Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

[liquid_football]

of course it would have mattered if we'd lost. we'd have opened the door a lot wider for Saudi Sportswashing Machine and chelsea for a start and the point today means any win next week will see us finish above arsenal if they don't whereas we'd have had to win by 3 clear goals if we'd lost.

i can guarantee if we'd have thrown men forward and got caught on the break the same people would be saying we should have settled for a point.

The only difference it would have made is that in the case Arsenal drew,we would have to win by 2 goals next sunday.That is all,this point doesnt help us at all

 

[Pirate55]

The only difference it would have made is that in the case Arsenal drew,we would have to win by 2 goals next sunday.That is all,this point doesnt help us at all

Quite right Liquid. In this scenario, the win was everything

 

[noddy1991]

it is 3 goals. had we lost our GD would have been at least 2 goals worse than arsenal and they have scored more goals than us so we'd need to win by 3 to go above them.

as for the 3 games mentioned i wouldn't include the liverpool game. we had a weakish side out that night - the bench was full of kids - and arry wasn't even there.

i'm not really sure a case of not going for it. leaving aside the bolton game all our aways since the arsenal debacle have followed a pretty similar pattern - large spells of spurs possession generally camped in the opposition half and bundles of corners but little in terms of actual clear cut chances. we just struggle desperately to open up massed defences.

 

[Superhudd]

Our problem is simple..

We need more midfield runs beyond Adebayor to cause confusion.

Its absolutley no good passing from wing to wing in an arc all game looking for a mistake. Premier League defences are too good for that brick.

Why not do what Arsenal do, the little chip over like Song does, causes havoc.

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

Disgraceful coaching from Harry. fudging idiot.

This! A thousand times over! We were on top, why try and fix something that wasn't broken!?! That was the most irredeemably stupid managerial decision I have seen in a long time and suggests that Harry doesn't really understand this club at all! What is our motto Audere Est Facere! Not exactly living up to that standard by asking that substitution eh Harry old chum(p)?

 

[spasm]

i don't think we have "forced" arse to go for the win...they tend to try to do it anyway

 

[braineclipse]

it is 3 goals. had we lost our GD would have been at least 2 goals worse than arsenal and they have scored more goals than us so we'd need to win by 3 to go above them.

as for the 3 games mentioned i wouldn't include the liverpool game. we had a weakish side out that night - the bench was full of kids - and arry wasn't even there.

i'm not really sure a case of not going for it. leaving aside the bolton game all our aways since the arsenal debacle have followed a pretty similar pattern - large spells of spurs possession generally camped in the opposition half and bundles of corners but little in terms of actual clear cut chances. we just struggle desperately to open up massed defences.

Good post.

I quite like how a lot of the people complaining about what Harry did aren't able to read a table. Makes their opinions a lot easier to ignore.

 

[Wriggly]

Le Tissier was baffled at Parker coming on and not Defoe.

Maybe he doesnt know anything about football either.

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

Le Tissier was baffled at Parker coming on and not Defoe.

Maybe he doesnt know anything about football either.

No no no Harry is an infallible genius and we should all support other teams if we wish to criticise him or the players! Don't you get it now?

 

[ArcspacE]

It's like Mancini bringing on Nigel de Jong

To settle for draws

I knew this would be brought up against the Arry heretics

Few points

- We do not have a midfielder of Yaya Toure's quality or anything close to it - Sandro is most certainly not that. To rely on him to score the winner based on the assumption it worked for City earlier is a very bizarre logic.

- City play a completely different formation to ours - their fullbacks offer substantial attacking threat and the entire team moves in layers.

- Mancini did that around the 65 minute mark, not 89th.

- If the rotation was the allow Bale to go up again and do his roaming flimflam which prior to Rose's tackle had contributed a grand total of fudge all - then why not bring on a fresh attacking threat instead?

- This tactial genuis of a substiution happened few minutes before the final wistle. It was clear after the 70th minute or so - they'd be happy with a point, sit back and clog it out - so why not shuffle it up right there and then? We needed to win and it was a great opportunity for Defoe to strike a few from distance considering they had packed the box and simply absorbed our endless attempts to walk it into the goal - 37 games later everyone has figured us out.

 

[ArcspacE]

And may I just ask - what if City played only later in the day or they didn't make that substitution at all (i.e. no reference could have been made to Parker's introduction) - what would have been the explanation then?

 

[Lost Mango]

I knew this would be brought up against the Arry heretics

Few points

- We do not have a midfielder of Yaya Toure's quality or anything close to it - Sandro is most certainly not that. To rely on him to score the winner based on the assumption it worked for City earlier is a very bizarre logic.

- City play a completely different formation to ours - their fullbacks offer substantial attacking threat and the entire team moves in layers.

- Mancini did that around the 65 minute mark, not 89th.

- If the rotation was the allow Bale to go up again and do his roaming flimflam which prior to Rose's tackle had contributed a grand total of fudge all - then why not bring on a fresh attacking threat instead?

- This tactial genuis of a substiution happened few minutes before the final wistle. It was clear after the 70th minute or so - they'd be happy with a point, sit back and clog it out - so why not shuffle it up right there and then? We needed to win and it was a great opportunity for Defoe to strike a few from distance considering they had packed the box and simply absorbed our endless attempts to walk it into the goal - 37 games later everyone has figured us out.

- Saudi Sportswashing Machine played an attacking open game where a counter attack was much more of a threat to City than Villa were to us. Villa had settled for a point once we had equalised. Hats off to Mancini for having the cojones to take that risk whereas we adopted the safety first at all cost policy.

