Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

[DubaiSpur]

Was that a wise move before he had replacements in hand? Personally I don't think so!!

He did have replacements. Mata was supposed to be Lampard's replacement, as was McEachran. Terry was supposed to become a bit part player, with Romeu, Luiz and to a lesser extent Ivanovic taking over his role. Cole was supposed to be replaced by Bertrand, who was promoted from the reserves under AVB. But implementing an entirely new system takes time, and it was logical that there would be a few stumbles along the way. Was he given enough time to rectify them? Absolutely not, in my opinion. You see RDM now playing the classic Chelsea tactic of a deep defensive line and quick counters; well, that's something that's been done since Mourinho was there. It's rarely changed, because it's something the dressing-room dictators feel comfortable with, and to hell with adapting to modern tactics.

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

Both Terry and Lampard have replacements this very moment.

I'm guessing you see Cahill as Terry's replacement, but who replaces Lampard? (not to mention the fact that Cahill was only signed at the end of Jan, after AVB had started to lose the Chelsea dressing room (which IMO can be traced back to November if not before)?

 

[totman]

Every player has replacements, but when you are expected to challenge for a title, a CL trophy, or both, you dont drop the players that were key to Chelsea's success on the basis that they are not able to play your very naive new system.....and replace them with far less capable squad members.

People talk about Harry, yet how was AVB doing as far as seeing something not working and fixing it?

 

[ArcspacE]

and you know this how?

It is well documented from many people and players close to him

I can PM you links later if you wish

 

[DubaiSpur]

So because he came in and forced his seasoned pro's to play a system they were not capable of, then dropped them when they complained, losing games that were unthinkable for them to lose just two yrs ago when they won the double.....thats good?

But persisting with playing them until they were 409 years old because they wanted to, and losing games anyway because of their increasing inability to keep up with the pace, that's good?

 

[tommysvr]

At the end of the day though, Harry picked a side that should have beaten Norwich.

I am bewildered as to why he didnt start with Ade and one of JD or Rafa....but they should have been much better than they were. Had he played Sandro on the back of Sunderland, he would have been slaughtered for not giving Livermore a chance.

So he gives Livermore a chance, and bar one sublime pass, he was invisible and partly at fault for their 2nd goal.

Harry has his faults....but he's in a no win situation around here.

100% agree.

 

[totman]

But persisting with playing them until they were 409 years old because they wanted to, and losing games anyway because of their increasing inability to keep up with the pace, that's good?

Or play to their strengths, and try to implement your system gradually over time with your own signings?

Quick question: How did it go for him?

 

[ArcspacE]

I'm guessing you see Cahill as Terry's replacement, but who replaces Lampard? (not to mention the fact that Cahill was only signed at the end of Jan, after AVB had started to lose the Chelsea dressing room (which IMO can be traced back to November if not before)?

Ivanovic is naturally a CB but was moved out to RB in order to accommodate Luiz. Him and Cahill now can easily cover for Terry. The transition is gradual not instant anyway. Cup games, etc. Same for us and King really - no big deal.

Lampard was most likely intended to be part of a rotation between Ramires, Malouda, Mata and himself - again, he was very much part of the team but no longer guaranteed a regular spot based on 2 years ago's form. Ridiculous argument discounting the passage of time and loss of form, pace, edge, agility, etc. Mata's great form however made him a natural choice in turn relegating Malouda to the bench leaving him to fight it our with Ramires, Romelu and Essien. He is still their 3rd most capped player this season.

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

He did have replacements. Mata was supposed to be Lampard's replacement, as was McEachran. Terry was supposed to become a bit part player, with Romeu, Luiz and to a lesser extent Ivanovic taking over his role. Cole was supposed to be replaced by Bertrand, who was promoted from the reserves under AVB. But implementing an entirely new system takes time, and it was logical that there would be a few stumbles along the way. Was he given enough time to rectify them? Absolutely not, in my opinion. You see RDM now playing the classic Chelsea tactic of a deep defensive line and quick counters; well, that's something that's been done since Mourinho was there. It's rarely changed, because it's something the dressing-room dictators feel comfortable with, and to hell with adapting to modern tactics.

Personally I don't see Mata as a replacement for Lampard, IMO his signing was needed because Chelbrick did not have any good wide players/wingers, which is what Mata is IMO. Lampard is more of a Scholes/Platt type attacking/goalscoring midfielder with trademark late runs into the box(TM). Also if McEachran was supposed to replace Lampard then why was he sent out on loan? Also I'd argue that Romeu is more of a Obi Mikel/Essien replacement than a Terry replacement.

Granted change takes time, but that is why I believe that AVB handled the situation badly in alienating so many of the old guard at Chelbrick, and that a better manager would have been more savvy to the political machinations going on at the club and the overall balance on squad morale in the handling of replacing ageing figureheads within the squad.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Or play to their strengths, and try to implement your system gradually over time with your own signings?

Quick question: How did it go for him?

