• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

Would you keep Arry after the Season?

  • Yes - He's done well and should be given at least one more season to consolidate our team

    Votes: 25 53.2%

  • No - he's peaked and would hold us back.

    Votes: 22 46.8%
  • Total voters
    47
SUIYHA said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Wriggly said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dont understand the Martin Jol bit - unless youre saying that as a club, rather than Harry, are happy with not winning. I think Harry got the likes of Gallas in to try to change that mentality from doing just enough to actually lets go out there and win.

I cant fathom for one minute that fans on here think Harry was happy with a draw. Yes when the sending off happened - he woulda settled for a point but then we got it back to 1-1 and absolutely dominated. Any team with ten men would settle for something over nothing.
 
Kingdawson said:
He put on Parker so we can get hold of the ball more, to keep possesion, and to hopefully create chances from it. "Put on Defoe, put on Defoe" oh shut up with that flimflam.
Click to expand...

Agree on the general points, but the problem was that Parker did more harm than good in this instance. Started with his usual pirouetting on the ball, and almost got us in to trouble on the counter.

Given how dominant we were, I'd personally have been tempted to leave it for the final few minutes, even though van der Vaart wasn't really doing much at that point.
 
Hotshot-Tottenham said:
:lol:
Click to expand...


He's right though. Time after time he's thrown on Defoe and switched to a 4-4-2 which has resulted in us losing shape and not creating fudge all. Yesterday i'm guessing that he learnt his lesson and tried something different.

I can't believe the posters that are moaning about Defoe not coming on are simply ignoring all the times Arry did exactly that. Those same posters are the ones bitching that Arry does the same thing again and again and never changes things.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Or, given that is was only a few minutes - and we were dominating totally - why not go with the striker and to hell with DM?
Click to expand...

Because Villa still had the pace to hit us on the counter.

Imagine if he put on Defoe and we got hit on the counter and lost?

Sunday would have been even more difficult.
 
For me we need to bring the wingers into the middle beit Lennon and Bale, move the fullbacks forward and play three at the back with the two CBs and DM.

Its clear as day that putting two out wide isn't working when teams park the bus.


Sort of

-----------Gallas---------------Kaboul--------------
----------------------Parker-------------------------


Walker--------------------------------------Ekotto

---------Lennon----Modric-----Bale---------------

-------------VDV--------------Ade-----------------


For me Lennon should be a candidate to be substituted with a striker or midfielder like Livermore.

Christ we miss Huddlestone.

Its the runs in behind the two strikers by that midfield 3 that will cause problems.

Ade also needs to stop coming out wide to get the ball because at the moment no one fills the void in the box when he does.

Modric has to take risks. Be that Scholes player that gets tap ins... see Scholes goal yesterday virtually on the goal line.
 
DHSF said:
Dont understand the Martin Jol bit - unless youre saying that as a club, rather than Harry, are happy with not winning. I think Harry got the likes of Gallas in to try to change that mentality from doing just enough to actually lets go out there and win.

I cant fathom for one minute that fans on here think Harry was happy with a draw. Yes when the sending off happened - he woulda settled for a point but then we got it back to 1-1 and absolutely dominated. Any team with ten men would settle for something over nothing.
Click to expand...

Well as you say we were dominating. We had them camped in their half. So what was Parker going to do when he came on when the ball wasnt in his area of the pitch for the reest of the game ? If we are dominating and need to win the game, you bring on a striker. Its simples really. Lot's of fans seen it, ex player (Le Tissier) saw it. Shame some of the Harry lovers cant see it.
 
Kingdawson said:
He's right though. Time after time he's thrown on Defoe and switched to a 4-4-2 which has resulted in us losing shape and not creating fudge all. Yesterday i'm guessing that he learnt his lesson and tried something different.I can't believe the posters that are moaning about Defoe not coming on are simply ignoring all the times Arry did exactly that. Those same posters are the ones bitching that Arry does the same thing again and again and never changes things.
Click to expand...

You would be suggesting Harry is that clever. He is most certainly not.
 
Wriggly said:
Well as you say we were dominating. We had them camped in their half. So what was Parker going to do when he came on when the ball wasnt in his area of the pitch for the reest of the game ? If we are dominating and need to win the game, you bring on a striker. Its simples really. Lot's of fans seen it, ex player (Le Tissier) saw it. Shame some of the Harry lovers cant see it.
Click to expand...

Didn't Gallas move forward. Giving more height
 
Wriggly said:
Well as you say we were dominating. We had them camped in their half. So what was Parker going to do when he came on when the ball wasnt in his area of the pitch for the reest of the game ? If we are dominating and need to win the game, you bring on a striker. Its simples really. Lot's of fans seen it, ex player (Le Tissier) saw it. Shame some of the Harry lovers cant see it.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. Just read some of the other posts in the thread to see why.
 
SUIYHA said:
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.
Click to expand...



Excellent post.

I'd add another thing about the Parker v. Defoe debate: IT WAS THE fudging 89TH MINUTE. People are talking about this substitution as though it happened after 60 minutes and was Harry's big gambit to effect the outcome of the game (i.e. to settle for a draw). I honestly don't know what kind of dullard freak keeps insisting this was somehow important or the game-changing moment.
 
DHSF said:
The kitchen sink time is putting Gallas or Kaboom up front and putting balls in the box. Defoe wasnt gonna win a header and Ade isnt exactly prolific in the air.
Click to expand...

In case Harry hadn't noticed, we'd been lobbing balls into their box the whole match (20 corners), without winning one of them. It clearly hadn't worked and wasn't going to work.
 
chancer said:
Excellent post.

I'd add another thing about the Parker v. Defoe debate: IT WAS THE fudging 89TH MINUTE. People are talking about this substitution as though it happened after 60 minutes and was Harry's big gambit to effect the outcome of the game (i.e. to settle for a draw). I honestly don't know what kind of dullard freak keeps insisting this was somehow important or the game-changing moment.
Click to expand...

89th min with almost 10 mins injury time.
 
DHSF said:
The kitchen sink time is putting Gallas or Kaboom up front and putting balls in the box. Defoe wasnt gonna win a header and Ade isnt exactly prolific in the air.
Click to expand...

Its the time, in the dying minutes to throw caution and go for the win - Defoe on for Sandro would have been an extra body in the box for those mad moments and could have made the difference. Its not the time to be cagey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back