Redknapp

[Pirate55]

Parker = Success. Started fantastically but had poor second half of season
Friedel = Success - agred but over 40. Therefore stop gap.
Gallas = success agreed but again only very short term
Adebayor (loan) = success Not our player.
Kyle Walker = success Agreed
Wilson Palacios = Was brilliant for the first year and was the main reason we stayed up...succes. Started brilliantly but went seriously off, therefore ultimate failure.
Crouch = Guided us to our first ever Champions league experience and sold for the same amount he was bought...Success. If success - then why sell him? Adequate at best and cost us CL by stupid sending off,
Defoe = The best we could possibly do at the time and his goals kept us up. Not a big fan of his tbh but his goal to game ratio since returning has been good (apart from last season)...success. Even Rednapp wouldnt call Defoe a success. If he felt he was, then why didnt he use him more?[/B
]Bassong = Again at the time it was the best we could do. Had a great first season and has put in some good performances when called on...succes. Again, started well, but h turned him into a failure
Corluka = Solid and reliable throughot his stay with us...success. Again, was a success until h turned him into a failure
Pienaar = Hasn't worked out sadly....fail
Kranjcar = For 2.5m he's been well worth it...success. Again was a success until H turned him into a failure
Keane = Fail
Saha = Better than Pav imo and scored a few too...ok ok maybe a fail
Nelsen = This guy was very good whenever he played so can't really see how he can be considered a failure by anyone. Not a success either but definately not a failure.


So the conclusion is that you're very wrong.

sorry I dont agree with your assessments - see above. The recurring theme is that players who came here and started really well went backwards under Rednapp. For example, Pallacious, Parker, VDV, Bassong, Kranchar, Corluka, Dos Santos, Pav, Bent, Defoe, Crouch. The successes you speak about have all been short term palliatives (Ade, Brad, Gallas, Nelsen, Saha).

I dont think the balance sheet is in Rednapps favour at all

 

[Jordinho]

No- I was happy with Jol. Thought he was unlucky - as stated above. He had two great forwards but wasnt given the rest of the tools to work with, He has since had success elsewhere and is doing a decent job at Fulham.

Jol's tactical shortcomings were far bigger than Redknapp. He had taken us as far as he could. The Fulham fans like him, but his decision making is always at the center of their discussions. And of course, as ALL fans do this time of year, they're looking at the whatifs. If only a few key moments had gone their way they'd be in the top 4, which obviously means they're actually that good. Mind you, they're starting to get a bit West Ham down there. A lot of them think they should be finishing above us.

 

[Poker Boy]

I dont think the balance sheet is in Rednapps favour at all

In your rather negative opinion.

You also seem to think that if Crouch hadn't been sent off we would have won the Champions league, would that have been down to Redknapp?

 

[Pirate55]

In your rather negative opinion.

You also seem to think that if Crouch hadn't been sent off we would have won the Champions league, would that have been down to Redknapp?

When did I say that? What I actually said was that Crouch's stupid sending off so early in the game virtually assured our elimination from the CL. Or do you think we could have won at Real with 10 men?

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Haven't we danced this dance before?

I'm not sure. But if you want to explain why any of those points are wrong I'll happily take it on board.

 

[Pirate55]

no
he was a Brighton supporter back then

he wont remember

Again. a stupid, inane, crass and irrelevant comment.

But I have come to expect nothing less from you.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Jol's tactical shortcomings were far bigger than Redknapp. He had taken us as far as he could. The Fulham fans like him, but his decision making is always at the center of their discussions. And of course, as ALL fans do this time of year, they're looking at the whatifs. If only a few key moments had gone their way they'd be in the top 4, which obviously means they're actually that good. Mind you, they're starting to get a bit West Ham down there. A lot of them think they should be finishing above us.

Haha really? What gives them that idea?

I really like Fulham in any case. No pressure. I think that's the perfect job for Jol too. Bring in young, talented players. Coach them and watch them flourish. They accept that their best players will move on, but that's fine because they will replace them with young players to repeat the process.

(I thought) They know they aren't going to break the top 4 and shouldn't really ever be in a relegation fight with the talent they have. All in all it's a pretty nice gig for someone like Jol. They play good football too, and their players seem like a generally nice bunch, and (I thought) their fans seem to be quite balanced and realistic. Good club.

 

[Jordinho]

Haha really? What gives them that idea?

I really like Fulham in any case. No pressure. I think that's the perfect job for Jol too. Bring in young, talented players. Coach them and watch them flourish. They accept that their best players will move on, but that's fine because they will replace them with young players to repeat the process.

(I thought) They know they aren't going to break the top 4 and shouldn't really ever be in a relegation fight with the talent they have. All in all it's a pretty nice gig for someone like Jol. They play good football too, and their players seem like a generally nice bunch, and (I thought) their fans seem to be quite balanced and realistic. Good club.

It's what happen at every club after some good fortune. Expectations are increased beyond reason.

 

[Superted]

I'm not sure. But if you want to explain why any of those points are wrong I'll happily take it on board.