Badly. As you would expect it to. Implementing his system gradually wouldn't work. Which manager at Chelsea has ever lasted more than a couple of years, in the Abramovich era? Plus, he was coming in, the unknown, into a club full of egos and divisions. He needed to stamp his authority, his own style, to prove he was his own man and not just Mourinho's scout returned to guide things along and be sacked when the Special One became available again. He needed to change things, and he didn't have the time to do it gradually. And personally, I admire the fact that he was willing to try, rather than be content with being the grinning man on the bench, acting as the nominal, powerless figurehead while Terry and Lampard shouted tactical instructions on the touchline. Like Di Matteo.

 

[Tottenham Dave]

I would definitely like him to stay.

For all that the last few weeks have been iffy, we've moved on massively whilst he's been here, and only a couple of months ago 'we want you to stay...' was ringing around WHL.

I thought the Gooners acted disgracefully towards Wenger a while back considering all he's done for them, and I'd hate for us to slip in to that reactionary style of pitchfork wielding mob.

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

Or play to their strengths, and try to implement your system gradually over time with your own signings?

Quick question: How did it go for him?

Exactomundo, this is what I believe he should have done, but for whatever reason (possibly due to his relative inexperience as a manager and an excess of self belief) didn't.

 

[totman]

Basically AVB came in with the idea to gradually phase out the old way, but instead tried to do it instantly, with the wrong players. Then he lost all respect from the squad and got sacked.

Since then, a guy with zero experience has turned it around for them, even has Torres scoring goals.

If AVB comes to Spurs, I'll back him 100%, but I am still to read on single credible answer as to why people actively want him.

 

[ArcspacE]

Exactomundo, this is what I believe he should have done, but for whatever reason (possibly due to his relative inexperience as a manager and an excess of self belief) didn't.

How can he possibly play to the strenghts of ageing players losing their edge? What happened 2-3 years ago is completely irrelevant - is that how a team should be picked? On past merit?

Look at us and King for example - considering he was once our greatest CB for a decade - how do you suggest we play to his 'strengths'?

 

[totman]

Badly. As you would expect it to. Implementing his system gradually wouldn't work. Which manager at Chelsea has ever lasted more than a couple of years, in the Abramovich era? Plus, he was coming in, the unknown, into a club full of egos and divisions. He needed to stamp his authority, his own style, to prove he was his own man and not just Mourinho's scout returned to guide things along and be sacked when the Special One became available again. He needed to change things, and he didn't have the time to do it gradually. And personally, I admire the fact that he was willing to try, rather than be content with being the grinning man on the bench, acting as the nominal, powerless figurehead while Terry and Lampard shouted tactical instructions on the touchline. Like Di Matteo.

Well the list of other managers you put up earlier certainly fared better, with no less pressure. Hiddink was adored there.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Personally I don't see Mata as a replacement for Lampard, IMO his signing was needed because Chelbrick did not have any good wide players/wingers, which is what Mata is IMO. Lampard is more of a Scholes/Platt type attacking/goalscoring midfielder with trademark late runs into the box(TM). Also if McEachran was supposed to replace Lampard then why was he sent out on loan? Also I'd argue that Romeu is more of a Obi Mikel/Essien replacement than a Terry replacement.

Firstly, Mata now plays behind the central striker. And is doing quite well. In fact, Torres' upsurge in form can be attributed to Mata being shifted in behind him, as opposed to him playing out wide. So I could argue that he was supposed to be Lampard's replacement. As for why he was played out wide in the beginning, why was Modric played out wide when Harry came in? To acclimatize, same as anyone else. As for McEachran, he's much like Caulker; badly needed, but loaned out anyway to give him time to develop. As for Romeu, he can and has played at the back before. And he came from Barca, the masters of doing such things, with Mascherano, Busquets, Toure et al.

As for the last bit, my last post dealt with that.

 

[Modric THFC]

If he comes out and says he staying then all this brick will end.
Its exactly like when Ferguson announced he was retiring in 2001. His team got 4 points in 21!
Then he u-turned and United ended up in the CL semi finals.

 

[totman]

Exactomundo, this is what I believe he should have done, but for whatever reason (possibly due to his relative inexperience as a manager and an excess of self belief) didn't.

Well thats the thing. He was naive.

He might have had an aging squad, but thats EVEN MORE reason not to play a system they clearly cannot play. He didnt play to their strengths, and thats amature and naive.

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

Ivanovic is naturally a CB but was moved out to RB in order to accommodate Luiz. Him and Cahill now can easily cover for Terry. The transition is gradual not instant anyway. Cup games, etc. Same for us and King really - no big deal.

Lampard was most likely intended to be part of a rotation between Ramires, Malouda, Mata and himself - again, he was very much part of the team but no longer guaranteed a regular spot based on 2 years ago's form. Ridiculous argument discounting the passage of time and loss of form, pace, edge, agility, etc. Mata's great form however made him a natural choice in turn relegating Malouda to the bench leaving him to fight it our with Ramires, Romelu and Essien. He is still their 3rd most capped player this season.

But of these players only Lampard and Ramires are really central midfielders and even then I wouldn't describe Ramires as being in competion with Lampard as they are different kinds of players.

 

[ArcspacE]

If he comes out and says he staying then all this brick will end.
Its exactly like when Ferguson announced he was retiring in 2001. His team got 4 points in 21!
Then he u-turned and United ended up in the CL semi finals.

Problem is - it strongly appears he wants the England job so littel chance of that