The England manager issued a stern and foul-mouthed rebuke to his critics following his side’s 1-0 win over Norway on Wednesday. But did any of his claims stand up?

Facts speak for themselves

What Roy said: “I am entitled to [be annoyed], aren’t I? When you have questions like: ‘You had only two shots on target …’ We can’t get rid of the baggage, we can’t change the fact we had a bad World Cup, we can’t play those games against Italy and Uruguay again, but I think you will have to give me the entitlement at least.”

The reality: Of course, Mr Hodgson is perfectly entitled to get annoyed about whatever he wants, be that journalists asking pesky questions, next door’s azaleas encroaching on his garden or the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre. However, it is a little strange to get irked by facts. England did indeed have only two shots on target, one of which was a penalty, the other a toe poke from Danny Welbeck rather easily saved. There’s enough in this world to be irked by without getting upset at numbers.

Laying the blame

What Roy said: “If we had played badly, if a lot of players had had really poor performances, if the quality of our passing and our movement was nothing like I wanted to see and if our defending wasn’t as compact, aggressive and organised as it was for large periods, I would be the first to say so. But I am not going to say it’s not that, just because we had a bad World Cup.”

The reality: The idea of Hodgson fronting up and publicly giving his players what-for should England play badly would be slightly easier to believe if, well, he really ever did that. Observe his comments after the insipid 0-0 draw with Costa Rica at the World Cup, which was England’s only point of a tournament they departed at the first round stage, described by Daniel Taylor on these pages as capping the “bland ignominy” of the campaign:

“We showed today what a good team we can be. I’m disappointed not to finish with the victory, but I don’t think we could have asked for a much better performance. Apart from the first 10 or 12 minutes of the game, I thought we dominated totally, but we didn’t take our goal chances. If we had taken them, it would have been a comfortable victory. We created chances, that’s the important thing. Normally Daniel is so clinical, so I’m not that concerned, I know he’ll take the chances in the future. I thought we were unlucky not to win this game, but I’m pleased to have given the fans something to cheer.”

The reality: Not exactly a Jeremy Kyle-esque “telling it like it is” now, is it?

Are Norway any good?

What Roy said: “You have seen an England team dominate for 45 minutes against a good opponent.”

The reality: Norway are ranked 53 in the world. They started with Joshua King up front, who only sporadically gets into the Blackburn team, and either side of him were Cardiff’s Mats Daehli and Tarik Elyounoussi, who has scored once for Hoffenheim since joining them in 2013. Of course, “good” is a subjective word, but this Norway side were not really crammed with world-beaters, one must admit.

Master of exaggeration

What Roy said: “You have seen us work very hard to create chances, you have seen players get in behind defenders in wide areas and miss crosses and, yes, I am not terribly happy about that. I would have liked the crosses to be a little bit better. I would have liked two of three of those shots to get past the blocking player and whizz past the goal. I would have liked Daniel Sturridge’s magnificent effort, from that wonderful [Raheem Sterling] pass, not to land on the roof of the net.

“I saw a 10-to-15-minute period in the second half when I thought we were nowhere near what I wanted to see. I thought we lost the aggression in our defending and we didn’t attack anywhere near as well. Joe had to make a good save from a corner, and Norway almost scored again from a Gary Cahill back-pass. But we saw a different system then. We changed it around and I saw some very positive moments.

“John Stones, who has played hardly any games recently for Everton, stepped out at right-back and gave a very strong performance and when Chambers came on he did well, too.”

The reality: Stones has indeed played only one game this term, but since he played a full part in pre-season and, perhaps more to the point, everyone else has played only three games, it isn’t as if this is a man clambering back from a lengthy spell on the sidelines while everyone else is well in the swing of things. Encouraging a promising youngster is grand, but exaggerating things doesn’t really help anyone.

Was he watching the same game?

What Roy said: “Henderson and Wilshere, in my book, were excellent. Delph came in to play his first game and showed some very good things going forward and, of course, Sturridge was excellent throughout. All I’m saying is I want to judge every game as it is.”

The reality: “Excellent” is quite a strong word, particularly as neither man created any chances or scored a goal, but that’s Hodgson’s own judgment. Perhaps more pertinent is the whether it’s worth at this point considering if Hodgson is of the right sensibility for a job of such scrutiny as this. In the wider scheme of things, he has received remarkably little criticism for England’s World Cup campaign, which (and forgive the repetition here) was a shambles, the side departing at the first round stage while gaining only a single point. One point. Being England manager is often described as the impossible job, because of the attention on it and the expectations placed upon both side and coach, but expecting a slightly better showing at an international tournament and more than a couple of shots on goal in a friendly is not asking for the moon on a stick.

Some will no doubt overreact, and a few very much have done, but Hodgson seemed to be bristling from the very start of his post-match press conference on Wednesday, entering his appointment with the media in an almost confrontational manner, so it therefore probably wasn’t a huge surprise that he reacted in such a way to a series of relatively innocuous questions/journalists pointing out facts. Nobody has grafted Hodgson’s face on to a root vegetable, nobody has come up with an amusing rhyming nickname about his rain-absorption prevention preferences, nobody has called into question his commitment to the cause. If Hodgson reacts like that to such a comparatively harmless inquisition, what’s going to happen if things get really bad?

Crowds don’t lie

What Roy said: “Welbeck came on and showed his potential, so there were a lot of good things but the bottom line is this: before the World Cup, with all the euphoria, we were getting 75,000 people to see us play Peru. Now we have 40,000 to see us play against a much more difficult opponent.”

The reality: With apologies for falling back on the ol’ rankings again, Peru are 52nd, Norway are 53rd.

Oh Roy

What Roy said: “I can’t put that right because I can’t turn the clock back, but what I can do is analyse what I have seen and judge that through my eyes and not because someone is telling me: ‘Well, you had only two shots at goal’ because, for me, that is absolute fucking bollocks, I’m sorry.”

The reality: Actually, we could falsely moralise all day about the appropriateness of a man in Hodgson’s position using such post-9pm language, or wonder about his professionalism or temper, but we’ll give you this one. After all, everyone likes a good swear.