• 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

Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

Would you keep Arry after the Season?

  • Yes - He's done well and should be given at least one more season to consolidate our team

    Votes: 25 53.2%
  • No - he's peaked and would hold us back.

    Votes: 22 46.8%

  • Total voters
    47
I remember this board when we lost 3-0 at home to Fulham with Barry Hayles running rampant. Everyone was ragging on Hoddle saying 'anyone would know that playing 3 centre backs against a lone striker is absolutely wrong'.

Crumbs that was a rotten day. Let's hope we get a result against Blackburn and get some positivity back!!
 
Why do you think 3-5-2 is perfect against lone strikers? It seems a waste to me to have 3 centre-backs marking 1 striker (I presume the 2 wing-backs would be responsible for opposing wide-midfielders... and if they're not, 3-on-3 would be extremely risky defensively.

Agree with this. Teams frequently played a 4-3-3/4-5-1 against Hoddle's teams because they knew it would force him to change his system to a back four.
 
The other reason it doesn't work is because if you're up against a team playing 4-3-3 with wing forwards, then if your wing-back goes forward then they have a forward who's unmarked. That ends up pinning back the wing-backs to mark the wing-forward. Which means that your attacking players are all bunched up in the middle of the pitch and you have no wide options.
 
The other reason it doesn't work is because if you're up against a team playing 4-3-3 with wing forwards, then if your wing-back goes forward then they have a forward who's unmarked. That ends up pinning back the wing-backs to mark the wing-forward. Which means that your attacking players are all bunched up in the middle of the pitch and you have no wide options.

Hence the need to have a very good defensive midfielder. 3-5-2 is unquestionably the most dynamic formation, and the most fluid. But it does rely heavily on players with the ability to play it and not many can.

Against 4-5-1 the perfect 3-5-2 would come up trumps. 3 defenders vs 1, as opposed to 4 vs 1. Comfortably allows one centre half to shuffle across and cover the wing back (especially if the DM is smart enough to drop off into defence), but also allows to the team to match the oppositions 5 man midfield whilst still giving them two forwards to worry about.
 
After the debacle of QPR and feeling less knee jerky, I'm happy for Harry to see out the rest of the season and support him and the team in what is, to be fair, a decent chance of finishing in a Champions League spot, a position he got us in.

I would still be looking for us to replace manager though regardless of what we achieve.


This.
 
The worst? I am not so sure about that. What about 81/82? 5 wins in 17 matches during the title run in when we were in with a shout. 96/96 was pretty bad too. I remember before Xmas we were sitting in 2nd place. We had a poor Xmas (other than dingdonging Utd on New Year's day!) and from the end of March completely imploded.

The worst league collapse I've seen was the 1990/91 season. Last 24 games of the season we won just THREE times in the league! And we still finished 11th :lol:

You bring up '81/82 without any context. It was something like 8 games in 17 days (corrections necessary) an insane amount of games considering the squad sizes, etc. We were kicked from pillar to post in CWC SF by a filthy Barcelona side who then conned a win at the Nou Camp, we lost there LCF in extra-time having led for 85 mins, and yes, I remember when the title slipped away, a 2-2 midweek home draw with S'land after we'd beat the goons 3-1 @ scum bury...we ended up with the FA Cup that season (barely!) as you know...I think they're different situations...and different times too...best, Steff
 
On the pitch: we destroy Saudi Sportswashing Machine 5-0 on Saturday 11th February and it should have been more. Only 2 days after the initial resignation/trial conclusion. Then things come to a head , very suddenly and quickly, in the week after the Saudi Sportswashing Machine game?

Is it here in this week that 'something has happened'? Was Redknapp offered the England job in that week following the Saudi Sportswashing Machine game, with the FA acting quickly post-Saudi Sportswashing Machine thrashing, to 'secure their man', and the players found out? It is from that week that Spurs then dramatically bomb. 0-0 at Stevenage in the FA Cup, February 19th, and then the utter disaster and capitulation of 5-2 at The Emirates on 26th February.

@Sheffield Spur
I think you've hit the tickle my balls with a feather. Although I've said in the past the defeat at City certainly put the seeds of doubt in our minds, it all seems that week after Capello's resignation is at heart of it all.
Hindsight's a wonderful thing, but after the 5-0, that would, and should have, been the time we parted company, what a way to bow out, Harry would have left on a high, whereas I fear its all going to end on a sour note
 
You bring up '81/82 without any context. It was something like 8 games in 17 days (corrections necessary) an insane amount of games considering the squad sizes, etc. We were kicked from pillar to post in CWC SF by a filthy Barcelona side who then conned a win at the Nou Camp, we lost there LCF in extra-time having led for 85 mins, and yes, I remember when the title slipped away, a 2-2 midweek home draw with S'land after we'd beat the goons 3-1 @ scum bury...we ended up with the FA Cup that season (barely!) as you know...I think they're different situations...and different times too...best, Steff

The collapse began before the fixture congestion (which most teams faced that season) and continued into it. Collapse reasons are irrelevant in the context of this conversation anyway. We're talking about collapses, not their causes.