 

[Wriggly]

That's why we will always be that 'nearly' team. We have management in place that are happy with not winning.

 

[DHSF]

That's why we will always be that 'nearly' team. We have management in place that are happy with not winning.

Thats a joke - wiggles.

Seriously - how did you come to that conclusion? If we had Management who were happy with winning we would be playing like Villa.

Like I say from the thread title onwards there are some bloody absurd posts

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Jesus christ,some of you people are just overcomplicating things here massively,lets sum it up all,shall we?

We needed a WIN,it didnt matter if we lost or got a draw since Saudi Sportswashing Machine lost

If you need a goal,you put players on that can score goals - Saha and Defoe.Adebayor only ever scores from clear cut chances(and Villa certainly wouldnt give him any space),VdV was tired as fudge and could barely stand on his feet,Bale was playing LB,Lennon and Modric are no goal scorers.So basically,we had nobody on the pitch that has the ability to score a goal in such a situation.We can discuss the qualities of Defoe and Saha until tommorow,but they can both make a bit of space for themselves and score goals.

The thread title is misleading,Harry didnt go for the draw,but he certainly didnt go for the win either.

The only difference it would have made is that in the case Arsenal drew,we would have to win by 2 goals next sunday.That is all,this point doesnt help us at all

Quite right Liquid. In this scenario, the win was everything

of course the point matters.

if we'd have lost yesterday and lose against Fulham, Saudi Sportswashing Machine could have gone ahead of us with just a draw in their last game, pushing us into 5th.

now they'd have to win it.

also, a draw for us and a loss by two or more goals for the gooners would see us 3rd if Saudi Sportswashing Machine don't win. unlikely i know, but a scenario that is only open to us because we got a point yesterday.

 

[Wriggly]

Thats a joke - wiggles.

Seriously - how did you come to that conclusion? If we had Management who were happy with winning we would be playing like Villa.

Like I say from the thread title onwards there are some bloody absurd posts

Well since Martin Jol I think it was walked in to the club the first thing he said was that the club seem to accept not winning. After losing a game people seem to go round their daily business as though that was acceptable for Tottenham. Now if Jol noticed it, I'm sure every manager noticed it, and its been rife through the club for years upon years.

We had a game against Villa we needed to win. Harry was happy with a point (see Parker for VDV). There might be some absurd posts, but one of them is certainly not mine.

 

[mick cooper]

Obviously a draw is better than nothing. My point is that he never went for it from the start - just like Liverpool, Sunderland and Everton away. He lacks courage to go at teams. His comments underlined that. He sais he would take a draw when a win was needed - no other top four manager would ever say that when their team needed to win. he settled for second best and that communicated to the team. No great desire to win today imo. Shame on the players and the manager for not aggressively going all out to win. They all let us down

oh, good grief.

If I said the things I would like to say, I would get banned. Suffice to say - I think this comment is ignorant and wholly unreasonable.

 

[mick cooper]

Well since Martin Jol I think it was walked in to the club the first thing he said was that the club seem to accept not winning. After losing a game people seem to go round their daily business as though that was acceptable for Tottenham. Now if Jol noticed it, I'm sure every manager noticed it, and its been rife through the club for years upon years.

We had a game against Villa we needed to win. Harry was happy with a point (see Parker for VDV). There might be some absurd posts, but one of them is certainly not mine.

?

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

it does matter.

if we'd have lost today, Saudi Sportswashing Machine could go above us next week with a draw if we lost against Fulham. now they'd have to win.

A swing in GD of 20 odd goals required for that scenerio. Not likely.

we lose yesterday = us on 65 points.
Saudi Sportswashing Machine currently = 65 points.

we lose against Fulham = us on 65 points.
Saudi Sportswashing Machine draw next weekend = them on 66 points.

GD is irrelevant.

 

[SUIYHA]

Just seen what Harry said after the match. " 0-1 down and down to 10 men, i'd settle for a draw any day of the week." Absolute joker. Third was there for the taking and he blew it for us. Which other top team manager would "settle for a draw" when a win was needed. Negative - Just like he was against Sunderland, Liverpool and Everton.

Must go at end of season if we are to progress

Don't twist his words. Here are two of his post-match interviews

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17976738
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/7735824/Redknapp-All-to-play-for

He makes it quite clear that he wanted the win, and gives his reasons why.

You lot are a fickle bunch of hypocrites. How many times this season have you had a go at Harry when we've been losing for not having any more tactical ideas than just "throwing on Defoe and hoping for the best". Now yesterday he tried something a little different and you're having a go at him again for not putting on Defoe.

The facts don't lie. 22 goal attempts to their 4. 19 corners to their 4. 63% possession. We were dominating the game. With 10 men. To change things for the sake of changing things is stupid. And playing with two up front is massively risky when down to 10 men, you can be sure Harry would have been torn to pieces on here if he'd done that and we'd lost the game. Besides, how many times have we seen Defoe come on in these games against a team with their entire team set out to defend and struggle to make an impact without time and space on the ball? If he'd done that, people would have said "same old brick, different day". Prefer Saha? Sorry but when down to 10 men I'd rather have fast players who can cover more ground and get back into defensive positions quickly if we lose the ball. Saha is not one of those.

To Harry's credit, he tried something a little bit different, in an attempt to get our best attacking player further up the field. Now you can argue that perhaps it should have been Livermore that came on instead of Parker, but that's a different story. The idea that Harry didn't want the win is ridiculous, and definitely more far-fetched than the notion that some of you lot didn't want the win because it would have meant eating humble pie and having to give credit to Harry.