Deconstruction of the 'people's choice'

England ended months of doubt on Monday as Roy Hodgson was confirmed as the new England manager on a four year deal. 

Instead of backing England's new man, the mainstream media seem to have developed a complex because Hodgson is not Harry Redknapp, dubbed the 'people’s choice'.

When Capello departed, in early February, Redknapp was immediately assigned the role as favourite to replace the Italian, despite little evidence to support his elevation. Redknapp was cleared of tax evasion on the same day as Capello's exit, which sparked debate that these things were 'meant to be'. Now Redknapp was out of court the England job was his to stroll into. 

A comparison of the respective managerial records of the two men is telling:

Redknapp – Won: 518, Drawn: 317, lost: 437, Win percentage: 40.76. League titles: 0, FA Cup Wins: 1, CL Quarter Finals: 1, Premier League Manager of the Year 2009/10

Hodgson – Won: 408, Drawn: 283, lost: 257, Win percentage: 43.04. League titles: 5, Europa League Finals: 1, UEFA Cup Finals: 1, LMA Manager of the Year 2010


The 64-year-old Hodgson has been managing since retiring at 28 and his coaching experience has taken him off to Scandinavia, Internazionale, the Premier League, Finland, the UAE before returning to the Premier League, succeeding at Fulham and West Brom.

Redknapp might boast an FA Cup win with Portsmouth in 2008, but in total the former West Ham player totals more relegations than promotions. The FA Cup victory with Portsmouth is an inflated prize; in winning in 2008 Redknapp spent way above the typical means at Portsmouth and the club entered administration two years later.

The 65-year-old is not solely to blame, but the signing of John Utaka on £50,000 a week was disastrous, with the Nigerian pace-merchant only leaving in January 2011 after scoring 10 in 90.

Both men have almost three decades of managerial experience and are only just gaining wider recognition. Redknapp worked the lower football leagues for years, while Roy learnt his trade in Sweden winning several titles.

In terms of recent success the obvious comparison is Redknapp making it to the last eight of the Champions League with Spurs or Hodgson reaching the Europa League final with Fulham.

Both were impressive, but for a squad of Fulham’s stature and lack of substantial investment, to go all the way to the final in 2009 is an incredible achievement, surpassing getting a very good squad of players to the Champions League quarters.

Hodgson also boast more than 80 games at international level. He guided the Swiss to third place in FIFA’s world rankings in 1994 and came three points from taking Finland to their first ever major competition in 2008.

He was head-hunted to be a UEFA’s chief scout in 1996, and in this role produces dossiers on all the major club sides and national associations in European football, experience that could prove vital this summer.

Compare this with Harry Redknapp’s continental experience and all the media favourite can point to is one game in Europe with Portsmouth and one season in the Champions League with Spurs.

To compare the two is a complete mis-match and begs the question, why was Redknapp so widely tipped as favourite for the head role? What does Redknapp count as an advantage over Hodgson? What evidence is there to confer Redknapp as the 'people's choice'?

The lack of evidence to advance Redknapp as an international manager was glossed over by journalists and former players over the last few weeks, with most resorting to that assertion that Redknapp is a good man-manager.

That these qualities were even deemed important for the next England manager suggests why England are almost decades behind teams on the continent and in the Americas.

Hodgson completely surpasses Redknapp technically; his training drills are infamous for their complexity and duration. By contrast, Redknapp leaves training exercises to a coaching team of Joe Jordan and Kevin Bond and once famously told new-signing Roman Pavlyuchenko to “run around”.

Despite these deficiencies Redknapp was dubbed the ‘people’s favourite’ by the majority of the media and their indignation at being proved wrong by the FA exploded on Monday as Hodgson was finally confirmed.

I could find only one journalist who had positive thoughts on Hodgson’s appointment, from the Telegraph’s Henry Winter, with the rest keen to express outrage that their pal Redknapp was impossibly overlooked.

Redknapp has a reputation for being a good talker, his press conferences and Range Rover interviews would always provide journalists with a ready-made sound bite. He clearly had a closer relationship with the media than Hodgson who only has six years’ experience as a manager in England.

Hodgson has had to endure a torrent of negative articles about his style of play, his lack of man-management (despite none of these people having worked under him) and the pieces conclude with his disappointing six months in charge at Liverpool.

To condemn a man’s entire career based on one six month spell is at best simplistic and at worst a falsehood. Hodgson has tremendous experience and prestige around the footballing world, which is not replicated among the British press

The assumption that Harry Redknapp could come in and make the same old group of players start knocking it about like Real Madrid is a wild presumption. Tottenham played good football this season because of the players they have, not because of Redknapp. 

From a completely rational decision process it is clear that England under Hodgson would be the greatest fit. Hodgson has international experience, gets the best out of his players, is tactically astute and is a great choice to develop the St George's Park project. Redknapp is clearly a good manager, but his acclamation as the 'people's choice' was unwarranted and is to gloss over the superior candidate; one who has won over the Football Association, if not the media.