OT: What next for Harry?

[thfcsteff]

MY ANSWERS TO AFRICAN'S POST IN BOLD (sorry, quoting thing messed up)

Okay starting here. I am not sure why Harry should have distanced himself from the Job of his dreams. The whole world and their dog knew he wanted that job. He's a professional with aspirations. There is nothing wrong with wanting something and going for it. As long as you are prepared to deal with the consequences and fall out. Harry was prepared for both.


Mate. He can want what he wants, but he allowed his eye to get taken off the ball. He lost his focus. Between winning court cases with frankly embarrassing testimony and being touted for the England job by his media mates, he allowed the circus to continue. He could've very very easily asked his media mates to back off/fed them a 'no discussion about until I get asked/if I do, yes I'd like it but I won't answer any more questions about it' and (more importantly) apply himself fully to the task of completing our season by getting the third place or better we (and he) deserved.



Now you say he flat out denied that it had any influence? what did you expect him to say? to come out there and say it ruined our season? Are you serious? EVERYONE knew it disrupted our season, there isnt any need for harry to go stoking the flames there. If honesty is trait that's against Harry then you need to look to our current manager Allegedly lieing on a few front

N.B speaking of which Milo is going to chew your ass in a bit cause you insinuated Harry to be a fibber

I didn't insinuate anything. There are direct quotes from two time frames a few pages above. and yes. With his England dream gone and our season falling flat, a summer APOLOGY/admission might well have been a sign of true character. Instead we were fed the same old flimflam about how delighted we should be, how this is as good as it gets, how we were diabolical before he came in to save us, etc, etc. I am NOT having it.


He had to move his players around cause the CL was a once in a life time experience. He had to use the squad more and he did it well.

I was talking about the season we qualified, the one where we targeted CL qualification at the expense of anything else (and achieved it). THAT was great squad rotation. The actual CL year itself? Errr, I think had he rotated the squad a bit better, we'd have finished 4th and been back in it! As for last season, he had great options but chose not to use them a lot of the time/froze them out/didn't pay them heed. It's a fact that he didn't use Kranjcar, fudged Charlie off and out of there and couldn't get Pienaar to work in any sense thus demoralizing a player who only 6 months earlier had played a tremendous role in one of Harry's finest moments (the 1-0 win against AC in the San Siro, a night when his shape and tactics were spot on!)...

Again if you're going to sit there and type away saying that Injuries doesnt even factor into the plus column for him then i dont want to hear anything you have to say about players getting injured for AVB (kaboul) or people getting sold or him not getting his players. These things happen..deal with it AVB . after all wenger sold all his players and replaced them with significantly less..no? AVB better start winning some games , cant be relying on injuries and lack of personell as reasons..nah nah nah...that kind of thing doesnt wash around here apparently

Different situation. If YOU want to see them as the same, then that's your perogative. Most reasonable people will easily spot the difference in context.

on a serious note..i do agree...injuries are part of the job...but you nicely mention that for AVB. why?

See above.




i did find this odd when he let pienaar go, but you know what....i ws okay with cause i 'thought' Niko would get more games and he did. Niko being IMO the better player. Pienaar on the other hand seemed to be the king of average and mediocrity. no idea what happened to him while he was here....he played enough games for us to show us that he could perform when called upon and pienaar didnt play well. put it mildly he appeared to be a guy that needs the team to function through him for his values to become apparent.

He wasnt going to get that here so we moved him. It was an odd one but we did it and IMO we did it for a player that was better coming off the bench in Niko

Its funny though after all Pienaars average performances that him not being here is now A BIG DEAL when he struts his stuff in a system that suits him.


Nope, not since that. On several occasions he proved himself a very decent squad option, and had he been shown some managerial love and confidence, would continue to have been so. I was flummoxed when we let him go. I thought it was the sort of move that suggested someone didn't have the time to deal with him.



This one IS one of the things that irks me abit, people are talking about this now. but why werent people suggesting us to play Niko when we were flying ...eh? who are you going to drop to play Niko ...regularly? who? bale? no...Lennon? no////VDV? no.....modric ? no...and i am telling you...no one was complaining here when we were winning...and when we were losing no one wanted our best players dropped. Human being are very similar and predictable in that they will yell murder from far away when things dont go their way. when things are on course no one complains.......hehe..the JOKER was right

(sigh) We were going for three trophies. Rotate the squad. If you see players getting tired in the last portion of the season, rest them and give others the game. He did it before with Niko yet suddenly he couldn't do it again? Personally I thought Niko became disheartened and disnterested , podgy too...must've been the brilliant man-management!



