Redknapp

[WookieD]

Edit: Wrong Fred

 

[elltrev]

For the 645th time

Redknapp was exactly that (relative to managing a big club) and yet he was given his first job at a big club and look how it turned out

The fact we were in a middle of a mess back then (when he arrived) changes nothing from our bigger/overall objectives - else Levy would have offered him a 9-month contract to 'save us' and then looked elsewhere.

Jesus man we get the point. All braineclipse was saying is that you can be more confident in a manager who has proven success than one who hasn't, as it's difficult to really judge the qualities of a manager when we don't actually see them in action.

And just because Harry was unproven and became successful, doesn't mean that all unproven managers will become successful - I'm sure we've all agreed that there is an element of risk and the unknown whoever you appoint.

Also I still think it's ridiculous to say "The fact we were in a middle of a mess back then (when he arrived) changes nothing from our bigger/overall objectives" - I would argue that it changes everything. Just because he offered him a 3 year contract doesn't mean he wasn't looking to replace him if and when Harry had helped to stabilise us.

 

[ArcspacE]

Also I still think it's ridiculous to say "The fact we were in a middle of a mess back then (when he arrived) changes nothing from our bigger/overall objectives" - I would argue that it changes everything. Just because he offered him a 3 year contract doesn't mean he wasn't looking to replace him if and when Harry had helped to stabilise us.

So you think Levy said - Well, this is it boys, we can never challenge for CL football again based on 8 games and from now on we should aim to secure PL status and nothing more. Our objectives are now to aim for mid-table security'


I think it was more like - Arry, old pal - secure the ship, repair the cracks and back on course from next season.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Braineclipse, apologies for being lazy - but I refer you to Eltrevs post. I dont think it is measurable per se, but I do think you can see ways of operating, tendancies, behaviours, attributes (for want of a better word) and judge based on your opinion of them.

You cannot comprehensively score them, you (as a chairman or fan) can only judge them on how they are. Added benefit of being a chairman is that you can actually interview them as well, grill them, interrogate and try to see what makes the man tick.

Two of the biggest tendancies I like in both Martinez and Rodgers is their view on the longer term (cue MK "There is no such thing blah blah blah") while focusing on short term goals and development.

Vorm has come into Swansea and done a fantastic job - thats no accident - thats long term strategy and scouting by Rodgers. He knew how his team would play, he knew what he needed in a goal keeper and found one that not only could do a job between the sticks but also showed the ability to play out of defence with his feet. He found a slightly uindersized and unknown (to us) chap in Holland who has been superb.

Martinez as Eltrev pointed out (that article BTW is well worth a read if you havent already) Martinnez feels he should try to build a legacy at a club, even if he doesnt benefit from it (but a successor does). He believe in prevention rather than cure. He studies games meticulously until he knows why he lost - and he even went and re designed their playing system to maximise what he could get from his squad.

Not that I am trying to judge these against Redknapp at this point - rather showing ways of looking at a manager. You cant point score, but you can know the sort of things you want and find a man how has those working successfully...

 

[elltrev]

So you think Levy said - Well this is it boys, we can never challenge for CL football again based on 8 games and from now on we should aim to secture PL status and nothing more. Our objectives are now to aim for mid-table security'

Where did I say or insinuate that?

All I'm saying is that we were in a crisis, pretty much in freefall, and the priority had to be to stop that freefall. Maybe a 3-year contract was required in order to get hold of Harry - 9 months may have not been enough to lure him away from his 'spiritual home' Portsmouth.

The fact that you say 'changes nothing from our bigger/overall objectives' suggests to me that you still don't think there are any significant differences between our situation then and our situation now?

 

[a spur from swansea]

..........i may have missed this somewhere in the 39 pager........but does anyone know if this offer is still on the table for harry??

 

[ArcspacE]

Where did I say or insinuate that?

All I'm saying is that we were in a crisis, pretty much in freefall, and the priority had to be to stop that freefall. Maybe a 3-year contract was required in order to get hold of Harry - 9 months may have not been enough to lure him away from his 'spiritual home' Portsmouth.

