British Tabloids- England’s Worst Fans?
There has been one recurring theme over the last two days since the FA made it clear that they were approaching Roy Hodgson to become the new England manager- surprise. This has been conveyed by practically all of the newspapers and online media, and in truth it is part of an underhand PR campaign.
Nowhere is this more apparent than within sections of the tabloid press, who are intent upon emphasising how Hodgson is not the ‘fans' favourite’ for the job. Frankly this is lazy, presumptuous journalism- pure and simple.
The only way that Harry Redknapp was the heir apparent to Fabio Capello, was in the eyes of various journalists who have long campaigned for him to be the next England manager. In comparison, what fans have actually thought about the situation hasn’t appeared so narrow-minded.
During our own poll on the matter not one respondent sided with the supposed ‘favourite’, instead Martin O’Neil garnered the most votes overall. As it turned out Hodgson also failed to gather a vote, therefore it may be fair to suggest that opinions on Capello’s succession were varied rather than common.
The last three months have gone on to provide more and more stories, where the same journalists have sat on their laurels and acted as campaign managers for a man they had long assumed would certify their own foresight. All of which has brought us to the current situation, where the press reactions to Hodgson have varied from positively muted to barely concealed abusiveness.
The fact is that the FA does appear to have made a bold move in deciding upon a man who has a varied and mostly successful CV. People should realise that he has won various league titles throughout Scandinavia, been in charge of Inter Milan, and taken charge of three national teams already (Switzerland, U.A.E and Finland).
The evidence is readily available for anyone to source, and to come to the conclusion that this is a manager who has triumphed with ten times the number of honours that Redknapp has. And yet as far as press reaction has gone, there has been much more attention given to the 191 days he spent in charge of Liverpool, following Rafa Benitez.
Hodgson’s time there may not have been a success, but clearly the club is a work in progress- especially when you view the league form of Liverpool this season. When looking at it objectively, a lot of what has been said about Hodgson in the last few days is based upon selective memories over his achievements and record in management.
Compare all of this with Redknapp, who has been given an incredibly easy time by the press. He still only has one major honour to his managerial name (the 2008 FA Cup), and on the very day that Capello resigned- he walked away from a court case that had asked serious questions about his judgement.
I certainly don’t question that the Tottenham manager deserved to be on the FA’s (closely guarded) shortlist. I would actually go further and suggest that he should have been given the courtesy of an interview. In doing so, the FA could then have resisted the inevitable charges levelled at them of having not properly vetted any other candidates.
Mr Redknapp may well have made a decent attempt at the England job, but trying to pretend that his missing out is as tragic as when Brian Clough did, is wildly inaccurate. With the decision made, certain sections of the press must now stop acting with such a high regard for their own opinions, and rather begin treating Roy Hodgson more fairly.
If you search for the latest copies of The Sun and The Daily Mail, there can be no disguising that they are already damning Hodgson with disparaging comments, conjured up through a poor grasp of what constitutes ‘wit’.
The Sun have focused on an apparent speech impediment, something that I honestly had not picked up on. Perhaps it is down to me not having a default setting where I seek to belittle anyone who is slightly different (after all, diversity is a positive thing isn't it?).
Going with a different tack, the Daily Mail have churned out an article that is basically a series of photos which apparently confirm a likeness between the new England manager and an owl. Seriously, they have actually printed that- an insult to the tree that was felled for the cause.
This is tiresome, humour-less stuff, and one waits with bated breath to see how long it is before these particular tabloids turn nasty- at the moment they simply think they are being playful. Do not be fooled though, these petty agendas all come back to the fact that they called it wrong when appointing Redknapp.
Genuine fans of the national team should be concerned that such institutions claim to be likewise; actually they are nothing of the sort. If they really are then they will get behind the appointment of Hodgson, give him time, and forget their ulterior motives.
Nowhere is this more apparent than within sections of the tabloid press, who are intent upon emphasising how Hodgson is not the ‘fans' favourite’ for the job. Frankly this is lazy, presumptuous journalism- pure and simple.
The only way that Harry Redknapp was the heir apparent to Fabio Capello, was in the eyes of various journalists who have long campaigned for him to be the next England manager. In comparison, what fans have actually thought about the situation hasn’t appeared so narrow-minded.
During our own poll on the matter not one respondent sided with the supposed ‘favourite’, instead Martin O’Neil garnered the most votes overall. As it turned out Hodgson also failed to gather a vote, therefore it may be fair to suggest that opinions on Capello’s succession were varied rather than common.
The last three months have gone on to provide more and more stories, where the same journalists have sat on their laurels and acted as campaign managers for a man they had long assumed would certify their own foresight. All of which has brought us to the current situation, where the press reactions to Hodgson have varied from positively muted to barely concealed abusiveness.
The fact is that the FA does appear to have made a bold move in deciding upon a man who has a varied and mostly successful CV. People should realise that he has won various league titles throughout Scandinavia, been in charge of Inter Milan, and taken charge of three national teams already (Switzerland, U.A.E and Finland).
The evidence is readily available for anyone to source, and to come to the conclusion that this is a manager who has triumphed with ten times the number of honours that Redknapp has. And yet as far as press reaction has gone, there has been much more attention given to the 191 days he spent in charge of Liverpool, following Rafa Benitez.
Hodgson’s time there may not have been a success, but clearly the club is a work in progress- especially when you view the league form of Liverpool this season. When looking at it objectively, a lot of what has been said about Hodgson in the last few days is based upon selective memories over his achievements and record in management.
Compare all of this with Redknapp, who has been given an incredibly easy time by the press. He still only has one major honour to his managerial name (the 2008 FA Cup), and on the very day that Capello resigned- he walked away from a court case that had asked serious questions about his judgement.
I certainly don’t question that the Tottenham manager deserved to be on the FA’s (closely guarded) shortlist. I would actually go further and suggest that he should have been given the courtesy of an interview. In doing so, the FA could then have resisted the inevitable charges levelled at them of having not properly vetted any other candidates.
Mr Redknapp may well have made a decent attempt at the England job, but trying to pretend that his missing out is as tragic as when Brian Clough did, is wildly inaccurate. With the decision made, certain sections of the press must now stop acting with such a high regard for their own opinions, and rather begin treating Roy Hodgson more fairly.
If you search for the latest copies of The Sun and The Daily Mail, there can be no disguising that they are already damning Hodgson with disparaging comments, conjured up through a poor grasp of what constitutes ‘wit’.
The Sun have focused on an apparent speech impediment, something that I honestly had not picked up on. Perhaps it is down to me not having a default setting where I seek to belittle anyone who is slightly different (after all, diversity is a positive thing isn't it?).
Going with a different tack, the Daily Mail have churned out an article that is basically a series of photos which apparently confirm a likeness between the new England manager and an owl. Seriously, they have actually printed that- an insult to the tree that was felled for the cause.
This is tiresome, humour-less stuff, and one waits with bated breath to see how long it is before these particular tabloids turn nasty- at the moment they simply think they are being playful. Do not be fooled though, these petty agendas all come back to the fact that they called it wrong when appointing Redknapp.
Genuine fans of the national team should be concerned that such institutions claim to be likewise; actually they are nothing of the sort. If they really are then they will get behind the appointment of Hodgson, give him time, and forget their ulterior motives.
Comments