Oh MY GOOOOOOD!!! this bit needs challenging till Jesus returns....No one could get Pav to function. and that was down to key fundamental skills the man was missing. added to that the system didnt suit him..he would have been better to play to a 2 man strike force (in the premiership anyway)...but for that you would have to drop someone. again i ask you ..who are you dropping

He was better as part of a pair. He was also a fine option coming off the bench. When Adebayor was plainly, plainly playing through niggles and knocks for a month or so, rest him up, pump Pav up and get him playing to a system. work with him in training. Keep him fresh, keep him onside...simple stuff. Again, nobody said anything about dropping anyone for him, it was about managing tired leg and bodies.



who were the options? sandro and thudd were injured. Is livermore the great hope? he was the guy that would seamlessly replace parker who was our player of the season...and therefore integral to our great run AND also needed to get us out of the bad run? who were the options pray tell.
Its a shame that parker got injured but you make it sound like that scene in TRUE GRIT when John Wayne is flogging Blackie up the hill till he dies (there is a joke there somewhere but i keep getting outted as a racist so i'll leave that alone)

It is my personal belief that Harry over-relied on Parker, yes, and that he could easily have rotated Livermore into some games alongside Modric. That's right. I know some people consider Livermore to be utter brick, but two managers appear to have seen qualities in him and he is back in the England squad...



earlier in the same season sounds like it was back during the good run...it was only like a few weeks prior. but definately bring up his single worst game for us to prove that his tactical nous is lacking. Just say the word and i'll name TEN GAMES where his tactics and moves won us games. i'm THAT confident that people will reach for every morsel they can find to prove that he was a stupid tactician ..and morsels they are cause they arent 'that' many
and i like the way you smear our beating of Saudi Sportswashing Machine cause they missed a few players..oh yeah, if i remember correctly WE TOO didnt have a couple of players cause we started Saha and niko for that game if i remember correctly....where were lennon and VDV for instance ...ahaaaaa....but who cares when we are trying to be fair. but playing on the lack of quality being a strong factor as to why harry made mince meat of a team that despite not having said players managed to compete brilliantly with other teams and also played two strikers away to other teams as well, BEFORE and AFTER getting torn to shreds by us...and they came out looking pretty good still..playing on the factor of lower quality .. our boy AVB cant even beat norwhich at our ground. whats that about? Surely he should know that the quality being lower than his player he needs to go out there and spank these bitches...and even then he wont get enough of the credit cause he did with a strong factor of his team being miles better

Saudi Sportswashing Machine...let me spell it out. First of all, where did I 'smear' the game? I presented a fact. Yes, correct, we were two players shy ourselves. My fact was entirely focussed on the fact we won playing 4-4-2 and that off the wave of euphoria which came with it, we went to the emirates and played 4-4-2. Foolish. I genuinely don't understand the last half of the above...'our boy AVB can't even beat Norwich at our own ground'? Are you serious? Shall we discuss context again, or should I just throw the cheap jab and say that this was ANOTHER game that Harry BLEW last season at home because we lost to them. Add QPR to that. Add Villa away to that. Stoke at home. Add Everton away to that, when we only bothered turning up for the second-half and still nearly won. Some results will happen (o-o a Sunderland is a decent point IMO) but all of those? No mate.


we started off with 442 then we went to 451.....cause we took off niko and saha and brought on VDV and sandro. where did you get 433 and not 451? he was trying to stem the tide, it didnt work, we got beat. but like i said...that has got to be a big jewel in the case against him. i can mention 10 games where Harry beat the other guy

He deployed something which quickly became a 4-3-3 second-half. Had he been conservative, smart and showed some nous, he'd have gone with a deep 4-5-1 and had Sandro sitting right in front of the defence in order to protect King (who frankly I would've subbed)...the whole thing became shapeless, we were overrun in wide-positions (absolutely bizarre) and in the end we were routed whilst looking absolutely confused. Read this for some interesting context...they actually claim he tried a 4-1-4-1-ish system in the second-half which (and I quote) quickly became narrow, but all I saw was players quickly trying to make a 4-3-3 work and us getting absolutely ****ed!!!!!



yep we burnt out the previous season. And? thats not allowed to happen is it? especialy if we finished 5th that year. somewhere when i closed my eyes we must have become a true title contending team with out the title contending resources...as such it would be easy to get annoyed at getting 5th. Only us

Ha ha ha, AGAIN you chose to see what you wanted to see. I said CLEARLY that whilst disappointed, i fully expected mistakes to have been learnt from that situation, and that with levy moving heaven and earth to make sure Modders stayed, I thought we were in a great position to do something last season.



