Glen Hoddle

Bassman92 said:
Bit of a random thread but what was the general reaction when Glen Hoddle got the England job?

Before my time so I'm not sure what style of football his teams played or how he was generally perceived but just looking at league tables,it looks like he led Chelsea to three fairly average mid-table/bottom half finishes and next thing you know he was England manager.

I always hear people talking about Hoddle in glowing terms regarding his tactical nous and coaching ability but looking at his managerial career he doesn't seemed to have achieved anything that stands out, but happy to hear otherwise.
Click to expand...

Unreal player, could drop a ball on a ten bob bit from 50 yards.
One of me fave players as a kid, used to try and model me game on him as a boy like.
 


I remember being relieved. Bryan Robson was Venables assistant during Euro 96 and was favourite. He was offered it but turned it down and they went to Hoddle.
 
TopCat said:
Agreed. he played 3 at the back but it was still so rigid. The continental style is to have one of the 3 move into midfield as and when is required. English players were (are) incapable of showing that sort of tactical awareness. Look how Lampard and Gerrard couldn't play together in a 2 for England
Click to expand...

The reason Lampard and Gerrard couldn't play together in a two was because they were both attack-minded midfielders. They were used to playing as advanced midfielders for their clubs.

I remember Lampard commenting on it, saying that you'd go to a World Cup and play Paraguay and end up with four little fellas playing one-twos around you, and both him and Gerrard struggled to break up the play, as neither were used to playing the defensive midfield role, or both would be too far forward and we'd end up being overrun in midfield.

If we'd have played one of them alongside Owen Hargreaves it would have worked, or a three man midfield even but Sven would only play 4-4-2, and tried to shoehorn them both into the side.
 
Last edited:
Teesside_Steve said:
The reason Lampard and Gerrard couldn't play together in a two was because they were both attack-minded midfielders. They were used to playing as advanced midfielders for their clubs.

I remember Lampard commenting on it, saying that you'd go to a World Cup and play Paraguay and end up with four little fellas playing one-twos around you, and both him and Gerrard struggled to break up the play, as neither were used to playing the defensive midfield role, or both would be too far forward and we'd end up being overrun in midfield.

If we'd have played one of them alongside Owen Hargreaves it would have worked, or a three man midfield even but Sven would only play 4-4-2, and tried to shoehorn them both into the side.
Click to expand...
We were always better when at least one of them wasn't availble.
 
Personally I thought he was a great England manager who unfortunately said some very offensive things.

His win record for England is far better than most. Given that we had not qualified for the 94 world cup and in qualifiers we were drawn with Italy, he did well to win the group. We had a little blip in the group stage against Romania and were unlucky(or stupid) to lose to Argentina in the tournament itself. Who knows how far we'd have gone in that tournament if the luck had gone our way.

Then of course there was also the wonderful summer of 97 when we lifted a trophy which included both of the following years world cup finalists.

I honestly think we could have won something in the early 2000's if Biddle had the Golden Generation that Sven had.
 
Teesside_Steve said:
The reason Lampard and Gerrard couldn't play together in a two was because they were both attack-minded midfielders. They were used to playing as advanced midfielders for their clubs.

I remember Lampard commenting on it, saying that you'd go to a World Cup and play Paraguay and end up with four little fellas playing one-twos around you, and both him and Gerrard struggled to break up the play, as neither were used to playing the defensive midfield role, or both would be too far forward and we'd end up being overrun in midfield.

If we'd have played one of them alongside Owen Hargreaves it would have worked, or a three man midfield even but Sven would only play 4-4-2, and tried to shoehorn them both into the side.
Click to expand...
We had Scholes for much of that time too who I probably would have played ahead of either of them rather than shoving him out to the left to accommodate them.
 
Bassman92 said:
Bit of a random thread but what was the general reaction when Glen Hoddle got the England job?

Before my time so I'm not sure what style of football his teams played or how he was generally perceived but just looking at league tables,it looks like he led Chelsea to three fairly average mid-table/bottom half finishes and next thing you know he was England manager.