My point is, this is by no means the worst collapse we've ever had. Rose tinted specs will have us looking back fondly on seasons where we were far worse than now. 90/91 being the main one. Beating the scum in that semi final and winning the FA Cup completely overshadowed just how crap we were in the second half of that season! We were shockingly bad.
 
The sooner he goes the better, look at the mess he has left his previous clubs in, problems in the dressing room at all his previous clubs was always going to happen here as well. Unlike some i do not hate him, but he is a chancer and it was always going to end in tears ( it always does) IF he would only once admit to getting things wrong i would have some respect for him, but he never does its always someone or something that is to blame.

Please elaborate?
 
Hence the need to have a very good defensive midfielder. 3-5-2 is unquestionably the most dynamic formation, and the most fluid. But it does rely heavily on players with the ability to play it and not many can.

Against 4-5-1 the perfect 3-5-2 would come up trumps. 3 defenders vs 1, as opposed to 4 vs 1. Comfortably allows one centre half to shuffle across and cover the wing back (especially if the DM is smart enough to drop off into defence), but also allows to the team to match the oppositions 5 man midfield whilst still giving them two forwards to worry about.

Not sure exactly where this conversation has come from as I haven't read the whole thread but...

The main problem with what you describe is the opposition's overlapping full-backs. They have no wingers to mark them, meaning the centre-backs on either side must be competent at moving into a full-back position, allowing the wing-backs to occasionally become wingers and to hassle their opposing full-back. However, this then leaves the team very vulnerable to the opposition switching the play, as the opposition full-back on the other flank then becomes totally free due to the wing-back dropping back to become a full-back to mark the opposing winger as the central three shuffle across to cover the original wing-back.

It is a complicated system that has been proven time and time again to be weak against single-striker formations. Maybe if a team was consistently drilled in the defensive movements and covering required it could still be effective, but essentially you are likely to be dominated in the wide areas, making 2v1s easy to create and at the same time causing potential confusion amongst your own back 3 due to the amount of movement involved. As you said, the DM could then drop in to become another CB with a back 4 of 4 CBs and the 2 WBs pushed up to become wingers, but then you jsut have to question the point in not starting with a back 4 in the first place.
 
Just to avoid confusion later: The back 3 in Moonlit's 3-5-2 are 3 CBs, so that's a traditional back 3...

A suicide back 3 was a term used by someone on this board that I'm stealing... :p When I talk about a sucide back 3 it'd be something like Walker, Kaboul, BAE... 1 RB, 1 LB, 1 CB. The RB and LB would attack as they would if they were part of a back 4. This is the type of back 3 that Barca normally use when they play with a back 3, even though they do play with DMs or CBs as the back 3.
 
Hence the need to have a very good defensive midfielder. 3-5-2 is unquestionably the most dynamic formation, and the most fluid. But it does rely heavily on players with the ability to play it and not many can.

Against 4-5-1 the perfect 3-5-2 would come up trumps. 3 defenders vs 1, as opposed to 4 vs 1. Comfortably allows one centre half to shuffle across and cover the wing back (especially if the DM is smart enough to drop off into defence), but also allows to the team to match the oppositions 5 man midfield whilst still giving them two forwards to worry about.

I'd argue that a suicide 3-4-3 with the total football style of defence is about the most fluid and dynamic formation possible. It's an insanely risky formation but it's hard to imagine a more fluid or dynamic formation than that. Of course, it's insanely reliant on player ability, I think most of the more unusual formations rely on player ability though, as well as team qualities like work ethic and such.

That said, 3-5-2 is more fluid and dynamic than most formations, so I don't have a huge issue with that part of your post.

I have a major issue with a standard 3-5-2 vs a 4-5-1.

Against 4-5-1 the perfect 3-5-2 would come up trumps.

This is incorrect.

Of course, it depends who and what you're playing. 3-5-2 against a league 1 or league 2 side playing a 4-5-1 has some advantages, against a good team parking the bus or a strong possession side, the results may vary.

3 defenders vs 1, as opposed to 4 vs 1.

That's not right at all.

Your 3-5-2 has 3 CBs, so the first part is correct.

The 4 v 1 comment isn't right. When playing a 4-5-1 against a back 4, it does depend on exactly how that 4-5-1 is set up, but most of the time the back 4 performs like a back 4 would against a 4-3-3 (even though there is a huge difference between 4-5-1 and 4-3-3)...

So a back 4 would have 2 v 1, one spare man and the full backs can concentrate on the opposition wide players.

Comfortably allows one centre half to shuffle across and cover the wing back (especially if the DM is smart enough to drop off into defence), but also allows to the team to match the oppositions 5 man midfield whilst still giving them two forwards to worry about.

