Mick - i think you have the habit of dismissing peoples opinions all to easily. people have a right to form their own opinions based on what they see going on and at the same time use their opinions as to what they think is happening/should happen - for example i think Redknapp didn't know what to do against Villa (in regards to change) so opted to do nothing - that's an opinion based on what i saw during the game and i presume is the kind of thing you'd consider not based on fact or without foundation
it's also my opinion that Redknapp lost focus on the Spurs job whilst the England job 'was on the cards' - now again this is something not based on fact or foundation and is speculative - but i hold that opinion nonetheless, should i not be free to discuss this or use this as reason as to why I THINK we should be considering whether he should take us on in to next season/the coming years ?
im not necessarily trying to discuss these particular points but more how people should be able to use their opinions - after all if we only discussed cold hard facts this place would be rather boring and everyone would pretty much be sharing the same opinions, no ?
OK
lets discuss it.
What did you see in the Villa game that bought you to that opinion? Was it because he didn't panic and make changes for the sake of it? Is it because he didn't bring on an extra striker, and weaken us in an area that might have been exploited? Or was it because having seen the Saudi Sportswashing Machine result he figured that a pragmatic approach to we keep what we have, and don't over expose ourselves and lose that point is a better policy? Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily the best option, and in many cases can be detrimental to a side achieving what it is striving for. Defoe has come on several times recently and achieved nothing, perhaps he has been misfiring in practice and HR thought he would snatch at chances and waste opportunities. Perhaps Defoe has been having conscience pangs about 2 timing his girlfriend and HR though his mind wasn't on it.
Shall I keep going and get more and more ridiculous with my speculation, or shall we both accept that neither of us knows what goes on in his head? It has been a comment made on several occasions by people on here - Redknapp has no tactical awareness, he doesn't use his subs right, yada yada yada. I wonder if all the top managers make all of the right decisions all of the time, or whether all of their substitutions work, on every occasion?
How do you imagine he lost focus on the Spurs job? I'd be interested to hear how that happens to a football manager, because I would have thought that there would be sufficient real evidence, for the management of the club to raise concerns. I suggested (speculated) that the far more likely culprits were the players, at the prospect of losing their manager, a man who on countless occasions, and in countless interviews with players was lauded as a popular leader and man manager. The dynamics of team play are a significant factor in team performance. I have a firm belief that the largest part of the blame falls on the shoulders of the people who took to the field - not that I think there was any kind of deliberate policy, or lack of effort - but an almost unconscious change in attidude that manifested itself in the way that it did. You can imagine all the calls from the agents, as soon as HR was being beefed up in the press, to all their players, about how now was a good time to agitate for pay rises, transfers etc etc - why is this theory largely ignored? Because its easier to flog the same old horse?
Its all speculation, and all of these damning allegations and opinions all do nothing but ignore the most salient facts about "Look at what he has achieved!"
Why does this have to be dismissed in a sea of unsubstantiated rumours and opinions based on the flimsiest of evidence?
As I said to you before, you are far more level headed and resonable, its the dleuge monsters - as Polski has said, spamming the board, in tsunami post campaigns that is so frustrating.
