Like many football fans across the country I was shocked to read on Sunday night that Roy Hodgson had been approached about the vacant England manager's position.

And that is not because Roy Hodgson doesn't have the credentials to manage England. He has taken an average bunch of players, at West Brom and Fulham, and got them to over perform. It hardly differs from the job description he will have when he takes over from Fabio Capello.

The news shocked me because it seemed Harry Redknapp was the obvious choice. The England side needed a lift. Following the Capello debacle, the job was crying out for a good man-manager. Someone who could handle the inflated egos and get them to perform. It would have been a breath of fresh air from Capello, who seemed to just mumble threats in broken English and constantly change his mind about who he wanted as captain.

Redknapp had been given the backing of practically everyone. The England players Wayne Rooney and Rio Ferdinand had publicly offered their support for his appointment, along with Sir Alex Ferguson and Alan Pardew. More to the point he had the backing of the national press, which like it or not, is half the battle. And of course that is obviously not; Brian Woolnough, Oliver Kay and Shaun Custis shouldn’t have the influence they have, but unfortunately they do. That aside, when you consider that FA board member Phil Gartside said Redknapp would make an "outstanding England manager" 10 days before it was announced Hodgson would be approached, you are left to wonder what the FA's four-man panel tasked with finding Capello's successor saw they everyone else didn't?

Redknapp has guided Tottenham Hotspurs from the relegation zone to a top five side in the space of four years. If you compare that to how Roy Hodgson did at Liverpool, it is startling. You could argue that the two situations were very similar. Both managers took over high profile, but under-performing, clubs and were asked to turn around their fortunes with a bit of a cash. Hodgson failed in five months and got sacked. His negative style of play didn't fit a side, who certainly at Anfield, needed to attack and win games. I don't think it will fit England at Wembley either. Redknapp on the other hand is still succeeding at Spurs. In fact he has succeeded, Southampton FC aside, at every club he has been at. Supporters of Roy will argue against this and say that he is better than Redknapp, because he has international experience having guided Switzerland to the quarter-finals of the World Cup in 1994. But that is Switzerland. They are pleased with a quarter-final place in the World Cup. England, not so much. Remember the outcry from fans when Eriksson's England lost 2-1 to Brazil in the last eight of 2002 World Cup?

I suspect the reason the FA chose Roy had more to do with finances. It would have cost £10 million to get Redknapp out of his contract and he would have demanded a higher wage. Roy, on the other hand, hasn't even been offered a new deal by West Brom so comes free.

The FA has to save money in these times of austerity. They over spent on Capello and went way over budget on the new Wembley stadium. It his hardly surprising that when the country currently heads into a double-dip recession that the FA have chosen the cheapest option. And I will add that it is not the worse appointment they could have made. They could have offered some foreign manager, who can only speak a few words of English, six million a year to run the side.