-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Redknapp
- Thread starter Grays_1890
- Start date
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
Yet we got to 4th
You believe that do you?
Yet we got to 4th
Because there are better players than them to choose from
The more I practice the luckier I get - Arnold Palmer
Rant if you feel the need, but get it right
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
Under Harry a lot of the players that were already here when he arrived have played the best football of their careers under him, so I never understand why people say he isn't a good coach. He, or whichever team he assembles to do the coaching, must do a good job if these players are improving.
I made a point in the Liverpool thread that needs to be made here, that Harry lets players play on instinct. There's arguably a spectrum of managerial choice when it comes to setting up a team. You could go and try and make it perfectly regemented in a system that when it works well can make the team play as more than the sum of its parts. Or you can give the players their head, let them play on instinct and pick a team that naturally compliments and balances itself, while letting the players play their natural games with confidence.
Neither end of that spectrum is right or wrong, it's just choices. It doesn't mean Harry is clueless or that it means someone like Rodgers puts too much pointless thought into his planning. But both can work. I'd say if you have overall 'lesser' players, but ones that can work in a specific system, then play the system way. If you have a well balanced squad full of good players you'd want to get the best out of them, you'd want them to be doing what they are good at, what they can do better than most other players in the league, and so you give them their head.
The system end could not work when you don't have the players, or the players could do it but refuse to take to it, or the players try to take to it but their natural instincts make them want to do something else, meaning they are putting too much thought into the game and not playing with confidence and are ultimately poorer. The freedom end might not work when you can't attract good players or have lots of injuries and therefore the team you pick is ultimately of poorer quality. But both can work.
It doesn't mean Harry sends the team out there with no tactics, or that he doesn't get tactics, it just means he believes that letting players do what they, individually can do best is a more worthwhile way to get results. We've seen what happens at Chelsea when the system is attempted to be implemented and it ultimately fails. We'll see how Rodgers does being stuck with expensive strikers that don't look like they suit his system or with a captain and club legend that looks like his instincts will tell him to do something else.
The system isn't the key to success. There are other ways. Harry wouldn't have got to where he is today just by being lucky.
I made a point in the Liverpool thread that needs to be made here, that Harry lets players play on instinct. There's arguably a spectrum of managerial choice when it comes to setting up a team. You could go and try and make it perfectly regemented in a system that when it works well can make the team play as more than the sum of its parts. Or you can give the players their head, let them play on instinct and pick a team that naturally compliments and balances itself, while letting the players play their natural games with confidence.
Neither end of that spectrum is right or wrong, it's just choices. It doesn't mean Harry is clueless or that it means someone like Rodgers puts too much pointless thought into his planning. But both can work. I'd say if you have overall 'lesser' players, but ones that can work in a specific system, then play the system way. If you have a well balanced squad full of good players you'd want to get the best out of them, you'd want them to be doing what they are good at, what they can do better than most other players in the league, and so you give them their head.
The system end could not work when you don't have the players, or the players could do it but refuse to take to it, or the players try to take to it but their natural instincts make them want to do something else, meaning they are putting too much thought into the game and not playing with confidence and are ultimately poorer. The freedom end might not work when you can't attract good players or have lots of injuries and therefore the team you pick is ultimately of poorer quality. But both can work.
It doesn't mean Harry sends the team out there with no tactics, or that he doesn't get tactics, it just means he believes that letting players do what they, individually can do best is a more worthwhile way to get results. We've seen what happens at Chelsea when the system is attempted to be implemented and it ultimately fails. We'll see how Rodgers does being stuck with expensive strikers that don't look like they suit his system or with a captain and club legend that looks like his instincts will tell him to do something else.
The system isn't the key to success. There are other ways. Harry wouldn't have got to where he is today just by being lucky.
Armchair Expert
Vedran Corluka
Youre still chipping away at this thread Mick? The goalposts havent changed.
Volspur is correct. If you put me in charge of mounting an art display, even though i have never done it before, but give me originals by Cezanne, Munch, Renoir & Monet - people will come regardless, even though the exhibition was brickly organised and didnt maximise the space/lighting/potential of the pictures.
