Redknapp

[Pirate55]

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?

My point exactly. Apart from an ageing goal keeper and a loan signing (Ade) who exactly has Rednapp bought to improve the side(forget Sandro and VDV as they werent his signings) Maybe Kaboul, maybe walker. Not a great track record imo.

Look at the legacy he has left us at present - NO strikers (apart from a disaffected Defoe), no cover on the flanks, no cover at left back (or right back for that matter), a totally unbalanced and ageing squad, and a whole group of players that want to leave. So much for his vaunted man management skills.

 

[braineclipse]

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.

I'm not dismissing any future unproven manager. Did I not make that clear in the last paragraph of that post (even though it was in the rather irrelevant section)?

1. Yes, but there are also many, many other examples of unproven managers that failed. That is part of the point. Like I said in my first answer, we could go back and forth listing one that succeeded and one that failed for a very long time without it bringing any meaning to the discussion.

2. Let's say for the sake of argument that all managerial appointments could be classified as either being of a proven or an unproven manager and that all of them could be classified as successful or unsuccessful. Let's further say that there were 1000 total relevant or comparable appointments. There would be many proven managers that succeeded and many that failed, just like there would be many unproven managers that succeeded and many that failed. One manager (Harry) being appointed to one club (Spurs) is a sample of 1 (out of those 1000). Looking at that one appointment and how it worked out doesn't say anything about how likely proven managers are to succeed compared to unproven ones in general. Do you agree?

How many times it would have to happen before I was convinced is a somewhat interesting question, but not one I'm prepared to put a lot of effort into thinking about. No number of examples would be convincing unless it also looked at the amount of proven managers that were successful as well as how many unsuccessful appointments were proven/unproven. A statistically significant study would be interesting, but isn't available and is unlikely to come around any time soon.

 

[elltrev]

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).

Obviously I understand the difference between finishing position and season objectives; I just believe that season objectives should be realistic and based partly on recent finishing positions. Yes, Levy sacked Jol because he wanted top 4 and I guess didn't think Jol could get it for us. But when he appointed Harry the situation had changed, and I would imagine that short-term expectations would have been tempered to some degree.

Maybe I'm wrong; maybe he did tell Harry he expected a challenge for 4th in his first full season, and felt that Harry had the ability to do that. Ultimately none of us can say for sure. So let's just leave that there.

But my fundamental point is that even if Levy wanted to appoint a manager who could have us return to top 4 challengers as sooon as the following season (when he appointed Harry), it was still a fundamentally different situation to the one that we're in now. If you still don't think there are any menaingful differences between the two situations, then let's just leave that there too.

Edit: And let me stress again that if Redknapp died or had left for England, I wouldn't necessarily be against getting an unproven manager.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

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.

Broadly I dont disagree, and in other facets of life I would say this is 100% correct. Football though? Its a different kettle of fish, isnt it? People (chairmen!) have tried to make it a business, and with some success, but ultimately it is a sport and its a game of gambles (both on and off the pitch). Particularly as you say, its a game of incomplete information - how can it be anything other than gambling?!

Wenger is my favourite example for this. Despite Arsenals current malaise his tenure has been nothing but an outright and unprecedented success. Who was he? He wasnt much of a player, thats for sure. And his mangerial experience left him in the J League of Japan. Arsenal werent at that point top of the table, but wasnt long since they were. Instead of pushing for a "name" manager, someone with a "track record" they saw in Wenger attributes they wanted have in the management of the club. And look how that worked out!

Of course there is no guarantee, but what is the worst that could have happened? If Wenger was a disaster he would have been sacked, and someone else brought in - BEFORE it became terminal. But of course, he wasnt a disaster and now they are eons ahead of where they might have dreamed.

Wenger came into a very "English" club. With very traditional ideals and players. Did he alienate them and have them on his back because he was a nobody? Did their egos not allow them to learn from him? Did they falter and fail immediately? Did the clubs form dip or wobble? Not that I recal.

Yet these are things people throw up as guaranteed examples of why someone like Rodgers wont be good enough...

Thats my issue. I think he might well be good enough, I think the players would be fine with him and I think he might just improve on Redknapps efforts - and Im yet to see sounds reasons as to why he wont (because for those who disagree its a cast iron guarantee he wont...)

 

[Spur of the moment]

Obviously I understand the difference between finishing position and season objectives; I just believe that season objectives should be realistic and based partly on recent finishing positions. Yes, Levy sacked Jol because he wanted top 4 and I guess didn't think Jol could get it for us. But when he appointed Harry the situation had changed, and I would imagine that short-term expectations would have been tempered to some degree.

Maybe I'm wrong; maybe he did tell Harry he expected a challenge for 4th in his first full season, and felt that Harry had the ability to do that. Ultimately none of us can say for sure. So let's just leave that there.

But my fundamental point is that even if Levy wanted to appoint a manager who could have us return to top 4 challengers as sooon as the following season (when he appointed Harry), it was still a fundamentally different situation to the one that we're in now. If you still don't think there are any menaingful differences between the two situations, then let's just leave that there too.

