Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

[BrainOfLevy]

Man oh man, there is something about the way i'm asking the question? cause i dont seem to see the answer to the question i asked

i give up. dont answer it , i get the feeling i'd just get another good answer that doesnt address my actual concerns

lets talk about what you said instead. you believe its the person more suited to the club, that bit is alittle bit confusing to me, by club do you mean the players? resources? fans etc...how can one person be more suited to a club than another person? if at the end of the day , results are all that matter? cause you can put that byline to anyone "if te circumstances are correct/ right"...apply that to anyone and lietraly anyone can succeed at tottenham that has a managerial pedigree half decent

I don't know what answer you expect? In terms of straight up answering your question with no caveats, I'd prefer the guy that has had fluctuating performance.

...Only I then have to put the caveat that 'as long as they suit the club and are what we are looking for' because otherwise my answer sounds ridiculous, as of course if you had a consistent guy, vs a guy that has done well somewhere and bad somewhere, the consistent guy would win out every team in a rational world. But football isn't rational and there are too many examples of a guy failing in one place after being great in another because they just didn't suit their new circumstances.

By being more suited, I mean everything. I mean board objectives. Players. Money to spend. Fan expectations. Fan demands. And I think if you get someone right, success follows. If you don't, you're basically swimming against the tide from the get go.

Put it this way, Swansea were a club that played good football, had a good system in place and made a point of hiring managers that wanted to work with this philosophy. They had Martinez, Sousa, and they have the option of hiring Rodgers. They could look at him and say 'If we want to get to the Premier League, we need someone who has been consistent everywhere they have been, so we aren't hiring Rodgers. He did an average job at Watford and what looks like a poor one at Reading. No thank you'. But instead, they look at the fact that he wants to play passing football. They look at the fact that he knows how to identify players to fit his system. They listen to his vision. And hey presto, it works out. Rodgers fit with the board expectations, the fans expectations, the players he already had, he could work with the money he would be given, etc etc etc. It didn't matter that he hadn't demonstrated consistency before, because he was right for them. Swansea could have gone for Pulis because he has a record of getting a team into the PL for the first time and keeping them there, and has been consistent in his career, but it would have been an absolute disaster, and it's obvious why.

AVB goes to a club whose players had success playing a certain way, and had a playing style totally out of sync with that. They didn't want to listen. Board didn't align with player, and manager was the fall guy. Even though he only ever had good results before Chelsea. Saudi Sportswashing Machine sack Hughton, their MD says they want someone to make strong decisions on players and be able to take risks, and they bring in Pardew. Board aligns with manager. Manager keeps them up, brings in own players. Manager aligns with player. Fans are happy to stay up and then when the next seasons starts well are happy to give Pardew a shot. Pardew keeps doing well. Manager aligns with fans. Pardew is what they were looking for at the time.

 

[harr1984]

Yeah I saw plenty of football, and it was obvious (to me at least and I'm sure to plenty of others) that we was never going to challenge for the title - in fact many said on here at the time during the pinacle of our run. Besides the fact we haven't got the squad for a title tilt, or even a single top class striker that you need it's the mentality side of it and having players who have been there done it, got medals. Who have we got? For example you talk about making astute signings citing Modric, Berbatov etc and I totally agree those are the types of players we should aim for. But it us who develops them and turns them into better players, and once they become a more refined and established player the very top clubs then swoop in and take them from us. It is then at the Manchester Uniteds of this world that they develop the winning mentality required to challenge and win titles - we aren't going to have that here until we have the wage structure to sign ESTABLISHED stars who have this edge, and unfortunately that isn't going to happen anytime soon so for now where we are is as good as it's going to get....

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Yeah I saw plenty of football, and it was obvious (to me at least and I'm sure to plenty of others) that we was never going to challenge for the title - in fact many said on here at the time during the pinacle of our run. Besides the fact we haven't got the squad for a title tilt, or even a single top class striker that you need it's the mentality side of it and having players who have been there done it, got medals. Who have we got? For example you talk about making astute signings citing Modric, Berbatov etc and I totally agree those are the types of players we should aim for. But it us who develops them and turns them into better players, and once they become a more refined and established player the very top clubs then swoop in and take them from us. It is then at the Manchester Uniteds of this world that they develop the winning mentality required to challenge and win titles - we aren't going to have that here until we have the wage structure to sign ESTABLISHED stars who have this edge, and unfortunately that isn't going to happen anytime soon so for now where we are is as good as it's going to get....

I think too many people looked at our brilliant run and assumed this was the "real" Spurs. It was not. That was a team playing out of its skin, on the top of its form. The fact we kept it up for over a quarter of a season is remarkable. To expect us to be able to keep it up over a whole season is unrealistic (City and Utd couldn't do it for example, both teams and squads better than ours).