The truth is that the team is has carried Harry. The results and performances are less than the sum of its parts. We achieved the position in spite of Harry. Third was in the bag until Harry's total tactical meltdown.
Just because I have a different opinion to you doesnt make it irrelevant, wrong or stupid. I have watched football for more than five minutes. Just to clarifiy in case you feel the need to level accusations at me for not agreeing with your opinion.
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
*Bangs head against desk* as if it was all that simple! As if the manager would send the players out there with no instruction, totally unprepared, and magically, we have our 3 most consistent finishes for about 25 years?
The players are given freedom to express themselves. That is not the same as being unprepared or not having a general plan to attack the opposition. Too many instructions can also stifle players and make them play in a way they are not suited to playing.
An example of an unprepared team would be Klinsmann's Bayern Munich. Without Low there providing the tactical nous, and Klinsmann wanted to do all of that himself, many players came out and said they didn't know what they were supposed to be doing in certain games, whether to press high, whether to drop off, etc etc etc. That's a lack of preparation. Players in general like playing for Harry, and most of this squad have played the best football of their careers under him. And it's because of the fact he lets them do what they are best at. It's not them carrying him at all, because it's his decision to give them that freedom. It's his choice.
Armchair Expert
Vedran Corluka
Total, total crap. Bale in the middle. Is that what he's best at? Parker ahead of Modric. Is that what he's best at? Lennon on the left. Is that what he's best at. Three at the back against Stevenage. Is that the best line up?
You totally ignore points made and spout out the standard line. We finished higher than in 1997. Should Hoddle have guided Doherty, Dozzell etc to third place? Joke.
I think you should bash your head on the table, maybe ask someone to do it for it - that way it might be hard enough. It'll hopefully knock some pig headedness out of you and hopefully some sense in.
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
I can give you Bale, it's obviously not what he is best at. Same with Lennon on the left (how many times did this really happen though?) but they are attempts to counter act the opposition doubling up on them and to provide something different. Nothing wrong with what, although maybe the Bale experiment should have been ditched sooner. But then again it worked in some games, like Norwich away, so maybe it can work. When it was tried later in the season the whole team was crap and not performing, and I don't think it was all down to just that.
Anyway, I have to say it is you who has ignored the points. You can't take isolated examples and show that it proves that it isn't Harry's style. It's obviously Harry's style. Is he a manager who implements a strict system, needs specific types of players to make it work and plays the same way every game? Or is he a manager that will let the players play to their strengths, and will change the system from game to game, depending on who he has selected and who is available? It's obviously the second, but maybe you'll say 'neither, he gives no instructions, apart from to run around a bit, and the players carry him, he's just been lucky all these years' in which case, good luck to you. Rarely does someone change their mind from a debate on here and if you want to think that, it's cool with me.
Wriggly
Banned
AE for prime minister.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I agree completely re differing styles, and regards Harrys management. He plays players that are naturally compatible, and I think he deals with tactics through selection rather than instruction.
I disagree though, the neither management style is right or wrong, in as much as I believe a more regimented style of management is better.
This is because it lays the foundation for a pattern of play. Youre having an off day? You still know what to do, what positions to take, how to defend... You can grind out a performance still.
For the more intuitive approach, your having a bad day? Well basically there is every chance you are stuffed then.
For me the regimented approach, the instructed and planned approach will make you more consistent, and that will make you more successfull.
a spur from swansea
Naybet
Chipping away,lol,facts and opinions,fact three top 5 positions in the last three years,opinons harry doesn't know what he's doing........keep your opinons,ill take hard core facts anyday,because thats where it counts.
africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
His campaign i dont think would go too far. there is nothing there that he's put on harry's door step that Harry has done massively wrong?
all the things he complains about were getting done in the games thaT we were winning in, but somehow he only focuses on when we had bad form and what happened then.
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
I don't disagree. I actually really like a regimented approach to, it's probably my personal preference infact. But I'd say it does have negatives.