Yeah we did. I'll leave it at this. Under Jol, Man U and Chelsea were probably a 9/10 side, Arsenal and Liverpool 8/10 and sliding. This season City are probably a 9, Man U an 8, Arsenal and Chelsea 7, Liverpool and Saudi Sportswashing Machine 6. Whereas we'd have to be an 8 to come top 4, the quality now is that I think we can be a 7 and make top 4 these days. Simplistic rationalisation, I'll take that but it's the best way I can describe my thoughts without getting long winded.

Maybe I'm getting old, but the days of Mourinho, Ronaldo, Henry, Alonso et al were of far higher quality than today. There are few if any outright superstars in the Premier League currently. Rooney maybe (and he was at United during the Jol years anyway). Van Persie maybe, but he's surrounded by cack.

edit: or put it this way, if we could put the current Man U team in a DeLorean and fly them back to the 2005/6 season, I don't think they'd make top 4.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Yeah we did. I'll leave it at this. Under Jol, Man U and Chelsea were probably a 9/10 side, Arsenal and Liverpool 8/10 and sliding. This season City are probably a 9, Man U an 8, Arsenal and Chelsea 7, Liverpool and Saudi Sportswashing Machine 6. Whereas we'd have to be an 8 to come top 4, the quality now is that I think we can be a 7 and make top 4 these days. Simplistic rationalisation, I'll take that but it's the best way I can describe my thoughts without getting long winded.

Maybe I'm getting old, but the days of Mourinho, Ronaldo, Henry, Alonso et al were of far higher quality than today. There are few if any outright superstars in the Premier League currently. Rooney maybe (and he was at United during the Jol years anyway). Van Persie maybe, but he's surrounded by cack.

I don't disagree that the quality of teams at the very top was much higher than it is today, but what I'm arguing is that some of that quality is now spread more evenly through a couple of teams just under the very top echelon.

If we take your rating system, Emirates Marketing Project 9, Man U 8, Arsenal and Chelsea are 7s, Liverpool and Saudi Sportswashing Machine 6. That means we need to be at least as good if not better than 2 other 7s.

When lasanga-gate happened, Chelsea were the 9, Man United and Liverpool were on 83 and 82 points respectively so could be counted as the 8s. Then there was us and Arsenal, the 7s. So one other 7 we need to be at least as good if not better than, rather than two. In terms of our direct competitors, it is much more competitive. Below us, we had Blackburn, Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Bolton who had nowhere near our quality or depth. They would be 6s at best.

Next season is probably going to see Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea as 9s, Man United as an 8, and then depending what happens this summer, Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool and Saudi Sportswashing Machine as the 7s. I don't think Saudi Sportswashing Machine will be as good as the other 3, but this season they showed that you can't discount them, and they do have talent. So that's 2, arguably 3 more teams of equal standing that we need to be as good or better than next season to make top 4 again. Much tougher than having one direct competitor, IMO.

 

[mick cooper]

Again. a stupid, inane, crass and irrelevant comment.

But I have come to expect nothing less from you.

now - I thought we had agreed to stop doing this?

How can it be stupid, when its true? Its not irrelevant as he was talking about the period before you became a Spurs supporter, when you were busy cheering on those wacky seagulls

don't know what to say about it being inane and crass? Was it lacking relevance and sensitivity?

I wouldn't know, I have only ever supported one club, I don't change teams as the mood takes me, and I guess if I did and felt I had to complain as much as you do - I'd probably go back to whoever it was I supported before.

Oh yeah, it was Brighton, I get it now.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I don't disagree that the quality of teams at the very top was much higher than it is today, but what I'm arguing is that some of that quality is now spread more evenly through a couple of teams just under the very top echelon.

If we take your rating system, Emirates Marketing Project 9, Man U 8, Arsenal and Chelsea are 7s, Liverpool and Saudi Sportswashing Machine 6. That means we need to be at least as good if not better than 2 other 7s.

When lasanga-gate happened, Chelsea were the 9, Man United and Liverpool were on 83 and 82 points respectively so could be counted as the 8s. Then there was us and Arsenal, the 7s. So one other 7 we need to be at least as good if not better than, rather than two. In terms of our direct competitors, it is much more competitive. Below us, we had Blackburn, Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Bolton who had nowhere near our quality or depth. They would be 6s at best.

Next season is probably going to see Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea as 9s, Man United as an 8, and then depending what happens this summer, Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool and Saudi Sportswashing Machine as the 7s. I don't think Saudi Sportswashing Machine will be as good as the other 3, but this season they showed that you can't discount them, and they do have talent. So that's 2, arguably 3 more teams of equal standing that we need to be as good or better than next season to make top 4 again. Much tougher than having one direct competitor, IMO.

