Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

[milo]

I've heard at least half of those in countless interviews over the years. Not that Arry should have said that - simply an observation

Top managers very rarely criticise their players in public. They try to take as much pressure off of them as possible. This is the reason why Wenger never sees the incident, why Mourinho acts an arse or picks a fight when his team have a bad result and why Ferguson starts feuds with TV stations.

 

[he_is_you_know]

But what that does show is that Harry is as good as all of those managers.

Get in, Harry for Prime Minister.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

This thread reminds me of that scene from Spinal Tap where instead of the gormless reply of "...But this one goes all the way up to eleven." we get "...But this one's a striker."

 

[ArcspacE]

Top managers very rarely criticise their players in public. They try to take as much pressure off of them as possible. This is the reason why Wenger never sees the incident, why Mourinho acts an arse or picks a fight when his team have a bad result and why Ferguson starts feuds with TV stations.

I've heard both Wenger and SAF being critical of performances over the years. Again, the context was completely different.

On a side note - for the best mind-games this season look at Mancini and 'we've definitely lost the title race' after they lost to Arsenal and fell 8 points behind. He kept going off how 'they stand no chance' and the derby was just a 'game'. Then Utd stumbled and they pounced.

 

[milo]

I've heard both Wenger and SAF being critical of performances over the years. Again, the context was completely different.

On a side note - for the best mind-games this season look at Mancini and 'we've definitely lost the title race' after they lost to Arsenal and fell 8 points behind. He kept going off how 'they stand no chance' and the derby was just a 'game'. Then Utd stumbled and they pounced.

I think that the effectiveness of mind games is massively overstated but talking down your teams chances does help take pressure off of them, this is why Harry talks about us being underdogs or talks up other teams.

 

[Pirate55]

All managers try to put a positive spin on games and say positive things about players performances. What would saying the following do for team moral and what manager have you ever heard giving such an interview?

"We were poor in the first half and didn't really get going. The players have been poor for much of the season and I am not happy with their effort or desire. Adebayor wasn't really in the game and I was disappointed with the midfield for not offering him more support. I'm not happy, the players have let the fans down. We should have finished third and finishing fourth or lower is a disaster."

I am not suggesting he say that in public - after all it would be admitting someone other than him was culpable, so obviously its not going to happen with our H.

The problem is I think he really believes what he is saying and cant admit the truth.

 

[1882]

Whilst I don't think he deliberately went for the draw, the 20 minute dithering over the substitution certainly didn't portray him as a positive thinking attack-minded manager!

also, he clearly doesn't 'think' like a nervous footballer/fan 'cos at the precise moment we equalised from the spot... with 10 men, on level terms, you could see Villa shrink... in terms of what then bringing on Defoe would've done to their confidence & mental state doesn't bear thinking about... whilst you can't say he would've DEFINITELY scored, he certainly would've stood a better chance if he was ON the pitch!

 

[mick cooper]

I am not suggesting he say that in public - after all it would be admitting someone other than him was culpable, so obviously its not going to happen with our H.

The problem is I think he really believes what he is saying and cant admit the truth.

precisely - YOU THINK, you actually know nothing of what goes on in his head, so you - and others like you, simply make stuff up - and then batter him with it.

What I said about you is correct

what you said about Harry is conjecture and fantasy

 

[mick cooper]

We played almost 8, it was roughly 7 mins 50 secs If i remember rightly. Had Defoe came on when Parker did he would have had 10 mins to do something on the pitch. My point was to show that even though someone shouted out IT WAS THE 89TH MIN, Defoe still had plenty of time to make an impact. We scored 2 in less than 4 mins against Bolton.

How many times have you slated HR for bringing Defoe on this season?

You are guessing at outcomes, and then eviscerating Redknapp for not indulging in them - and carping at people who point it out.

Redknapp did what he did, knowing that Saudi Sportswashing Machine had lost and that taking idiotic risks involving expansive attacking policies was a daft move, his substitution, as has been pointed out several times was a great option to take as it freed up players to move forward, whilst adding a little more steel at the back.

Pragmatic and sensible.

 

[indianspur]

as has already been pointed out, we were playing Aston Villa, a dour McLeish inspired Villa in fact, not Barcelona!!

ok, if not Defoe then why not another attacker at least, Dos Santos was available. We were comfortable in the second half, even with 10 men, Villa are rubbish beyond belief, we could have coped fine with walker, Gallas, Kaboul and Sandro as our defensive shield, with Modric also lending a hand when needs be, and then allowing the attacking players to continue to chip away at the Villa back line. There was no need for Parker at that time

 

[chancer]

In terms of what then bringing on Defoe would've done to their confidence & mental state doesn't bear thinking about... whilst you can't say he would've DEFINITELY scored, he certainly would've stood a better chance if he was ON the pitch!