Edit: And let me stress again that if Redknapp died or had left for England, I wouldn't necessarily be against getting an unproven manager.

Thanks elltrev for arguing the case for Harry so eloquently, I agree with every word.

 

[braineclipse]

Broadly I dont disagree, and in other facets of life I would say this is 100% correct. Football though? Its a different kettle of fish, isnt it? People (chairmen!) have tried to make it a business, and with some success, but ultimately it is a sport and its a game of gambles (both on and off the pitch). Particularly as you say, its a game of incomplete information - how can it be anything other than gambling?!

Wenger is my favourite example for this. Despite Arsenals current malaise his tenure has been nothing but an outright and unprecedented success. Who was he? He wasnt much of a player, thats for sure. And his mangerial experience left him in the J League of Japan. Arsenal werent at that point top of the table, but wasnt long since they were. Instead of pushing for a "name" manager, someone with a "track record" they saw in Wenger attributes they wanted have in the management of the club. And look how that worked out!

Of course there is no guarantee, but what is the worst that could have happened? If Wenger was a disaster he would have been sacked, and someone else brought in - BEFORE it became terminal. But of course, he wasnt a disaster and now they are eons ahead of where they might have dreamed.

Wenger came into a very "English" club. With very traditional ideals and players. Did he alienate them and have them on his back because he was a nobody? Did their egos not allow them to learn from him? Did they falter and fail immediately? Did the clubs form dip or wobble? Not that I recal.

Yet these are things people throw up as guaranteed examples of why someone like Rodgers wont be good enough...

Thats my issue. I think he might well be good enough, I think the players would be fine with him and I think he might just improve on Redknapps efforts - and Im yet to see sounds reasons as to why he wont (because for those who disagree its a cast iron guarantee he wont...)

Games of incomplete information aren't purely gambling (unlike, say a coin toss). Poker for example, or even sports betting, loads of professionals in the first and even some in the other category and of course many betting companies making money in sports betting. It's gambling for them in a way, short term, but long term it's clearly possible to make informed decisions in a game of incomplete information.

I'm in no way saying that someone like Rodgers are guaranteed not to succeed. He would be close to the top of my (realistic) wish list had Redknapp left. So on this we agree.

I'm just saying that it's possible to make better informed decisions about proven managers than unproven managers as more information is available about them.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Better informed, perhaps - but better?

Im not against a more proven manager at all, and need to be explicit in saying so because its starting to look like I just want to champion the underdog.

What I am for is picking the MAN as opposed to the CV. If we get both then great, everybody is happy!

 

[braineclipse]

Better informed, perhaps - but better?

Im not against a more proven manager at all, and need to be explicit in saying so because its starting to look like I just want to champion the underdog.

What I am for is picking the MAN as opposed to the CV. If we get both then great, everybody is happy!

Wouldn't better informed = a higher chance of correctly judging the ability of said man and thus a higher chance of success?

 

[ArcspacE]

2. Let's say for the sake of argument that all managerial appointments could be classified as either being of a proven or an unproven manager and that all of them could be classified as successful or unsuccessful. Let's further say that there were 1000 total relevant or comparable appointments. There would be many proven managers that succeeded and many that failed, just like there would be many unproven managers that succeeded and many that failed. One manager (Harry) being appointed to one club (Spurs) is a sample of 1 (out of those 1000). Looking at that one appointment and how it worked out doesn't say anything about how likely proven managers are to succeed compared to unproven ones in general. Do you agree?

Are you suggesting giving Arry as an example is incorrect because we need statistical proof for 999 more cases like him? Please take a second and think about that.

It says a lot about us in this particular debate - i.e. the hypocritical nature of the argument laughing off Rodgers, Martinez, Lambert when Arry was one of them 4 years ago. You do not need statistical flimflam to see the sheer absurdity in that .

 

[braineclipse]

Are you suggesting giving Arry as an example is incorrect because we need statistical proof for 999 more cases like him? Please take a second and think about that.

It says a lot about us in this particular debate - i.e. the hypocritical nature of the argument laughing off Rogers, Martinez, Lambert when Arry was one of them 4 years ago. You do not need statistical flimflam to see the sheer absurdity in that .

I'm not saying that giving Harry as an example is incorrect. I'm saying that giving any one example is irrelevant to the question "is it better to go for a proven manager?"

I can only defend my own opinions and I have not laughed off Rodgers, Martinez or Lambert. Nor have I presented statistical flimflam.

 

[ArcspacE]

How can real life context-specific examples be irrelevant to any discussion for that matter?

Not sure what line of work you do for a living but there is a whole lot more to football than statistical numbers



Let me ask you a question

Do you think if Arry walked tonight Levy would be right to consider one of Martinez, Rodgers, Lambert or even AVB (higher grade unit, granted)?

 

[milo]

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.