I do. Sure, Ronaldo, Alonso and Henry were around back then, but you look at the squads today and you've still got the likes of Aguero, Silva, Toure, Tevez, Rooney, Van Persie, Torres, Mata, Ramires, Modric, Bale, Van Der Vaart and co. scattered around the top sides. Sure, the teams lower down the table have improved vastly from the old days, but that doesn't mean the teams higher up the table have regressed all that much. Save for United, obviously.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I do. Sure, Ronaldo, Alonso and Henry were around back then, but you look at the squads today and you've still got the likes of Aguero, Silva, Toure, Tevez, Rooney, Van Persie, Torres, Mata, Ramires, Modric, Bale, Van Der Vaart and co. scattered around the top sides. Sure, the teams lower down the table have improved vastly from the old days, but that doesn't mean the teams higher up the table have regressed all that much. Save for United, obviously.

What I meant was that in the 05/06 season especially, you had Chelsea, Liverpool and Man United up there and all were clearly better than the teams below them. Now it's only really Emirates Marketing Project, with United having not that great of a team but competing seemingly by pure spirit and mentality. So there was 3 teams back then clearly better than the next 2 down.

This season, there was City and United clearly better than the rest, so 2 rather than 3. And then 4 other teams that should have been amoungst each other, as opposed to 2. So instead of a 3 and then a 2 split in the big 5, it was a 2 and a 4 split in a big 6. We fell into the 4, and meaning we have more direct competitorss IMO.

Next season it's probably going to be a 3 and 3 split.

 

[Spursalot]

What I meant was that in the 05/06 season especially, you had Chelsea, Liverpool and Man United up there and all were clearly better than the teams below them. Now it's only really Emirates Marketing Project, with United having not that great of a team but competing seemingly by pure spirit and mentality. So there was 3 teams back then clearly better than the next 2 down.

This season, there was City and United clearly better than the rest, so 2 rather than 3. And then 4 other teams that should have been amoungst each other, as opposed to 2. So instead of a 3 and then a 2 split in the big 5, it was a 2 and a 4 split in a big 6. We fell into the 4, and meaning we have more direct competitorss IMO.

Next season it's probably going to be a 3 and 3 split.

I agree with the analysis, but not the conclusion.

Which teams are you assuming to be which in this 3-3 split?

 

[Jordinho]

Chelsea, City and United will be expected to fight for the title. For us and Arsenal it depends on the transfer window. Liverpool will fight for 6th with Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Everton.

 

[Superted]

I'm assuming Manchester x 2 and Chelsea. With the next 3 us Arsenal and Pool. So by that theory it should be easier to make top 4 now than back in the sky 4 days when Liverpool, Arsenal, Man U and Chelsea dominated and had some of the best players in the world on their team sheets.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I agree with the analysis, but not the conclusion.

Which teams are you assuming to be which in this 3-3 split?

Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea and United in the top 3.

Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool in the next 3. Maybe Saudi Sportswashing Machine creeping in there.

Of course within that you could split it even more, and say for example that Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea will be better than United, who will in turn be better than Spurs and Arsenal, who will in turn be better than Liverpool and Saudi Sportswashing Machine. But broadly, you could probably make a fair guess that none of the second 3 teams would finish above the first 3.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I'm assuming Manchester x 2 and Chelsea. With the next 3 us Arsenal and Pool. So by that theory it should be easier to make top 4 now than back in the sky 4 days when Liverpool, Arsenal, Man U and Chelsea dominated and had some of the best players in the world on their team sheets.

Why? Back when we were close to Arsenal in 05/06 their squad wasn't that much better than ours. It wasn't a close off 4 and then us as a lone one ahead of Blackburn and the rest. It was us vs Arsenal, one on one to get 4th. There were 3 spots sewn up then like there should be 3 spots sewn up now, only now we have potentially 3 direct competitors for that one spot as opposed to just the 1.

Unless you're saying the Blackburn, Bolton and West Ham sides of 05/06 represent tougher competition than the Arsenal, Liverpool, and Saudi Sportswashing Machine sides of today? Blackburn et al didn't have a chance of making top 4 in 05/06, where as the clubs we are facing today do.

 

[Superted]

Arsenal made the Champs League final in 05/06. It was the first time they finished outside the top 2 in about 10 years. It was merely the start of their downfall, but they were still quality, with players like Henry, Toure, Fabregas, Pires, Ljungberg, Lehman, Gilberto (the good one). It would cream today's Arsenal, no question.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Arsenal made the Champs League final in 05/06. It was the first time they finished outside the top 2 in about 10 years. It was merely the start of their downfall, but they were still quality, with players like Henry, Toure, Fabregas, Pires, Ljungberg, Lehman, Gilberto (the good one). It would cream today's Arsenal, no question.

Doesn't really change the fact that we were close to them, that they were no-where near the top 3 that season, or that we didn't have other competitors for that spot.

I don't see how you can have 2 seasons, and in one say 'You could see anyone of 5 teams making the top 4 this year' and in another say 'You could see any one of 6/7 teams making the top 4 this year' and conclude that it would be easier to get into the top 4 in the season that there is more competition. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Arsenal weren't anywhere near the top 3, just like we weren't really anywhere near the top 4 the next season even though we got 5th again. They were our direct, and only competitors for 4th place.