Redknapp

[Superted]

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.

Explain the bold bit to me. You've confused me now?

The Lasagna year for Arsenal was a blip. Similar to Chelsea this year. They were better than their league standing dictated. It happens. We almost capitalised. Just like we almost capitalised this year on Chelsea's blip.

 

[Superted]

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.

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying but you're misquoting me. What I'm saying is that in the Sky 4 era (mid 2000's) no team other than the top 4 ws going to finish top 4. So we weren't in that group.

Now realistically, there's probably 6 of us who could finish top 4, and we're in that group.

So yes, it makes complete and absolute sense that we are more likely to finish top 4 in a season when we are one of 6 contenders, than in a season where there are 4 contenders, none of which are us.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Explain the bold bit to me. You've confused me now?

The Lasagna year for Arsenal was a blip. Similar to Chelsea this year. They were better than their league standing dictated. It happens. We almost capitalised. Just like we almost capitalised this year on Chelsea's blip.

It was a blip for them, but that was the year we were close to them, and that was the year being discussed because relating it back to this thread, people say 'Redknapp getting 4th isn't that great, we were 5th twice under Jol'. What I'm saying is that in the one time we did actually challenge, we only had Arsenal as direct competitors. As opposed to Arsenal, Liverpool, Saudi Sportswashing Machine, and this season, Chelsea. Whether it is a blip for them or not isn't really relevant, because in that season, when we did almost get it, I am arguing that we should have been at least 5th, with a good chance of 4th, because that is where we were quality wise. It wasn't a big 4 closed off with one of them having a blip in that season. It was a top 3 and then two evenly matched teams fighting for 4th, with the likes of Blackburn and Bolton not having anywhere near the depth or quality to ever make a sustained challenge for the position we were fighting for.

Now, in this era, there's a top 3 and then any one of 3 or 4 teams that are fighting for 4th. And so that brings me back round to why I argue this point, and defend Redknapp, is that people say 'well we almost got 4th under Jol, we haven't progressed that much' is because it's actually an achievement to be maintaining these finishing positions given the competition has increased directly around us. Quality and depth wise, we could be 4th, but we could also very easily end up 6th if things don't go our way. If we ended up 6th behind Blackburn under Jol, it would have been massive failure considering our quality. If we end up 6th now, considering the quality of the competition we are up against, it's annoying but it has to be acknowledged that it can happen.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying but you're misquoting me. What I'm saying is that in the Sky 4 era (mid 2000's) no team other than the top 4 ws going to finish top 4. So we weren't in that group.

Now realistically, there's probably 6 of us who could finish top 4, and we're in that group.

So yes, it makes complete and absolute sense that we are more likely to finish top 4 in a season when we are one of 6 contenders, than in a season where there are 4 contenders, none of which are us.

On this, for the year that we almost got top 4 under Jol which is what people refer to when saying Harry hasn't done that well, we were one of the group. There was 5 teams, which we were apart of. As opposed to 6, we are apart of. For that season, we were in competition with Arsenal. We had a chance, and so did they. Now, 6 or 7 teams have a chance.

 

[VolSpur]

can't be arsed to go back and read all 50 pages, but my sentiment is:

I would welcome a move for a Rodgers/AVB. I'm tired of trying to give explanations for Harry playing people out of position, or having the tactical where-with-all of a donkey.

We've let it slide for 3 years now, but our finishing from free kicks and corners has been appalling. How can you not practice them? Grade school coaches practice em here in the states.

And how can a man in the top level of football not have a clue when it comes to actual coaching? Since when does being a friendly person who can give others confidence make you a candidate for a top 4 manager position? If we want to go that route we might as well sign up another coach to focus solely on coaching the team... just have Harry talk to everybody and make sure they're doing ok.

And even if he is a good man manager, why can he not give confidence to the likes of Gio or Kranjcar? Both are internationals, but he doesn't give them the light of day on the field. He simply sticks with a team and runs them to death.