The fact that you say 'changes nothing from our bigger/overall objectives' suggests to me that you still don't think there are any significant differences between our situation then and our situation now?

No it doesn't change anything since from next season he would have been expected to try and do what Jol had failed on previously - make the Top 4. That was our underlying objective and still is till today

 

[braineclipse]

For the 645th time

Redknapp was exactly that (relative to managing a big club) and yet he was given his first job at a big club and look how it turned out

The fact we were in a middle of a mess back then (when he arrived) changes nothing from our bigger/overall objectives - else Levy would have offered him a 9-month contract to 'save us' and then looked elsewhere.

A sample size of one is going to change my mind?

For the sake of argument I'll accept that he was unproven, but what does that prove? Now I name an unproven manager that failed. You name an unproven manager that succeeded. We could go like that in a circle literally 645 times and it would prove nothing.

Since Levy hired Harry, but also hired people like Santini, Ramos and Comolli who got short and not exactly sweet careers at the club I see nothing here to show me that Levy is capable of objectively and accurately measuring the skills I was talking about in unproven people.

If you think this one example is convincing enough evidence to frequently repeat it we will get nowhere in this discussion without first discussing our different ways of looking at this. For me at least, seeing as all managers who end up at big clubs must at some point have been given their first job at a big club and that some managers must necessarily be successful one example is actually completely irrelevant and I would suggest that you stop repeating this point.

 

[ArcspacE]

A sample size of one is going to change my mind?

For the sake of argument I'll accept that he was unproven, but what does that prove? Now I name an unproven manager that failed. You name an unproven manager that succeeded. We could go like that in a circle literally 645 times and it would prove nothing.

Since Levy hired Harry, but also hired people like Santini, Ramos and Comolli who got short and not exactly sweet careers at the club I see nothing here to show me that Levy is capable of objectively and accurately measuring the skills I was talking about in unproven people.

If you think this one example is convincing enough evidence to frequently repeat it we will get nowhere in this discussion without first discussing our different ways of looking at this. For me at least, seeing as all managers who end up at big clubs must at some point have been given their first job at a big club and that some managers must necessarily be successful one example is actually completely irrelevant and I would suggest that you stop repeating this point.

Of course he was unproven - look at his record, for five snakes. There are at least 5-6 posters in this thread who feel Redknapp was exactly that when first arrived.

I couldn't care less if it changes your mind, tbh - at least take time to consider view points outside yours. Isn't that why you choose to frequent these lands.



So hold - let me get this straight

You want me to accept you're right in suggesting that hypothetically hiring an unproven manager (such as Redknapp at the time) would be the wrong thing to do eventhough we did exactly that with him 4 years ago?

As to the bolded bit above - it proves that the CV often means fudge all and people should try and lose this negativist prejudice against managers who haven't won the Champions League or domestic double or failed at a certain club, because Arry was one of them and he's achieved great success with us given the chance. For which he claims he's grateful.

You cannot measure success and managerial ability in numbers and figures - this is not an exact science. There is no formula. Comes down to balance, context, and of course circumstantial luck, imv

 

[elltrev]

No it doesn't change anything since from next season he would have been expected to try and do what Jol had failed on previously - make the Top 4. That was our underlying objective and still is till today

Firstly, I don't think it's true that he would be expected to make the top 4. Since Jol almost got 4th we had lost Carrick, Berbatov, Keane and Defoe without equal replacements, in the following two seasons had finished 8 and then 27 points from 4th, and then found ourselves with 2 points from 8 games in the following season. I think it's very simplistic and unfounded to say that Redknapp would have been expected to try and make the top 4 the following season.

Secondly, even if Levy did want to challenge for 4th again the following season, the priority still had to be the crisis that we were in at the time. Ramos had to be sacked, and we weren't going to be able to attract a proven manager for a club of our size given our status at the time.