These elements are reaches and for me they dont stick..if they do stick then they have to stick to AVB as well. its as simple as that

I am not here to tell you you're wrong. Your opinion is your opinion. But I won't sit here and b told that what I've said doesn't hold merit. It does. Plenty.

Once again, I agree to disagree, but if you want, this can run on and on and on and on and on and on, etc, etc...would rather not, but I suspect it's either shake hands and move on or one of us decides it's gone far enough and backs down. Might be me but I cannot promise that anymore...

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't think that you are showing anyone anything, to be honest. To me it is coming across as a silly personal crusade. Where by repeating the worst behaviour of those that you are seeking to criticise you undermine your argument and turn people against you rather than strengthen your case or highlight hypocrisy.

I was one of the most vocal supporters of Harry on this board and I think that some of the arguments against him last season were flawed. But that does not mean that all of them were flawed or all that criticise him were wrong. It is possible to be pro-Harry and pro-AVB. Just as it is possible to be pro-Harry but think that it was the right time for him to be replaced.

Message boards have a habit of polarising opinions and people often making inflated claims to try and back up their arguments. One of the silliest manifestations of this on this board is people trying to putting people into one of two camps pro or anti Harry Redknapp. The truth is that most of us are probably somewhere in the middle and anyone at either extreme is probably a bit odd.

I saw that you said earlier today in this thread that people were not allowed to discuss Redknapp on this board at one stage. I do not remember that and I certainly never stopped discussing him. All the admin team asked is that people stopped making the same arguments across various threads. That's just the site rules and are there to try and keep the board flowing.

I think that it is such a shame that this has become such a divisive issue, particularly coming so hot on the heels of the Stratford debacle. I hate to see anything that pits fan against fan. We should feel free to disagree about anything and have robust discussions about it but this has become personal for some and it is damaging.

A superb post. In fact, reading this has convinced me I absolutely must get a grip and stop. African, one more time, let's agree to disagree and hope that Spurs have such a successful season-plus that we are drunk in the glory of it all...

 

[africanspurs]

I don't think that you are showing anyone anything, to be honest. To me it is coming across as a silly personal crusade. Where by repeating the worst behaviour of those that you are seeking to criticise you undermine your argument and turn people against you rather than strengthen your case or highlight hypocrisy.

I was one of the most vocal supporters of Harry on this board and I think that some of the arguments against him last season were flawed. But that does not mean that all of them were flawed or all that criticise him were wrong. It is possible to be pro-Harry and pro-AVB. Just as it is possible to be pro-Harry but think that it was the right time for him to be replaced.

Message boards have a habit of polarising opinions and people often making inflated claims to try and back up their arguments. One of the silliest manifestations of this on this board is people trying to putting people into one of two camps pro or anti Harry Redknapp. The truth is that most of us are probably somewhere in the middle and anyone at either extreme is probably a bit odd.

I saw that you said earlier today in this thread that people were not allowed to discuss Redknapp on this board at one stage. I do not remember that and I certainly never stopped discussing him. All the admin team asked is that people stopped making the same arguments across various threads. That's just the site rules and are there to try and keep the board flowing.

I think that it is such a shame that this has become such a divisive issue, particularly coming so hot on the heels of the Stratford debacle. I hate to see anything that pits fan against fan. We should feel free to disagree about anything and have robust discussions about it but this has become personal for some and it is damaging.