We've had the first 11 now to compete for a top 3-4 spot for the past 3 years and Harry has done so. Credit to him. I just want to see a fluid passing style with a tactical manager who has a system (433) and sticks to it. I want tactics, not dumb luck. Please, no more "go run around a bit". I'm just tired of it.

rant over.

 

[milo]

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

By those criteria all managers are a failure. No player maintains good form indefinitely and a club that is improving will inevitably seek to move players on as the club outgrows them.

It also takes the mustard to try and blame Redknapp for Palacios' loss of form. What happened to him is incredibly sad. We should be above using this for petty point scoring.

 

[braineclipse]

By those criteria all managers are a failure. No player maintains good form indefinitely and a club that is improving will inevitably seek to move players on as the club outgrows them.

It also takes the mustard to try and blame Redknapp for Palacios' loss of form. What happened to him is incredibly sad. We should be above using this for petty point scoring.

Thank you. tinkles me off too and one of the few quick ways I can lose respect for a fellow Spurs fan.

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying but you're misquoting me. What I'm saying is that in the Sky 4 era (mid 2000's) no team other than the top 4 ws going to finish top 4. So we weren't in that group.

Now realistically, there's probably 6 of us who could finish top 4, and we're in that group.

So yes, it makes complete and absolute sense that we are more likely to finish top 4 in a season when we are one of 6 contenders, than in a season where there are 4 contenders, none of which are us.

It might very well be likelier for us to get into the top 4 now than when we got 5th under Jol because of the strength of our team, but it is not easier in general. The team we had under Jol with Jol in charge would not have gotten us 4th this season imo.

 

[DMac]

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.

Imo, Liverpool aren't even close to as poor as their points total suggests. They had Kenny mucking things up, lost Lucas for the entire season, lost Suarez for 8 games, Gerrard was out half the season. Still they kept a better defense than we did. All they need is a good central midfield player and a couple of good wingers and they could be back in contention for the title if their new manager does a good job. If it's Rodgers I would be worried.

Similarly Arsenal, it depends on them keeping RVP, but if they added Podolski and M'Villa, kept RVP, and with Wheelchair returning, they could field a very strong team with a decent squad to back it up, and could potentially compete for the title (although they would bottle it if they were close enough).

I'm not trying to say it's all doom and gloom, I am actually very much looking forward to next season, but we need to be able to improve to a point that we can compete for the title as well. If every team strengthens as much as I expect them to this summer, then that's what we will have to do to even get top 4, so we have to step up to an "8" level imo. Can Harry lead us there - I have my doubts. And even if he could, what's to say Roy won't get sacked from the England job and we have to go through the same circus again.

 

[mick cooper]

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

astonishing post, so so very wrong, in so many ways.

 

[Pirate55]

astonishing post, so so very wrong, in so many ways.

Just when the grown uos were having an intelligent conversation, we get this juvenile, snide, meaningless, unargued post.

Astonishing post, so very wrong in so many ways.

 

[Pirate55]

By those criteria all managers are a failure. No player maintains good form indefinitely and a club that is improving will inevitably seek to move players on as the club outgrows them.

It also takes the mustard to try and blame Redknapp for Palacios' loss of form. What happened to him is incredibly sad. We should be above using this for petty point scoring.

What happened to Pallaciios in his private life is very very sad and I have every sympathy for him. However, his form had gome long before the tradegy struck.

 

[DHSF]

Just when the grown uos were having an intelligent conversation, we get this juvenile, snide, meaningless, unargued post.

Astonishing post, so very wrong in so many ways.

Pirate I aint backing anyone up but GHod man - your post was the brickest I gave ever seen. It was utter brick. I mean the fact that you put in Parker (forget the rest) means you didnt give it much thought.

(By the way I have never ever critcised anyones post before but yours had to be done)

 

[Spur of the moment]

Just when the grown uos were having an intelligent conversation, we get this juvenile, snide, meaningless, unargued post.

