsed into the no-easy-games-in-international-football cliches that are usually trotted out in these times. It was a “relatively easy” group, and it was noticeable how he talked about “when” rather than “if” England qualified. This is as close to a formality as England could ever have dared to hope.“If the result costs us, we have to make sure we learn from losing the battle and win the war,” Hodgson said. Yet a war in football terms against San Marino, Lithuania and Estonia could probably be decided with a peashooter and Hodgson, thankfully, has not lapsed into the no-easy-games-in-international-football cliches that are usually trotted out in these times. It was a “relatively easy” group, and it was noticeable how he talked about “when” rather than “if” England qualified. This is as close to a formality as England could ever have dared to hope.
At Wembley on Wednesday, Hodgson had talked about having to adopt Norway’s tactics and everyone knew what he meant after an evening when the Scandinavian side had barely ventured out of their own half.At Wembley on Wednesday, Hodgson had talked about having to adopt Norway’s tactics and everyone knew what he meant after an evening when the Scandinavian side had barely ventured out of their own half.
Four days on, it was mildly encouraging to find Hodgson sounding more emboldened. “Is it enough to come here and play 10 behind the ball and sneak a 0-0? No, I’d say it isn’t. We have to play well and do well here.”Four days on, it was mildly encouraging to find Hodgson sounding more emboldened. “Is it enough to come here and play 10 behind the ball and sneak a 0-0? No, I’d say it isn’t. We have to play well and do well here.”
So not a repeat of the performance in Ukraine during the World Cup qualifiers? “No,” Hodgson said. “In Ukraine our three centre-forwards were all unavailable. We were without Welbeck, Rooney and Sturridge, and Rickie Lambert was the only one available. It was an important World Cup qualifier and if we had lost we would really have been on the back foot. This is different. It’s the first of 10 games and in no way should we be comparing [them].”So not a repeat of the performance in Ukraine during the World Cup qualifiers? “No,” Hodgson said. “In Ukraine our three centre-forwards were all unavailable. We were without Welbeck, Rooney and Sturridge, and Rickie Lambert was the only one available. It was an important World Cup qualifier and if we had lost we would really have been on the back foot. This is different. It’s the first of 10 games and in no way should we be comparing [them].”
A pedant might have pointed out that Hodgson had also promised his side would attack before that prosaic goalless draw in Kiev, memorable for Gary Lineker’s description of it as “football from the Dark Ages”.A pedant might have pointed out that Hodgson had also promised his side would attack before that prosaic goalless draw in Kiev, memorable for Gary Lineker’s description of it as “football from the Dark Ages”.
Hodgson’s eyes had smouldered with anger that night, too. It is not his passion that should be questioned, but whether he can produce a team capable of dispersing some of the negativity.Hodgson’s eyes had smouldered with anger that night, too. It is not his passion that should be questioned, but whether he can produce a team capable of dispersing some of the negativity.
Roy Hodgson could be found in the Berlin suite of the Radisson reminiscing on an earlier part of his long managerial career when he had been “half-promising my wife I would finish at the age of 60”. Several years on, it is fair to say Sheila is probably entitled to ask her husband what happened. Hodgson will be almost 69 by the time the European Championship comes around in two years and nobody should be too surprised if he follows Sir Bobby Robson and Sir Alex Ferguson as football men who said they would not work into their 70s and did precisely the opposite.
One of the popular misconceptions about the England manager is that he does not have the same fires burning in him as others in his profession. The word people like to apply is “passion” and his little outburst last week, applying some industrial language to pepper his thoughts about the line of questioning, clearly came as a shock to many people. Yet it should not have.
“First of all, I’m not a calm person,” Hodgson said. “I never have been a calm person. As any player who has worked with me would attest, there are always moments of extreme anger and viciousness in my coaching sessions. I’d rather be accused of being a bit over-robust [rather than angry] in response to questions I didn’t agree with.
“But is Roy Hodgson an angry person? Has he got a nasty streak? You wouldn’t have to go too far to prove it. The players would come out of the woodwork in no time. If I was guilty of anything the other night, it was of protecting players from unfair criticism and standing up for them. But be careful stereotyping me too much as a calm, collected person.”
Point made. He had learned a lesson, he said, and would no longer swear in press conferences bearing in mind the fuss it could generate. Yet nobody should really be taken aback that a manager occasionally uses a bit of bad language and, surely, there is a more grown-up debate to be had about whether he was actually entitled to be so wound up, and what it said about the state of the England team that he was.
The question that led to it, most people would say, seemed perfectly legitimate. Unless you think it unreasonable to imagine England might have mustered more than two shots on target against such a limited Norway side. And, if so, does that indicate Hodgson’s team have fallen further than we had thought?
If anything, Hodgson has had a relatively easy ride in the media, with only isolated calls for his removal since the World Cup (and the only really difficult moment so far in Basel coming when the Daily Star’s correspondent leant against a light switch and unwittingly plunged a televised press conference into darkness).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy5dTs-Cc1c&feature=youtu.be
It is clear, however, that the mood is threatening to turn, among the public and in the press box. Before the World Cup, he was “Roy” to the average man on the street; post-Brazil, he has reverted to being “Hodgson”. He has detected it himself – a “slight swing in popularity” was his description – and it is he, more than anyone, who needs a good result against Switzerland on Monday night. He needs it, to put it bluntly, to get everyone off his back.
The alternative would turn the volume even higher but, barring a calamity, losing in Basel would not be a grievous setback for England, now with injury issues surrounding Jordan Henderson and having already lost Daniel Sturridge. Not when the other teams in England’s group are so moderate and a third-place finish could still be enough to qualify via the play-offs.
“If the result costs us, we have to make sure we learn from losing the battle and win the war,” Hodgson said. Yet a war in football terms against San Marino, Lithuania and Estonia could probably be decided with a peashooter and Hodgson, thankfully, has not lapsed into the no-easy-games-in-international-football cliches that are usually trotted out in these times. It was a “relatively easy” group, and it was noticeable how he talked about “when” rather than “if” England qualified. This is as close to a formality as England could ever have dared to hope.
At Wembley on Wednesday, Hodgson had talked about having to adopt Norway’s tactics and everyone knew what he meant after an evening when the Scandinavian side had barely ventured out of their own half.
Four days on, it was mildly encouraging to find Hodgson sounding more emboldened. “Is it enough to come here and play 10 behind the ball and sneak a 0-0? No, I’d say it isn’t. We have to play well and do well here.”
So not a repeat of the performance in Ukraine during the World Cup qualifiers? “No,” Hodgson said. “In Ukraine our three centre-forwards were all unavailable. We were without Welbeck, Rooney and Sturridge, and Rickie Lambert was the only one available. It was an important World Cup qualifier and if we had lost we would really have been on the back foot. This is different. It’s the first of 10 games and in no way should we be comparing [them].”
A pedant might have pointed out that Hodgson had also promised his side would attack before that prosaic goalless draw in Kiev, memorable for Gary Lineker’s description of it as “football from the Dark Ages”.
Hodgson’s eyes had smouldered with anger that night, too. It is not his passion that should be questioned, but whether he can produce a team capable of dispersing some of the negativity.