Thirdly, even if you look at things in simple terms by saying that our underlying objectives were the same when we appointed Harry as they are now (which I still think is very wrong), objectives don't tell the whole story. You also have to look at the current situation. Picking an unproven manager when you've just finished 4th, 5th and 4th and have had the same manager for 4 seasons and look stable is very different to picking an unproven manager when you're going through a bit of a crisis having finished 11th the previous season, being bottom after 8 games and needing to sack your current manager.

 

[braineclipse]

This is the trouble with trying to rate a manager. We don't get to see them in the dressing room, on the training pitch, analysing previous games, conducting transfers. We have to judge them indirectly - do the players look motivated? Have their performances improved under the manager? Has the team improved in areas in which it used to be weak? Have we made astute signings? Unfortunately even that doesn't give you the full picture.

Personally I like Martinez. I think a big part of it is that I like him in the literal sense of the term - he comes across really well in interviews, seems very articulate and thoughtful. Also that interview with him in the Mail was really interesting - the fact that he's a trained physio and has a real focus on reducing injuries, that he watches games up to 10 times until he feels he knows exactly what went wrong in them. The fact that he believes in choosing a system that suits the players, and that he seems to have successfully drilled his team into effectively using and understanding their 3-4-3 formation - quite innovative and exciting. And their run at the end of the season seems to show that he can give players the confidence to play well and play attractively, when the results really matter.

Hypothetically, if we suddenly had no manager for whatever reason, I'd be excited if we appointed Martinez.

Let's face it, the only proven managers for a top 4 PL team are probably Fergie, Wenger, Mourinho and maybe Ancelotti. And then (aside from Redknapp) you have Moyes, Jol and Pardew who've managed teams into challenging for the top 4.

I agree fully.

Braineclipse, apologies for being lazy - but I refer you to Eltrevs post. I dont think it is measurable per se, but I do think you can see ways of operating, tendancies, behaviours, attributes (for want of a better word) and judge based on your opinion of them.

You cannot comprehensively score them, you (as a chairman or fan) can only judge them on how they are. Added benefit of being a chairman is that you can actually interview them as well, grill them, interrogate and try to see what makes the man tick.

Two of the biggest tendancies I like in both Martinez and Rodgers is their view on the longer term (cue MK "There is no such thing blah blah blah") while focusing on short term goals and development.

Vorm has come into Swansea and done a fantastic job - thats no accident - thats long term strategy and scouting by Rodgers. He knew how his team would play, he knew what he needed in a goal keeper and found one that not only could do a job between the sticks but also showed the ability to play out of defence with his feet. He found a slightly uindersized and unknown (to us) chap in Holland who has been superb.

Martinez as Eltrev pointed out (that article BTW is well worth a read if you havent already) Martinnez feels he should try to build a legacy at a club, even if he doesnt benefit from it (but a successor does). He believe in prevention rather than cure. He studies games meticulously until he knows why he lost - and he even went and re designed their playing system to maximise what he could get from his squad.

Not that I am trying to judge these against Redknapp at this point - rather showing ways of looking at a manager. You cant point score, but you can know the sort of things you want and find a man how has those working successfully...

I agree about both Martinez and Rodgers.

The tendencies you talk about will become clearer the more jobs or longer time the manager has a job. Different situations and player groups at different clubs will also give more information about various skills the manager has or lacks.

As the manager becomes more and more proven more and more information becomes available and a chairman or DoF (or fan) will be in a better position to judge the abilities of the manager. Even ignoring the value of the added experience of the manager from dealing with different situations the more proven a manager will be more likely to succeed in my opinion.

It's a game of incomplete information, the more proven a manager is the more information becomes available. Whatever tendencies can be seen after 1 season at 1 club will be clearer after 3 seasons with that club and clearer still after 3 seasons at 2 different clubs. The person making the analysis, if skilled, will have more information to go on and thus be able to make a more informed decision. I think this will take the form of a traditional learning curve. Quite comparable to surveys or scientific experiments a larger data set or sample size will increase the value of the information provided. The length of time a manager has had a job being the size of the data set/sample size.

