I took issue with your use of tangible success because 8 league titles is nothing to be sniffed at. Redknapp by comparison has been managing almost as long and has two league titles to his name, both in England but neither in the top league. He would have been a disaster as England manager, incidentally: if people think Hodgson is a step backwards, then Redknapp would have been positively mediaeval.

You have a case that Hodgson’s actual achievements may not QUALIFY him to be up to the job – Capello for example has top league titles all over Europe – but I believe he’s shown enough at Fulham, West Brom that he can get performances out of a team that are far greater than the sum of its players. And if ever a description suited England…

I have no time for anyone making a call on Hodgson or England after the Euros.

I was at Euro’s and we were dog muck, simple as. no cause for optimism

Do we really truthfully think everything is rosy in the garden then we are in trouble. I go to most England games and this is one of our worst teams

Hodgson formation doesn’t work and we are going backwards , sadly

Secondly , I am a Liverpool supporter I don’t hide that fact. What happened during his spell at LFC was not all of Hodgsons fault but he did make a huge amount of mistakes. If you think he is a good manager who will move English football forward then good for you, I think he will prove to be a disaster, we will see with the passage of time who is proven to be correct

Thirdly look back at the facts , go and analyse the games of WBA , 4-4-2 was the predominant formation, he is a rigid manager tactically and his philosophy on football is from the stone age

As for the accusation that article is anti English because I am Irish. Well it would be frankly ridiculous to be anti English when I support Liverpool, who are an English team , and have a large number of players in Roy’s squads . I would for the record love England to be successful .

That doesn’t deny the author the right to make this argument, but it certainly colours the unduly harsh assessment of Hodgson’s England credentials and performance to date.

At WBA Hodgson used 442, 4231, 4141 and at least once a 433. Do you think it might be possible that he used 442 (or 4411 with Rooney back) with England because it’s a system the players all know, it’s easy to drill and he only had 2 weeks to prepare for the tournament?

Time will tell. I suspect he will surprise us yet, but England fans (including the author above) need to recognise that these players aren’t world beaters. They just aren’t. They can’t play tiki taka and they can’t win a world cup. They just can’t.

Frankly – compared to Sven’s celebs or Schteve’s shower – ‘hard working and hard to beat’ doesn’t sound so bad to me.

Hopefully what Roy will bring is a technical, academic and focused approach to establishing the FA’s coaching academy – one that follows the Italian model of coaching the coaches to bring success. (There’s a reason Italian coaches are dominating the club and international scene right now). Then, maybe, 10 to 15 years later we might have brought through a crop of world beating youngsters based on the efforts of those coaches. Maybe.

to say Hodgson “has little or no tangible success” to point to is to disregard his eight league titles with various Scandanavian teams. What isn’t tangible about that?

With regard to England at the Euros, Hodgson inherited a team built around Capello’s formula, then desecrated by injuries, and had 5/6 weeks to make any sort of impact. He’s not a miracle worker, and England don’t have miracle players. The Euros weren’t the time (nor did we have the squad) to begin an entirely new set of tactics.

I’m interested in Hodgson on how he can develop a side of young players with no underachiever monkeys on their backs who have the confidence to play to their individual strengths but also tactically can carry out a gameplan. It’s going to take time, however., beyond the 2014 WC.