Inherit a bunch of players that don't fit the system but still have a significant sway with the dressing room, fans and ownership of the club? Well you either have to force them into the system which they might not take to, or maybe they try to do it but instinct makes them do something else, meaning performance suffers anyway, or you drop them, and have the fans, players, and ownership wondering why expensive/legendary players are not in the team when they have fat contracts.
System relies on a couple of key players to make it tick and they are both out injured? Well then you're fudged. Or if your key player is poached by another club and you haven't replaced him well enough. When we lost Carrick it was devastating to Jol's system. You could argue that if given time, you should be able to build a squad with 2 good players in every position, so that an injury in any position can be covered for. And I would definitely agree with that. But it does take time, a bit of money, and it suggests that the big players that don't fit the system can be moved out of the club easily without kicking up a fuss or getting the fans/board/players on your back.
Let's say you need to get a central attacking midfielder who can score goals because it's absolutely crucial to the system. He also needs to be a certain type of player in terms of his pass selection, how he times his run, how long he holds the ball, how quick he is, how quickly he can close down, how good his tackling is. Let's say all the obvious players that would fit that mould have either gone to other clubs recently and so won't move or are just out of the price range of the club/wage structure. There's a player out there that fits the price range and wage structure, but doesn't tick some of those boxes mentioned above, but is excellent in other areas. Or there's a player from MK Dons that has shown he can do all the things you need, but is very inconsistent, and isn't as talented as the majority of Premier League players, and isn't as naturally fit, even though he would tactically fit into the system. By having the regimented approach, you risk buying an inferior player because he fits the system where as you could bring in the excellent player and let him play a slightly different way. You risk reducing the overall quality of the team because you don't want to veer too much from getting players who can fit tactically even though they may be poor in other areas.
I agree that in an ideal world, a regimented system is a great thing. It gives me peace of mind as a fan. I know that even if we are losing, we still have a plan and still look like we are trying something. When we play poor under Harry, it can be frustrating because it looks like we are unprepared. But I'd say that both styles still have their benefits. If our preferred system is Rafa in behind Ade but Rafa is injured, we can bring in Defoe. Totally different type of player but we can still get results playing to Defoe's strengths. What would be better? Bringing in Defoe and playing to his strengths, or bringing in a Championship quality attackng midfielder (in this hypothetical example) because we have identified that he is a similar player to Rafa tactically, but can't do it on as consistent a basis because he just isn't as good or doesn't have the ingenuity.
If a manager is given time, money and the players he needs are all available and ready to come to us so we can have a squad of 22 that can cover every situation, that's the ideal and that's what I'd prefer. But because football can often through you curve balls and it doesn't go all our own way, sometimes the freedom approach gives us a bit more flexibility.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
You seem to be coming from the angle that a manager has only one system of play.
There are infinite possibilites in ways to play with a regimented system. If a manager takes over a team that doesnt suit his preferred style (like AVB perhaps?) he needs to work out a style that suits HIS TEAM in order to get results - and build towards his preference over time.
Look at Martinez this season. Prefers a 433. Played it all season trying to make it work, obsessing over details etc - gets toward the end of the season and instead of stubbornly pursuing his ideals he assesses his team and comes up with a system of play that SUITS THEM and puts together a great run of form (and great for him, he managed to do so while keeping his core football principles intact.)
If a player is suddenly unavailable then adapt.
Ideally a by-product of a set style of play is that it basically dicatates your buying policy as well - you are focused on what you need with lazer precision
There are infinite possibilites in ways to play with a regimented system. If a manager takes over a team that doesnt suit his preferred style (like AVB perhaps?) he needs to work out a style that suits HIS TEAM in order to get results - and build towards his preference over time.
Look at Martinez this season. Prefers a 433. Played it all season trying to make it work, obsessing over details etc - gets toward the end of the season and instead of stubbornly pursuing his ideals he assesses his team and comes up with a system of play that SUITS THEM and puts together a great run of form (and great for him, he managed to do so while keeping his core football principles intact.)
If a player is suddenly unavailable then adapt.