Honestly on this topic i dont care. it was some of the dumbest things you could throw at someone that was being used as reasons per se that he was a bad manager. its THAT which needs highlighting and the only way to highlight it is to hold the new golden boy up to the same standard. i'm not doing this to generate sympathy for harry but to show that some of the arguments put forward are down right silly

and this thing about people saying that Harry was brought up freely is getting annoying. the Harry thread was closed and it wasnt replaced by another one for a while...and i was told not to mention Harry even after someone mentioned him before in another ridiculous negative way..but they werent called up on it until i responded..then it was like "hold on. cant do that"

and who said that all the arguments against Harry were wrong? it certainly wasnt me....there are stuff that was true. You see you're just as able to fall into the polarisation as the rest of us. i'll quip on at the things i dont agree with..aka tactical stupid or naive...buys older players....cant buy players......uses bale wrong....bad rotation skills. but you wont see me argue for his character, what he did for the England job or the fact that i suspect his training methods are outdated and could use some progressive help.

and here is another thing why is it one angle thats always looked upon to be causing the issue?

 

[africanspurs]

Stratford was a much bigger issue imho and had it gone any further than it did then i think there would have been some serious fall out, much worse than we have seen with Redknapp - thankfully the issue has no relevance anymore and we can brush it under the carpet.

the Redknapp thing will drag on until either AVB proves to be a success where it will finally be put to bed or AVB is a failure and then we can prepare ourselves for a mammoth few weeks/months of "i told you so's" etc

wonder which it'll be :-k

how can AVB be a failure, the way people were talking about him he cannot possibly fail. This guy could very well take us all the way

am kidding obviulsy

 

[africanspurs]

Sorry mate, I think thats rubbish. I have absolutely no doubt Levy can be an obstacle, but also have absolutely no doubt it doesnt take huge money to get quality players (to those that know where/how to look) and no doubt that Redknapp had more than ample opportunity to build a better, more balanced squad.

I also think you get success with Levy in the market when you sing his tune. Younger players who will appreciate, opportunity buys, selling to service buys. For someone known as a wheeler dealer this should not have been to much of a challenge.

AVB getting supported? I believe we made net profit this window. He brought potential as well as proven premiership material, young players as well as those bordering on the dreaded 30s. With the same 'obstructive' chairman Harry had.

And Harry didnt build the squad? You think the likes of Friedel, Gallas and Parker are anyone but Harrys moves?

agree with the bit in bold , the line just after is the reason why i will keep at this thing. what does that mean 'wheeler dealer so this shouldnt be a problem'? you see thats the kind of line that doesnt actually take into account th evidence that transfers belong to the company's policy

right so when someone gets fed pennies or a woman is getting little bits of money for her kid when she should get alot more she is being supported

alright then. its the kind of stuff thats based on opinion so cant be truly argued and AVB get supported more than Harry is mine. pretty sure we sold to buy under harry too and we still didnt shel out like this

 

[africanspurs]

@steff , Billy , Jordinho

sorry guys i know you took the time to respond in detail but this is clearly going to be like this

loooong post saying why harry should go? Nothing really gets told its wrong with it

looooong post saying why harry was unfairly criticised? fudging ruining the whole place. one day when Jesus comes down someone will be like...you guys contributed to this thing too. it taaaakes twoooo babyyyyy

 

[africanspurs]

A superb post. In fact, reading this has convinced me I absolutely must get a grip and stop. African, one more time, let's agree to disagree and hope that Spurs have such a successful season-plus that we are drunk in the glory of it all...

yep, i can live with this.(heh, but i dont understand how you can say this AFTER your long response... )

 

[thfcsteff]

yep, i can live with this.(heh, but i dont understand how you can say this AFTER your long response... )

Indeed, I recognize that could seem odd, so apologies for that, came across oddly. Feel free to respond to the long post I put up and I'll leave you with the last word mate/not respond...

 

[africanspurs]

Indeed, I recognize that could seem odd, so apologies for that, came across oddly. Feel free to respond to the long post I put up and I'll leave you with the last word mate/not respond...

nah your alright.....this topic has been done to partial death for the time being

 

[ArcspacE]

You guys are going to break the forum with these massive quotes

Harry is gone and ain't coming back - we will never (unless someone on here is Levy's son) know the full reasons as to why he left - personally I don't believe those were purely football-related at all.