I always hear people talking about Hoddle in glowing terms regarding his tactical nous and coaching ability but looking at his managerial career he doesn't seemed to have achieved anything that stands out, but happy to hear otherwise.
Click to expand...
He was really good for England should never of been sacked he was very forward thinking he had us playing wingbacks before most teams
TopCat said:
Agreed. he played 3 at the back but it was still so rigid. The continental style is to have one of the 3 move into midfield as and when is required. English players were (are) incapable of showing that sort of tactical awareness. Look how Lampard and Gerrard couldn't play together in a 2 for England
Click to expand...
He had two out and out wingers as wingbacks to be fair , he used to play beckham and Anderton as wingbacks on the right so I can see why the back 3 was so rigid
Le tiissier was a good player but well known for been so lazy and overweight
 
Last edited:
My memory is fading now, but I was gutted when he was forced out as I thought that we were finally getting with the times under hoddle after years of being stuck in 442 and our national high energy game being completely exposed in the summer heat of Brazil etc at every major tournament.
 
Howard the Duck said:
We had Scholes for much of that time too who I probably would have played ahead of either of them rather than shoving him out to the left to accommodate them.
Click to expand...

Looking back I can't understand why we never tried a formation with wing-backs. That way we could have accommodated all 3 midfielders into the side. It also would have solved the issue of not having good options to play wide left - I hated the way Sven used to play Scholes or Joe Cole on the left. I think Beckham would have done a job playing as a wing-back.

............................Robinson.........................

.....Ferdinand.......Terry.....Campbell..........

Beckham...........................................Cole

.....Lampard......Hargreaves..Scholes.....

............................Gerrard......................

.............................Rooney....................
 
Teesside_Steve said:
Looking back I can't understand why we never tried a formation with wing-backs. That way we could have accommodated all 3 midfielders into the side. It also would have solved the issue of not having good options to play wide left - I hated the way Sven used to play Scholes or Joe Cole on the left. I think Beckham would have done a job playing as a wing-back.

............................Robinson.........................

.....Ferdinand.......Terry.....Campbell..........

Beckham...........................................Cole

.....Lampard......Hargreaves..Scholes.....

............................Gerrard......................

.............................Rooney....................
Click to expand...
I think the main crticism of that from supporters would be whether it would be a waste of Beckham. I'm not sure if this is controversial or not but I'd also say that Neville was amongst the best right backs in the game at the time so maybe some would criticise his omission.
 
The Hesford Diet said:
As it turned out, that flattered to deceive. We were deservedly beaten by Romania, and fell asleep for Argentina's equaliser from a well worked free kick, which was every bit as pivotal as Beckham's dismissal for England's exit.
Click to expand...
We played very well for a team with 10 men. We would have been more likely to win had Beckham stayed on
Howard the Duck said:
I think the main crticism of that from supporters would be whether it would be a waste of Beckham. I'm not sure if this is controversial or not but I'd also say that Neville was amongst the best right backs in the game at the time so maybe some would criticise his omission.
Click to expand...
You could pop Neville at wing back and move Beckham into Hargreaves' position there
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
I think the main crticism of that from supporters would be whether it would be a waste of Beckham. I'm not sure if this is controversial or not but I'd also say that Neville was amongst the best right backs in the game at the time so maybe some would criticise his omission.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a tricky one I guess, although i think Beckham could have been more effective as a wing-back. He'd have probably found himself having more time and space to deliver the ball from deeper positions.

I think your point highlights the problem back then though - we had this mentality where it was unthinkable to leave big names out of the team. It was all about shoehorning the biggest names from the biggest clubs into the side regardless of how it affected the balance of the team.

Downing should have had more caps for England, especially being a left winger but he played for Boro so was often overlooked. If he'd have played for one of the big boys he probably would have been one of the first names on the team sheet.
 
Unbelievable player manager for Swindon and took us to the PL.
Unfortunately got his head turned by a better offer from Chelsea and left us within days.
 

Back
Top