Ideally a by-product of a set style of play is that it basically dicatates your buying policy as well - you are focused on what you need with lazer precision
Wriggly
Banned
You're just jealous cause I never said you for PM.
africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
Having a different opinion doesn't make it irrelevant, wrong, or stupid; having an opinion that I don't think is well supported makes it wrong or stupid IMO. Did the team carry Harry when we got 4th for the first time in the PL, with our best ever points total, with players like Huddlestone, Kranjcar, Bassong, Palacios, Crouch and Defoe all playing key roles?
Or are you only talking about this season?
In any case, "Third was in the bag until Harry's total tactical meltdown" - it seems totally illogical to me to blame Harry for losing third, but to give him no credit for us getting there in the first place, as if we have always been title challengers, and Harry suddenly joined us around January causing us to fall apart. As has been said many times, most people were predicting 5th or 6th for us at the beginning of the season. From some people Harry gets no credit for us challenging for the title, but all the blame for our fall to 4th.
I agree that Harry has flaws, and I have no problem when people make good arguments as to why they would prefer to see someone like Rodgers in charge. I just can't stand it when people suggest that he is completely clueless, and act as if he has played no part in turning us into a team challenging for 3rd. Even if you think he is now holding us back, for which an argument can be made, it's completely illogical to give him no credit for getting us to getting us here in the first place.
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
I don't disagree again, although Martinez is a rare example that I have seen of someone that so radically changed his system mid way through and got success with it. Lambert can do it on a game to game basis and that's kind of his MO, he doesn't have one style of play and adapts depending on the game, and even then the situation within the game he has no qualms about going to a completely different system.
Most managers if they have a system will stick to it, and buy players for that system. I'd say particularly at top clubs. Martinez may have been forced by the fact that he is at Wigan and truly needed to work with what he had rather than buy to improve. But maybe what Martinez did is what most managers should do if they are faced with the uncomfortable barriers to getting what they need. Completely adapt.
But with someone like AVB, it's tough. If you were brought in because your owner wants to see high-line, constant pressure, attacking football. But you're influential player doesn't want to play in the high line, then you may as well not be there. They may as well bring someone in like RDM to just do what the players want until they can move them out. Similarly Gerrard, I'm sure could play the Sigurdsson role. But this is what Harry means when he says it's about players and not tactics that will get you success. Gerrard could do it, and fit into the system. But would he buy into the Rodgers philosophy of patient passing? It's completely at odds with Gerrard's instincts as a player. So even if Gerrard tries, he may just not fit in because on the pitch, when you're making a million calculations a second and trying to play with confidence, he will do what he's been taught and what he thinks he can do better than anyone else. So it's not just fitting into the tactical system, it's buying into the philosophy too.
It can be argued that that's what Harry does, adapt. We generally play our football on the ground, and we counter attack with pace when we have both wingers in the side. But we can play more patiently too if need be. We went to Chelsea and played a more defensive 4-5-1 and played well, because the tactics were decided by the strategy and the players picked to compliment that. But generally we will always have the same passing philosophy. But if we have Crouch in the team we will utilise him too.
Trying to play all the players' strengths is good to me, and so is trying to make them all fit into a system if it can make them play better as a collective.
Wriggly
Banned
There is no achievement for getting to 3rd, the achievement is finishing there. You're confusing that. Going by your logic, we were in the relegation places for the first 2 games but he saved us from relegation too ? We were doing well granted, when your on a great run and full of confidence its easier to win games. Harry would basically have to just say, listen lads, same again. It's when that halts, its when he starts putting square pegs in round holes and tinkers, its when we go on 2 wins from 13 games runs, its when he tries to turn Bale into Ronaldo or shuv's Lennon on the left or commits suicide 2-0 up at the immigrants, then when questioned he says we should be mid table where we belong, don't forget that. When his transfer targets become Saha, Nelsen, Joe Cole, Beckham and Phil Neville being good for Spurs that I question him, yes he's done very well with Parker. Do you think Vertonghen, Damiao, Remy, De Jong etc are/were Harry's targets ? No, of course they are not.