The rest is unecessary revisionism, imv - and petty point scoring to be memorised and used in future 'debates' as reference - i.e. aaaah, you were in the anti-Arry camp therefore, blah, blah, blah

For five snakes - let it go, lads - we have a new, exciting manager, bringing in exciting ideas, and massive potential who can be with us for decades (something very rare in the modern game), someone looking to establish a system defining our outlook and ethos as a club as well as a brand (much like Wenger and Ferguson have done in their nests) - SAF had 4 brick seasons before he won a trophy - AVB's had 3 average games (threee fudging games!) and the knives are out. fudging hell, you couldn't make it up

 

[milo]

Honestly on this topic i dont care. it was some of the dumbest things you could throw at someone that was being used as reasons per se that he was a bad manager. its THAT which needs highlighting and the only way to highlight it is to hold the new golden boy up to the same standard. i'm not doing this to generate sympathy for harry but to show that some of the arguments put forward are down right silly

and this thing about people saying that Harry was brought up freely is getting annoying. the Harry thread was closed and it wasnt replaced by another one for a while...and i was told not to mention Harry even after someone mentioned him before in another ridiculous negative way..but they werent called up on it until i responded..then it was like "hold on. cant do that"

and who said that all the arguments against Harry were wrong? it certainly wasnt me....there are stuff that was true. You see you're just as able to fall into the polarisation as the rest of us. i'll quip on at the things i dont agree with..aka tactical stupid or naive...buys older players....cant buy players......uses bale wrong....bad rotation skills. but you wont see me argue for his character, what he did for the England job or the fact that i suspect his training methods are outdated and could use some progressive help.

and here is another thing why is it one angle thats always looked upon to be causing the issue?

I think that if you are not interested in positive discussion and are just criticising the new manager to get back at people who criticised the old one you are acting as a WUM. In fact, you have pretty much admitted that is what you are doing.

The Redknapp thread was closed because it got very nasty and there was tons of personal abuse going in there. It got moved to the admin part of the board so we could go through it (honestly that was tough going) and issue infractions to the worst offenders. All we asked is that another thread was not started up where the same arguement continues. Have a read of the site rules, it's in there, has been for ages and is there for a reason.

 

[africanspurs]

I think that if you are not interested in positive discussion and are just criticising the new manager to get back at people who criticised the old one you are acting as a WUM. In fact, you have pretty much admitted that is what you are doing.

.

"not interested in positive discussions" ??.....what exactly do you mean by that

i'll hold my hands up to criticizing where normally i wouldnt be as harsh, but maybe normally i'm too lenient and accomodating?

dont you have to make stuff up to be a WUM? kind of like saying that someone only buys old players on their last legs or something

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

agree with the bit in bold , the line just after is the reason why i will keep at this thing. what does that mean 'wheeler dealer so this shouldnt be a problem'? you see thats the kind of line that doesnt actually take into account th evidence that transfers belong to the company's policy

right so when someone gets fed pennies or a woman is getting little bits of money for her kid when she should get alot more she is being supported

alright then. its the kind of stuff thats based on opinion so cant be truly argued and AVB get supported more than Harry is mine. pretty sure we sold to buy under harry too and we still didnt shel out like this

Of course its an opinion thing, unless you or I get a job as THFC accountant neither will really "know".

However, you talk about Harry in the market as he was destitute, and I believe that simply isnt true.

In his first window he got £40m and carte blanche to buy who he wanted.

In his second we spent £10m on a 30 year old Crouch.

After that we offered big contracts to the likes of Gallas and Fridel on loan.

I would never argue that Harry had £20m to spend on a single player or a wheelbarrow full of cash - but I would argue, strongly, that he had funds to make moves in the market.

And my opinion is that had he targeted more buys in the mould Levy appreciates he would have had a lot more success in brining in players. Suarez, for example, he turned down - went to Liverpool for over £20m (if reports are to be believed)

 

[africanspurs]

@nayim..mate...i'd like to respond to this here, but one thing that genuinely irritates me and actually spurs me on is that its only one side of this thats being seen as problematic. "not interested in positive discussions"? because i'm not agreeing with everyone?

cause you putting out an opinion about Harry.....you wont be accused of anything...i'll respond to that and i have issues and wont let go. you're just as stubborn as i am :lol:

 

[Pirate55]

Of course its an opinion thing, unless you or I get a job as THFC accountant neither will really "know".

However, you talk about Harry in the market as he was destitute, and I believe that simply isnt true.

In his first window he got £40m and carte blanche to buy who he wanted.

In his second we spent £10m on a 30 year old Crouch.

After that we offered big contracts to the likes of Gallas and Fridel on loan.

I would never argue that Harry had £20m to spend on a single player or a wheelbarrow full of cash - but I would argue, strongly, that he had funds to make moves in the market.