It's important to note though 1882 that there are two different arguments being put forward by people that are being conflated into a single "Defoe should have come on" line.

The first is that Defoe should have come on instead of Parker on 89 minutes, the other is that he should have been on after 60 or 65 minutes.

Those are two entirely different arguments with two different sets of pros/cons and permutations to each. But some people seem to be overlooking that and lazily assuming there is no distinction between the two. Indeed, many Harry critics seem not to have noticed the distinction at all.

The very, very best that can be said for either option is that you can make a decent argument for it. But that is a zillion miles away from being justifiable cause for vitriolic attacks on Redknapp's character and competence. And that's made worse when those critics haven't even noticed the difference between Defoe 89 and Defoe 60.




(Those points are general ones 1882, not aimed specifically at you.)

 

[mick cooper]

as has already been pointed out, we were playing Aston Villa, a dour McLeish inspired Villa in fact, not Barcelona!!

ok, if not Defoe then why not another attacker at least, Dos Santos was available. We were comfortable in the second half, even with 10 men, Villa are rubbish beyond belief, we could have coped fine with walker, Gallas, Kaboul and Sandro as our defensive shield, with Modric also lending a hand when needs be, and then allowing the attacking players to continue to chip away at the Villa back line. There was no need for Parker at that time

no - they are below average in the EPL, and lack big name players, but they are still an EPL team, and that means they are not rubbish beyond belief.

 

[indianspur]

no - they are below average in the EPL, and lack big name players, but they are still an EPL team, and that means they are not rubbish beyond belief.

have a word with some Villa fans and hear what they have to say about the current state of affairs at Villa

 

[Modric THFC]

It's important to note though 1882 that there are two different arguments being put forward by people that are being conflated into a single "Defoe should have come on" line.

The first is that Defoe should have come on instead of Parker on 89 minutes, the other is that he should have been on after 60 or 65 minutes.

Those are two entirely different arguments with two different sets of pros/cons and permutations to each. But some people seem to be overlooking that and lazily assuming there is no distinction between the two. Indeed, many Harry critics seem not to have noticed the distinction at all.

The very, very best that can be said for either option is that you can make a decent argument for it. But that is a zillion miles away from being justifiable cause for vitriolic attacks on Redknapp's character and competence. And that's made worse when those critics haven't even noticed the difference between Defoe 89 and Defoe 60.




(Those points are general ones 1882, not aimed specifically at you.)

There's a complete other argument that Redknapp had no faith in his 3 attacking options on the bench. That after 3 and half years at the club he still hasn't built a squad he has any faith in. That he brings in players because they're worth a punt and then loses trust in them.

 

[mick cooper]

you made out your solution was a nailed on winner - and then used their fans opinions to justify it?

I'd like to see something more substantial, if I am to have faith in your opinion.

 

[mick cooper]

There's a complete other argument that Redknapp had no faith in his 3 attacking options on the bench. That after 3 and half years at the club he still hasn't built a squad he has any faith in. That he brings in players because they're worth a punt and then loses trust in them.

yes but as we know, when it comes to knocking Harry, there are no depths that the "Harry out" crowd wont stoop to, to rubbish the guy.

 

[Kingdawson]

have a word with some Villa fans and hear what they have to say about the current state of affairs at Villa

OK will do. Whilst i'm at it should i also have a word with the 20th placed team Wolves fans and see what they have to say about their current state of affairs? what a thumping we gave them at the Lane.

















oops my bad that didn't happen did it.

 

[southstand1882]

it was 6, which is almost 5, not almost 10

still its as accurate as we can expect

:lol:

 

[indianspur]

OK will do. Whilst i'm at it should i also have a word with the 20th placed team Wolves fans and see what they have to say about their current state of affairs? what a thumping we gave them at the Lane.

















oops my bad that didn't happen did it.

if you think its acceptable drawing away to a poor Villa side and drawing at home to Wolves then we shall agree to disagree

 

[mick cooper]

if you think its acceptable drawing away to a poor Villa side and drawing at home to Wolves then we shall agree to disagree

I think you might be missing the point

in fact, quite a few points

 

[indianspur]

I think you might be missing the point

in fact, quite a few points

whats the point that KD was trying to make then?