Astonishing post, so very wrong in so many ways.

Mick was spot on.

 

[Pirate55]

Imo, Liverpool aren't even close to as poor as their points total suggests. They had Kenny mucking things up, lost Lucas for the entire season, lost Suarez for 8 games, Gerrard was out half the season. Still they kept a better defense than we did. All they need is a good central midfield player and a couple of good wingers and they could be back in contention for the title if their new manager does a good job. If it's Rodgers I would be worried.

Similarly Arsenal, it depends on them keeping RVP, but if they added Podolski and M'Villa, kept RVP, and with Wheelchair returning, they could field a very strong team with a decent squad to back it up, and could potentially compete for the title (although they would bottle it if they were close enough).

I'm not trying to say it's all doom and gloom, I am actually very much looking forward to next season, but we need to be able to improve to a point that we can compete for the title as well. If every team strengthens as much as I expect them to this summer, then that's what we will have to do to even get top 4, so we have to step up to an "8" level imo. Can Harry lead us there - I have my doubts. And even if he could, what's to say Roy won't get sacked from the England job and we have to go through the same circus again.

That is all I am saying too. If Liverpool get Rodgers/De Gal combination, they could be the new force in town and we would drop even further down the pecking order.

 

[milo]

That is all I am saying too. If Liverpool get Rodgers/De Gal combination, they could be the new force in town and we would drop even further down the pecking order.

Or it could not work and they could drop further away

 

[Pirate55]

Pirate I aint backing anyone up but GHod man - your post was the brickest I gave ever seen. It was utter brick. I mean the fact that you put in Parker (forget the rest) means you didnt give it much thought.

(By the way I have never ever critcised anyones post before but yours had to be done)

Parker was fantastic for the first half of the season. He looked world class. However, in the second half of the season his game went to pot. he looked tired, injured , jaded. His energy level had dropped. His passing became extremely poor. He kept giving away possession or dribbling into cul de sacs. He didnt score a single goal all season. His creativity in the second half of the season was non existant. For all these reasons, I would argue his form went backwards under Rednapp.

 

[Spursalot]

Parker was fantastic for the first half of the season. He looked world class. However, in the second half of the season his game went to pot. he looked tired, injured , jaded. His energy level had dropped. His passing became extremely poor. He kept giving away possession or dribbling into cul de sacs. He didnt score a single goal all season. His creativity in the second half of the season was non existant. For all these reasons, I would argue his form went backwards under Rednapp.

Er.. as opposed to his creativity in the first half of the season?


You don't play Scott Parker for his creativity. Or to score goals really, they would just be a bonus. (plus the goal issue was all season, so you can hardly say it went downhill in the second half)

 

[Pirate55]

Or it could not work and they could drop further away

you are right it could. But given the choice between that combination and Rednapp, I know who I would want to take us forward.

 

[Pirate55]

Er.. as opposed to his creativity in the first half of the season?


You don't play Scott Parker for his creativity. Or to score goals really, they would just be a bonus. (plus the goal issue was all season, so you can hardly say it went downhill in the second half)

Parker created some decent chances in the first half of the season. His debut at WBA for examole he played in Ade for his first goal. It went downhill from there. For Wet Spam Parker scored plenty of goals - some absolute crackers iirc

 

[Spursalot]

Parker created some decent chances in the first half of the season. His debut at WBA for examole he played in Ade for his first goal. It went downhill from there. For Wet Spam Parker scored plenty of goals - some absolute crackers iirc

129 apps, 12 goals.


1 goal every 10 games. Not exactly 'plenty of goals'.


His role in this spurs team is to stay back and cover the back four because other players can provide the goals/creativity. I highly doubt he was told to stay back as much at West Ham, thus allowing him to get forward and score those goals.


Edit: He's made 30 apps for us, so is only 3 goals short of his average at West Ham anyway, hardly statistically relevant.