I think that we have a remarkably happy squad and it is noticeable that players who have caused problems elsewhere have been as good as gold under Redknapp. Fringe players will always be frustrated by their lack of games but it is telling that Kranjcar chose to stay in January and Defoe does not seem desperate to leave now.

 

[WookieD]

I think that we have a remarkably happy squad and it is noticeable that players who have caused problems elsewhere have been as good as gold under Redknapp. Fringe players will always be frustrated by their lack of games but it is telling that Kranjcar chose to stay in January and Defoe does not seem desperate to leave now.

This is the real picture imo. So many solid pros who are not making the team or have been loaned due to lack of opportunity and yet none of them have slammed Harry, even when they have been away.

Even Gio, away with Mexico and free to say whatever he likes has had nothing bad to say... yet...

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Wouldn't better informed = a higher chance of correctly judging the ability of said man and thus a higher chance of success?

Yes, but it still guarantees nothing. There are so many factors to getting the right man in the right job even the most reasonable appointment can go wrong. As MK said earlier, almost inexplicably some managers just "work" or "fit" with some clubs...

 

[braineclipse]

How can real life context-specific examples be irrelevant to any discussion for that matter?

Not sure what line of work you do for a living but there is a whole lot more to football than statistical numbers



Let me ask you a question

Do you think if Arry walked tonight Levy would be right to consider one of Martinez, Rodgers, Lambert or even AVB (higher grade unit, granted)?

I think he would be right to consider at least one (arguably all) of those seeing as there are very few proven managers that are good enough that are available at the moment. However if someone proven like Mourinho (pipe-dream at the best of times) or Ancelotti (a bit more realistic) were available then going for one of those more unproven managers instead would seem silly.

One single real life context-specific example like this one only shows that this one thing is possible. It says little to nothing about how likely it is other than not being impossible and it says nothing about how likely it is compared to other options. Since we already know that this wasn't impossible (far from it of course), one example adds nothing, at least when not randomly selected.

There are a lot of things in life that there is more to than statistical numbers. Love for example. However if one person gives me one example of a successful arranged marriage where the couple ended up happily ever after I'm not going to think that this is evidence that arranged marriages are better than other types of marriages. Or friendships, if one person gives one example of how he became best friends with someone he was in a violent late night fight with I'm not going to think that this was evidence pointing towards drunken fighting being the best way to meet new friends. And ultimately 100 or 1000 examples of either one of those would do little to convince me as well unless somehow compared to other options and outcomes.

Back to football, this discussion reminds me of how the English press handles the England job. "Oh, an English manager failed, we should get a foreign manager. Oh, a foreign manager failed, we should get an English manager. Oh, an English manager failed, we should get a foreign manager" And so on seemingly forever, even though the nationality of the previous manager really is just one example, thus something with a sample size of one and thus completely irrelevant when talking to who would be the best manager to appoint next. If I said we shouldn't hire unproven managers because Saudi Sportswashing Machine hired Shearer and it didn't work out at all it would be just as irrelevant and I'm sure that wouldn't change your opinion, nor should it. As an argument for/against unproven managers though it carries as much weight as "we hired Redknapp and it worked out" (that is, none to very little).

 

[braineclipse]

Yes, but it still guarantees nothing. There are so many factors to getting the right man in the right job even the most reasonable appointment can go wrong. As MK said earlier, almost inexplicably some managers just "work" or "fit" with some clubs...

I have not said in any way shape or form that it would guarantee anything. A higher chance does not mean a guarantee, yet a higher chance is clearly preferable to a lower chance.

 

[elltrev]

Just to repeat:

For the sake of clarity, can I just ask all posters looking at this thread to answer this question: If Harry tragically died tomorrow (or resigned I guess.....), 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.

 

[Spursalot]

Just to repeat:

For the sake of clarity, can I just ask all posters looking at this thread to answer this question: If Harry tragically died tomorrow (or resigned I guess.....), 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.

The way this is worded confuses me utterly.. double and triple negatives...


So i'm just gonna say i would not be against hiring someone who has never managed a 'big club'..

(Though that's not to say i'd be happy hiring just any manager)

 

[ArcspacE]

Braineclipse,

No offence, mate - but you sound like the kind of guy who lines up his different colour pens at work and calculates food can weight vs price at the supermarket then estimates the best deal available. I do that too sometimes and have great respect for that kind of attitude but I'm afraid this kind of logic has little place / application in football.

Are you an accountant / statistician by any chance?

You cannot scientifcally prove who would be the better choice even if 999 examples before him proved wrong or right. There are many, many more variables and very few of those are 'measurable'. To suggest low experience managers would be worse choice based on statistical probability is the equivalent of playing lotto with a 'system'

 

[ArcspacE]

Just to repeat:

For the sake of clarity, can I just ask all posters looking at this thread to answer this question: If Harry tragically died tomorrow (or resigned I guess.....), 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.

I have no clue what the actual question is here - but personally I would not be against hiring an 'unproven' name