Just like our bad run of form wasn't reflective of how good we really are, neither was our good run of form. The truth was somewhere inbetween, and ended up being 4th. Which is probably about right considering Chelsea (who I still maintain had the strongest XI) had such a rubbish Premiership season.

 

[harr1984]

That was my exact thoughts. I was waiting for us all season to have our blip as we hadn't had one all season and when it came it was of no surprise to me. If the defeats had been scattered it wouldn't of looked as bad as it actually was but there you go....

 

[africanspurs]

My point was that you seemed to be hanging a lot on a question that seemed designed only to group people into one side or another. Building divisions, with the idea that its either/or. I answered your question - I said "Both". So what did that reveal to you?

cool due.....i'l address the rest of the post later mate if thats cool as it requires more time to look into...but this bit can be answered eeeeasy. it didnt reveal anything, it just means that if you dont like a question then you wont answer it..you'd rather answer it how you'd like just so you wouldnt have to deal with what the question is implying? if that makes sense.

fact is of course everyone wants everything, they want clean sheets, squad rotation, wins, good football, good image, proactive coaches., hidden diamonds in the rough in terms of players transfers, glory, winning the league etc tc etc. LOL i mean how easy is that? wanting everything...no the hard choices though, them? not so easy to make a decision on. fact of the matter is that the chances of finding a ferguson / wneger eetc etc etc..now? is very hard. thus leading to the question that Brainlevy (after much torture) finally answered. whats his preference i.e whats more important. No offense but the easy cop out answer would be to say "everything"

i have to say though....Brendan rogers was indeed a good choice to hang your hat on. he had a ridiculous upside to his game. but we dont know how he can far with pressure, expectation, egos, etc etc etc


but i'll get to the rest of the post when i get home bro....think there is alot in there that are good points ....nd worth talking about more

 

[mick cooper]

I wonder what the banter would be like if we had Ian Holloway for a manager

at least the after match press conferences would be worth listening to

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I think the difference is more the stock we put into quality management.

I think quality management (to a degree) can superceed the quality of your players a great deal.

Look at Stoke under Pulis, Bolton under Allardyce, (ignoring the awful style of play) neither has a great deal of quality in their teams - each on a ranking of players only is/was a bottom level side and yet each finishes in the top 10, europe even.

The difference is the manager.

At the top level the same applies.

Fit and on form our team can rival any in the league, Harry has proven this. Take it up a notch and what else might it achieve?

Last season other teams faltered allowing us a shot (due to bad management on Chelseas part certainly), next season I would expect them to be stronger and so competition to be fierce. Hence "Less likely".

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I think the difference is more the stock we put into quality management.

I think quality management (to a degree) can superceed the quality of your players a great deal.

Look at Stoke under Pulis, Bolton under Allardyce, (ignoring the awful style of play) neither has a great deal of quality in their teams - each on a ranking of players only is/was a bottom level side and yet each finishes in the top 10, europe even.

The difference is the manager.

At the top level the same applies.

Fit and on form our team can rival any in the league, Harry has proven this. Take it up a notch and what else might it achieve?

Last season other teams faltered allowing us a shot (due to bad management on Chelseas part certainly), next season I would expect them to be stronger and so competition to be fierce. Hence "Less likely".

Again I have to disagree to a large extent. For me the main factor in being successful is the players. For example, I am very confident Mancini wouldn't have won the title with us this year.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

There is of course a tipping point, its not an absolute. But broadly I think:

Good management can make good players into a good team.

Great management can make good players into a great team. (Or brick players into a good team, its all relative...)

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

There is of course a tipping point, its not an absolute. But broadly I think:

Good management can make good players into a good team.

Great management can make good players into a great team. (Or brick players into a good team, its all relative...)

Can you give me some examples of good players that made a great team? I can't think of a real world example in English football, with the possible exception of Cloughie and Forest in the late 70's. Dalglish won the title with Blackburn with some quite ordinary players I suppose, but he also had Shearer. Since then every title winning side has had two or three great players in it.

 

[africanspurs]

Can you give me some examples of good players that made a great team? I can't think of a real world example in English football, with the possible exception of Cloughie and Forest in the late 70's. Dalglish won the title with Blackburn with some quite ordinary players I suppose, but he also had Shearer. Since then every title winning side has had two or three great players in it.

ajax under louis van gaal

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

You show examples yourself. I think you know exactly where Im coming from, is it worth listing teams and managers?

This is the crux of it with Harry for me. Im not a hater by any stretch, I think he has done very well - its just I think he has got us as far as he can and yet there is more potential to realise.