 

[Jordinho]

IMO 12 seasons in the PL with these finishes makes Redknapp a hell of a lot more proven than any of Rodgers, Martinez, Lambert:

14, 10, 14, 8, 5, 9, 15 with West Ham who had only been up for one season when he took over.

Won Division One with Portsmouth, then 13, 16, 17, 9, 8 before moving to us. There was a short spell with Southampton in there as well, but not much had changed with Portsmouth when he came back.

He had shown twice that he can improve a team over time given financial backing. Yes, they spent beyond their means, but we have far bigger resources than either Wham or Pompey. His style of management and how he got his teams to play would be well known to Levy. His main asset being getting the very best out of players. He was not an unknown quantity. Based on his previous experience it was likely to assume would have us fighting for top 6 once we had taken care of more immediate problems.

Lambert and Rodgers have won promotion and stayed up. Martinez has kept his team up for three seasons. Hiring any of them is a higher risk, regardless of the circumstances, but if we get the right one we could get even better than we are now.

 

[elltrev]

Of course he was unproven - look at his record, for five snakes. There are at least 5-6 posters in this thread who feel Redknapp was exactly that when first arrived.

I couldn't care less if it changes your mind, tbh - at least take time to consider view points outside yours. Isn't that why you choose to frequent these lands.



So hold - let me get this straight

You want me to accept you're right in suggesting that hypothetically hiring an unproven manager (such as Redknapp at the time) would be the wrong thing to do eventhough we did exactly that with him 4 years ago?

As to the bolded bit above - it proves that the CV often means fudge all and people should try and lose this negativist prejudice against managers who haven't won the Champions League or domestic double or failed at a certain club, because Arry was one of them and he's achieved great success with us given the chance. For which he claims he's grateful.

You cannot measure success and managerial ability in numbers and figures - this is not an exact science. There is no formula. Comes down to balance, context, and of course circumstantial luck, imv

For the sake of clarity, can I just ask all posters looking at this thread to answer this question: If Harry tragically died tomorrow, and we therefore had to appoint a new manager for next season, would you be categorically against hiring any manager who had not previously had success with a club of our size / objectives?

I think this is what ArcspacE is arguing against, and yet I'm not sure if anyone would actually answer yes to this question (i.e. that they'd be categoricaly against it).

If anyone would answer 'yes', I'm on ArcspacE's side.

 

[Pirate55]

Firstly, I don't think it's true that he would be expected to make the top 4. Since Jol almost got 4th we had lost Carrick, Berbatov, Keane and Defoe without equal replacements, in the following two seasons had finished 8 and then 27 points from 4th, and then found ourselves with 2 points from 8 games in the following season. I think it's very simplistic and unfounded to say that Redknapp would have been expected to try and make the top 4 the following season.

Secondly, even if Levy did want to challenge for 4th again the following season, the priority still had to be the crisis that we were in at the time. Ramos had to be sacked, and we weren't going to be able to attract a proven manager for a club of our size given our status at the time.

Thirdly, even if you look at things in simple terms by saying that our underlying objectives were the same when we appointed Harry as they are now (which I still think is very wrong), objectives don't tell the whole story. You also have to look at the current situation. Picking an unproven manager when you've just finished 4th, 5th and 4th and have had the same manager for 4 seasons and look stable is very different to picking an unproven manager when you're going through a bit of a crisis having finished 11th the previous season, being bottom after 8 games and needing to sack your current manager.

arc's comments are well taken. I would add another consideration to be taken into account. Harry currently has a very disaffected squad. The team only won very few of their last 12 games. We didnt win any of the crucial games. Furthermore the following players are tinkled off with Harry:

Gomes
Corluka
Bassong
Rose
Dos Santos
Pienaar
Kranchar
Defoe

To say nothing of Bentley and Jenas

Add to that Bale and Modric who may well want to leave.

Harry has forfeited the good will of virtually a whole team. Any new manager has the opportunity of starting with a fresh slate and re-igniting their Spurs careers.