And my opinion is that had he targeted more buys in the mould Levy appreciates he would have had a lot more success in brining in players. Suarez, for example, he turned down - went to Liverpool for over £20m (if reports are to be believed)

Agree with that. Anyone who thinks H didnt bring in "old players on their last legs" is in denial. What about Chimbonda, Parker, Friedel, Gallas, Crouch, Saha, Nelsen. It is a fact that he signed those players. Some of them did a useful job for us for a time. But none of them can exactly be described as "ones for the future".

IMO we needed one key signing in either of the last two winter windows to see us over the line.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

Agree with that. Anyone who thinks H didnt bring in "old players on their last legs" is in denial. What about Chimbonda, Parker, Friedel, Gallas, Crouch, Saha, Nelsen. It is a fact that he signed those players. Some of them did a useful job for us for a time. But none of them can exactly be described as "ones for the future".

IMO we needed one key signing in either of the last two winter windows to see us over the line.

That's not necessarily his fault though - I mean if his sole target was Tevez, then yes it's his fault, however, and purely just for example, if he'd have gone in for Cisse (Saudi Sportswashing Machine) and Levy declined it or couldn't seal the deal then that's Levy's fault.

 

[africanspurs]

Agree with that. Anyone who thinks H didnt bring in "old players on their last legs" is in denial. What about Chimbonda, Parker, Friedel, Gallas, Crouch, Saha, Nelsen. It is a fact that he signed those players. Some of them did a useful job for us for a time. But none of them can exactly be described as "ones for the future".

IMO we needed one key signing in either of the last two winter windows to see us over the line.

apologies in advance for not contributing positively to this but i would like to focus on the key issue...the key point is 'only old players or mianly' or that if he had a choice he would choose to buy the older , glue factory bound players. of course he bought cheaper, GHod for now experience ...a) the squad needed it and b) the were cheap. the key is where the possible and liekly restrictions put on him the key factors that make it necessary to go for these players

 

[africanspurs]

That's not necessarily his fault though - I mean if his sole target was Tevez, then yes it's his fault, however, and purely just for example, if he'd have gone in for Cisse (Saudi Sportswashing Machine) and Levy declined it or couldn't seal the deal then that's Levy's fault.

no one knew he wanted dembele until he himself mentioned it on MoTD..actaully maybe someone knew but i admittedley did

is dembele an old last legs kind of guy? No

 

[BrainOfLevy]

yeah, he played that bit wrong.




cant really deny anything here. i would just ask that people stop shooting me on something i know if bad. On this point i surrender



yeah this is dicey ground right here. parker is the easiest one to pick on cause of his ankle issue and his work rate but i remember when sandro was on the bench, he wasnt actually fully fit. Livermore? i cant believe anyone would have been okay for parker who was playing 90 good consistent minutes games in game out to get dropped for livermore when we needed him. but thats an opinion of mine in particular...hindsight is 20/20 and and maybe he should have rested parker. but AT THE ACTUAL TIME...who said that

"we MUST drop parker for LIvermore!!!"

and again, you're talking about a once in life time thing here....we had a chance to really cook last season..and you want him to drop his best players? actually you've said that he should drop X and Y and Z...so far you've mention livermore for parker. what about the rest of them? and more importantly ..when would you have dropped them?

another question , at the time..did you want them dropped..were you desperate and adamant that we drop lennon, bale, vdv , adebayor, parker etc at any time...not all at once obviously



I would say no...at a top club , they have options to keep a style going. they have the personell to do..and the deviation in quality between tier one and tier two is not significant enough for dropping and rotating to be an issue. For Harry though the drop is a lot more noticeable

case in point, how often did Wenger rest van persie in the league? How often did Ferguson rest rooney? how often did Mancini rest Yaya? these players have a significant drop in the 'next in line' personell...not to mention their squads are massive

as for the mis table manager thing and rotating...remember that Harry played alot of the fringe guys in europe and the carling cup..so the main guys were actually kept for the league games. is that not a bit of rotation to focus on whats important? the league.

and the year of the CL...he rotated well enough to fight on like 4 fronts. now is that a mid table manager mentality?