Thats it really, its nothing personal.

 

[billyiddo]

there are loads of examples, ffs - and just because a team has one or two great players does not take away from the fact that as a team they are punching above their weight.

Manchester United in the season just gone being a prime example - If a manager is only as good as his players then surely it doesn't matter who is in charge as long as the players are good enough and the manager isn't out of place/out of his depth? which clearly isn't the case otherwise good managers/top managers wouldn't be as sought after as they are

by that logic Spurs last season with a good team and two/three great players (Modric/Bale/Adebayor) doing what we did, finishing 4th - was nothing out of the ordinary which MK seems to have been disagreeing with all this time saying that Redknapp deserves great credit for getting us where we ended up

 

[africanspurs]

there are loads of examples, ffs - and just because a team has one or two great players does not take away from the fact that as a team they are punching above their weight.

Manchester United in the season just gone being a prime example - If a manager is only as good as his players then surely it doesn't matter who is in charge as long as the players are good enough and the manager isn't out of place/out of his depth? which clearly isn't the case otherwise good managers/top managers wouldn't be as sought after as they are

agreed with this

though i have to say that they got found out in europe though

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I agree that there's a tipping point too. Laregely players will make the difference, but that bit extra can be gained from them to make them get results that wouldn't normally be expected of them.

I actually think Swansea had good players and won't use them as an example - but Wigan and Norwich. If those players that should be finishing 18th-20th can finish comfortably away from relegation, and teams like Bolton under Allardyce that should be around 11th-15th can finish 7th or 8th, then who'se to say a great manager can't implement a system that means us, as a team that should be finishing 4th-6th next season, couldn't be finishing 1st-3rd?

It is of course a bit ridiculous...basically it is saying that 4th isn't good enough and of course every fan of every club would like that one guy to implement his special system that makes a lesser squad somehow challenge for the title, but it isn't totally realistic and is a bit of a dream. However, if it can happen lower down the league, why couldn't it happen for us?

 

[africanspurs]

I agree that there's a tipping point too. Laregely players will make the difference, but that bit extra can be gained from them to make them get results that wouldn't normally be expected of them.

I actually think Swansea had good players and won't use them as an example - but Wigan and Norwich. If those players that should be finishing 18th-20th can finish comfortably away from relegation, and teams like Bolton under Allardyce that should be around 11th-15th can finish 7th or 8th, then who'se to say a great manager can't implement a system that means us, as a team that should be finishing 4th-6th next season, couldn't be finishing 1st-3rd?

It is of course a bit ridiculous...basically it is saying that 4th isn't good enough and of course every fan of every club would like that one guy to implement his special system that makes a lesser squad somehow challenge for the title, but it isn't totally realistic and is a bit of a dream. However, if it can happen lower down the league, why couldn't it happen for us?

dont agree that wigan should be 18th to 20th, i actually am not sure why they were in that mess to begin with..their playes were significantly better than the position they found themselves in at the start of the year. norwhich maybe..but thats due to me not knowing much about their players

swansea though i feel should hav ebeen in the 17th below position .......but rodgers did infact piece together a good team and utilised players is GHod value which has a knock on effect

wigan though? no

 

[mick cooper]

so
no seconder for Holloway as manager then.........

I'll get me coat

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

What is so good about Wigan Affy?

Diame, Al Habsi and Figueroa aside there wasnt any obvious quality going into the season IMO.

Moses had potential but wasnt the finished article, no real goal scorers, Beausejour was an unkown...

Swansea had essentially the same side that had been in League 1 a few years prior (and a Tottenham academy lad as stalwart of their defense FFS!). Norwich much the same.

In fact I would say Blackburn had more quality than Wigan, probably Bolton too and maybe even Wolves

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

ajax under louis van gaal

As per my original post "I can't think of a real world example in English football"

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

You show examples yourself. I think you know exactly where Im coming from, is it worth listing teams and managers?

This is the crux of it with Harry for me. Im not a hater by any stretch, I think he has done very well - its just I think he has got us as far as he can and yet there is more potential to realise.

Thats it really, its nothing personal.

Yes I think it is. The key word here is being a "great" team made up of good players. I am too young to remember the Forest sides under Clough in the late 70's, but I am told that Cloughie had a great knack of getting ordinary players to play as a great team. That was a long time ago though. Can it be replicated in the English game now? I don't think so. That Dalglish Blackburn team wasn't a great side anyway IMO. It relied on the brilliance of one man, so can hardly be classified as a great team. I guess that may be a little unfair on Blackburn's defence which was also a great defence.

So I can't actually think of a great team since I've been following football (1981) that was only made up of good players. victims, Everton, Arsenal, Chelsea. All have had great teams....made up of great players.