Are his supporters really confident that he will replace them with better players? Remember he bought Keane, Crouch, Pallacious, Bassong, Piennar etc

I am not sure Levy really trusts him with our transfer budget.

 

[ArcspacE]

Firstly, I don't think it's true that he would be expected to make the top 4. Since Jol almost got 4th we had lost Carrick, Berbatov, Keane and Defoe without equal replacements, in the following two seasons had finished 8 and then 27 points from 4th, and then found ourselves with 2 points from 8 games in the following season. I think it's very simplistic and unfounded to say that Redknapp would have been expected to try and make the top 4 the following season.

Secondly, even if Levy did want to challenge for 4th again the following season, the priority still had to be the crisis that we were in at the time. Ramos had to be sacked, and we weren't going to be able to attract a proven manager for a club of our size given our status at the time.

Thirdly, even if you look at things in simple terms by saying that our underlying objectives were the same when we appointed Harry as they are now (which I still think is very wrong), objectives don't tell the whole story. You also have to look at the current situation. Picking an unproven manager when you've just finished 4th, 5th and 4th and have had the same manager for 4 seasons and look stable is very different to picking an unproven manager when you're going through a bit of a crisis having finished 11th the previous season, being bottom after 8 games and needing to sack your current manager.

I'm begining to think you really fail to understand the meaning of season objectives as opposed to our finishing position. Else Levy would have been perfectly happy with Jol's results and never sacked him.

Redknapp had 2 transfer windows till the next season began, proper pre-season, was given funds, got his men and was gearing up for a strong push. There is no way in fudge Levy would have told him to go out and see what happens. Nor would that have been part of the initial conversations prior to him singing. Levy would have informed him of our bigger plans, overall objectives, budgets, even the stadium, etc.

Past the Ramos catastrophe - Levy was looking for a man to steady the ship and get us back on track to where we were aiming to go. Do you honestly think potential managers would have judged us on those 8 games and thought - well, this lot are terrible and would be relegated - not touching it? That's laughable. We had the 5th highest turnover, some good players and a very exciting future. Doubt many managers of decent calibre would have turned us down based on 8 games.

As to your last point - Levy, like any other sensible chairman would have hired Redknapp for longer than a season which he did. If he didn't think Redknapp is able to meet our bigger objectives past the short term goal of pulling away from the drop - he wouldn't have gambled with a near 15m appointment (possibly even more including Pompey's compensation).

 

[Jordinho]

Are his supporters really confident that he will replace them with better players? Remember he bought Keane, Crouch, Pallacious, Bassong, Piennar etc

I am not sure Levy really trusts him with our transfer budget.

Keane - We were desperate for a proven striker at the time. Getting him back for less than we sold him for was a good move. We couldn't know that Rafa had managed to fudge him up that much

Crouch - Again we needed someone like him and maybe there wasn't anyone else available. Apart from making everyone start hitting it long he did well for us.

Palacios - Absolutely crucial at the time.

Bassong - Very promising talent at the time. Put in a great shift in his first season. Hasn't had the desired development.

Pienaar - Didn't cost much, could cover several positions, had looked good for Everton for several seasons.

What amazing players did Redknapp get rid of to bring in these?

 

[braineclipse]

Of course he was unproven - look at his record, for five snakes. There are at least 5-6 posters in this thread who feel Redknapp was exactly that when first arrived.

I couldn't care less if it changes your mind, tbh - at least take time to consider view points outside yours. Isn't that why you choose to frequent these lands.



So hold - let me get this straight

You want me to accept you're right in suggesting that hypothetically hiring an unproven manager (such as Redknapp at the time) would be the wrong thing to do eventhough we did exactly that with him 4 years ago?

As to the bolded bit above - it proves that the CV often means fudge all and people should try and lose this negativist prejudice against managers who haven't won the Champions League or domestic double or failed at a certain club, because Arry was one of them and he's achieved great success with us given the chance. For which he claims he's grateful.