On rotation, if there was a game where he dropped Parker and played Livermore or Sandro, I think most people would have understood. They'd think 'fair play, he's run himself into the ground and is probably playing with a few niggles, plus his form and effectiveness has dipped, let's take him out this week and have him raring to go next time' and I think that would have been ok. Maybe people aren't screaming for Parker etc to be dropped but we aren't the managers and we won't have the nous of when to plan who should be rotated at which times, but as fans we still would have been able to accept it if it happened because we see every other club do it. We would understand it was needed for the future games of the season. Same with Lennon, Walker, whoever. If done right, we shouldn't experience that much drop in quality because we've taken one player out at a strategic time. I remember in 05/06, Wenger started Henry on the bench at Highbury in a game that was basically the 4th place play off. Fergie regularly rotates and it is accepted.

I wouldn't say our drop in quality is that much more than top teams, so much so that it puts us at a serious disadvantage. Let's say our first choice is Walker and back up Corluka for right back. Sometimes Man United will play Jones at right back, sometimes they will play Rafael or sometimes Smalling. Are their options so much better? I wouldn't say so. If we take Lennon out and play Niko or Pienaar one game, or Sandro - a Brazillian international - for Parker in one game, then it's not so much of a drop off in quality. These are players that are proven to play effective roles in teams finishing top 4, or at the very least top 6 sides. Mancini doesn't rest Yaya, although there were calls to him that he had overplayed Silva because his form had tailed off last season, but it stands to reason that absolute key, key players don't get dropped. And it also stands to reason that physical freaks that can handle it and that their game is based on stamina could probably handle it too. Maybe Yaya doesn't need to be dropped because he's great physically. Same as someone like Bale. Guys like Parker and Lennon though, I think they could have been rotated out and we wouldn't have experienced too much of a drop in quality because their back ups were pretty good.

I think Steff makes a good point, of a manager needing to make sure players come into form at different times of the season. In 09/10, we started off really well with Defoe in form, Keane was contributing, Crouch was kept back and Pav was near enough nowhere to be seen. We had Modric in midfield, playing off the left, Palacios in the centre with Huddlestone and Lennon on the right. In defence, Bassong was playing his part while Dawson was out, King got a few games, Corluka was solid at right back. But then, Modric went out, and we got Kranjcar playing. Krancjar went out and we got Bale starting. Palacios went out and we got Modric back. Keane went out and Crouch was eased in. Pav got a shot, and earned his place alongside Defoe at times. Crouch then came back and contributed to a big win at City. Kaboul came in and did well from January. The team that started the season wasn't the team that finished. Krancjar, Crouch, Pav, Palacios etc didn't represent such a drop off in quality that season so why do they now? We had players coming in to form at different times, and it sustained our consistency. I think not only from a physical point of view, but from a mentally fresh perspective rotation can help. You simply can't play at maximum effectiveness at all times during the season. It felt like some of our players had been run into the ground, and then by the end of the season, obviously it looks ridiculous to then play your weaker team because your first choice are knackered physically and mentally, because you need to win these important games. But if the situation was managed better, we could have avoided that scenario.

There's also the slightly different issue of it perhaps being easier to rotate if we had similar player types for back up. Under Harry, if we had Bale and Lennon we deserved to win more often than not. We desperately needed another winger that could come in when one of them was out and allow us to play the same way IMO. We were set up to be effective using them, but we'd look so pedestrian when they were out. And then of course we then succumbed to using a player that was already falling out of form, on the other side of the pitch and out of their natural position. And then we asked them to continue to be effective and make the difference for us. Wasn't gonna happen.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

That's not necessarily his fault though - I mean if his sole target was Tevez, then yes it's his fault, however, and purely just for example, if he'd have gone in for Cisse (Saudi Sportswashing Machine) and Levy declined it or couldn't seal the deal then that's Levy's fault.

We will never know, but IMO Levy wouldnt have turned down Cisse at that price at all.

Look at Vertonghen, £10m was it? For a defender in the last year of his deal. I believe thats a lot of money in those circumstances (frm the Dutch league, unproven at a higher level, last year of deal)

Clearly Levy was all over that deal while Harry was here - he had no issue gong for it.

Harry was at one point quite publically courting Rio Ferdinand. On over £100k at Utd, 32 (iirc) and injury prone. A fabulous defender when fit, I have no argument - but a wise investment? Probably available relatively cheap, cheaper than Vertonghen on fees though higher wage. This one went no further than a few love letters in the press from Harry.

I think its a nice example of how if you go with Levys ideals then you get more...