You cannot measure success and managerial ability in numbers and figures - this is not an exact science. There is no formula. Comes down to balance, context, and of course circumstantial luck, imv

What I want you to accept is that a sample size of one isn't in any way shape or form convincing proof. Stating that one unproven manager succeeded at one club when hired doesn't constitute proof. You say "it proves that", but it does no such thing.

Two questions to attempt to see where we actually disagree:

1. Do you agree that the Harry to Spurs example is one example, or in other words a sample of one?

2. Do you agree that a sample size of one is irrelevant in this (and most other) matters?

---------------------------------------
Side issues (only included since you brought them up, but rather irrelevant):

I do consider view points outside my own. If I disagree with them I then argue against them. No (intelligent) argument can happen without considering the view points of the other side.

What would be the right or wrong appointment in any situation would depend on what other options were available at the time. In many circumstances no "proven" manager would be available, at least by your definitions of proven. Then of course hiring an unproven manager would be the right thing to do. Many managers have been proven not good enough, of course hiring an unproven manager is better than hiring one of those.

 

[braineclipse]

For the sake of clarity, can I just ask all posters looking at this thread to answer this question: If Harry tragically died tomorrow, and we therefore had to appoint a new manager for next season, would you be categorically against hiring any manager who had not previously had success with a club of our size / objectives?

I think this is what ArcspacE is arguing against, and yet I'm not sure if anyone would actually answer yes to this question (i.e. that they'd be categoricaly against it).

If anyone would answer 'yes', I'm on ArcspacE's side.

No. (Reasons in my post just above this one)

I'm only arguing that it's easier to measure the quality of a proven manager than an unproven manager and that because of that a proven manager is more likely to be successful.

(And that a sample size of one is irrelevant).

 

[mick cooper]

arc's comments are well taken. I would add another consideration to be taken into account. Harry currently has a very disaffected squad. The team only won very few of their last 12 games. We didnt win any of the crucial games. Furthermore the following players are tinkled off with Harry:

Gomes
Corluka
Bassong
Rose
Dos Santos
Pienaar
Kranchar
Defoe

To say nothing of Bentley and Jenas

Add to that Bale and Modric who may well want to leave.

Harry has forfeited the good will of virtually a whole team. Any new manager has the opportunity of starting with a fresh slate and re-igniting their Spurs careers.

Are his supporters really confident that he will replace them with better players? Remember he bought Keane, Crouch, Pallacious, Bassong, Piennar etc

I am not sure Levy really trusts him with our transfer budget.

so basically your post is nothing but speculation, based around the fact that a bunch of players who would never make the first 11 - bar injuries, may or may not want to move.


And we have added disaffected into the "marginalised" pot.

Unless these players are stupid or egotistical beyond reason, I am sure they know what the pecking order is. They can always step down a division to guarantee games, or stay and fight at a top line club, where they will probably get decent wages.

 

[ArcspacE]

What I want you to accept is that a sample size of one isn't in any way shape or form convincing proof. Stating that one unproven manager succeeded at one club when hired doesn't constitute proof. You say "it proves that", but it does no such thing.

Two questions to attempt to see where we actually disagree:

1. Do you agree that the Harry to Spurs example is one example, or in other words a sample of one?

2. Do you agree that a sample size of one is irrelevant in this (and most other) matters?

---------------------------------------
Side issues (only included since you brought them up, but rather irrelevant):

I do consider view points outside my own. If I disagree with them I then argue against them. No (intelligent) argument can happen without considering the view points of the other side.

What would be the right or wrong appointment in any situation would depend on what other options were available at the time. In many circumstances no "proven" manager would be available, at least by your definitions of proven. Then of course hiring an unproven manager would be the right thing to do. Many managers have been proven not good enough, of course hiring an unproven manager is better than hiring one of those.

There are many example of that though in other clubs. Even if we disregard those - to dismiss any future unproven managers because our sample pool is only 'one' is ridiculous. Else Arry would have never gotten the job in the first place.

How many times should it happen before you're convinced?



1. He is one example to us but there are many, many others elsewhere

2. I don't quite understand the question.