Ok, so you have a DM (obviously), you have 1 CB covering "the" wing back. Surely you'd have both wing backs attacking at once? So that back 3's position would be a little strange covering one wing back, sure you mentioned the DM can drop back (which is a beautiful thing about certain DMs that I just love), so in that scenario you might have a back 4 which could cover both wing backs if needed. In turn though, you would need one striker to drop into midfield to maintain 5v5 in there defensively. But offensively, you bring that DM to the midfield and push the striker forward to get your 5 v 5 in offence.



I'm even more stubborn than Guardiola when it comes to making sure your team has the numbers in midfield, so I do love a lot of things about the 3-5-2... But let's look at it in a couple of situations.

Firstly, Sunderland. I wanted us to change to a suicide 3 at the back with Sandro as the pivot that would drop back when we defended and Parker would have performed the DM role he does for us when we play a back 4. They had Bentner as the lone striker with Sessegnon playing behind him but were parking the bus.

I'm not trying to compare that to your proposed formation, I'm just trying to say that I'm not "anti 3 man defences".

Let's look at your 3-5-2 in that situation. We can forget the people we had available that day and things like that because you could play the world XI in any formation you want against 12 year old girls in the best possible formation and the world XI are going to win... So just from a tactical point of view: 3 CBs, 1 DM. 2 Wing backs. I don't know the rest of your team as far as types of players go, so I don't know if you have another DM or if you have really really offensive midfielders.

But your 3-5-2 offers only 2 wide players, wing backs. Most systems have 4 wide players, 2 on each side that can overlap and such... But the only width this team would have would be in 2 players with defensive responsibilities. (Against a team parking the bus, this isn't a huge problem, but they aren't as free as wingers in a front 3 are, or even wide players in a traditional midfield are, they have more cover than full backs usually have though. )

So the opposition's strategy is simple. The 4-5-1 parking the bus can pack the midfield and be more narrow than usual because there is less of a wide threat than most systems offer.

The fact that a second striker plays in your system means that long balls and such would be more effective, but losing 2 wide players in order to add a striker to the forward centre of the pitch is not the tactical advantage that your post seems to imply.

Defensively, you have 3 CBs and a DM all sitting against a team parking the bus, sure, it means they are less likely to score than when you only have 3 players sitting, but I feel it is slight overkill against Bentner and Sessegnon when Sessegnon was deployed fairly defensively. A DM could cover him with a CB covering Bentner and a man free, that'd be more than enough for me.

Yes, they had wide players, but again, the 3-5-2 doesn't defend width that well... The exchange of 2 wide players for an extra CB and a Striker doesn't really need a huge explanation when it comes to this... Even compared to a 4-4-2, a 3-5-2 would be trading both full backs for a CB and a midfielder, so again, it doesn't have an edge defending traditional width.


-------

Now on to a strong possession side.

The obvious strong possession sides play 4-3-3 more than 4-5-1, so it's hard to find a good example...

I think I'm going to use Arsenal as an example because although Walcott is very much a forward player that plays in a front 3, it's a team most of us know well and the difference between a 4-5-1 and Arsenal's 4-3-3 isn't an insanely huge difference... The only other example would be our 4-5-1 but that 4-5-1 was utterly departed as it featured 3 holding midfielders. I can't think of a better possession side to play 4-5-1 than us though, even Swansea play a 4-3-3.


Anyway, we're not totally focused on players anyway. But I just wanted you to have an idea how that 4-5-1 would set out and what the team played like.


3-5-2 vs that type of 4-5-1 has advantages and disadvantages. Against either Arsenal or Spurs, packing the middle of the pitch and having 3 CBs to take care of midfielders or wingers running in behind is an advantage, the centre length of the pitch (all the way from our CBs to their CBs, but not the parts with wide players) has a bunch of bodies which means passing through the middle should be harder. 3 vs 3 in the middle, means you aren't going to get overrun in midfield, you even have 2 strikers to press with.

The biggest defensive issue is going to be against overlapping wide players. Whether it's Arsenal or Spurs, both teams use wingers with a full back backing them up. We're ignoring player abilities, so we don't need to focus on "Walcott is brick" or "Bale would drift inside anyway so it wouldn't matter", even if you have average top 4 standard wingers and full backs to deal with, this is a problem.


Offensively, against a 4-5-1, the 4-5-1's wide midfielders would do some defensive work, so wing backs have got to overcome a right/left midfielder and a full back. Again, the exchange of an extra wide player per side in order to have more players in the middle is a real hindrance to wide build up play.


For the record, having more players to cross the ball to if a wing back does manage to get into a good position and cross the ball is great, but not only is that at the expense of width, but it might not actually happen. It is likely that the opposite winger would be on the back post, so it may just be trading a winger on the back post for another striker or another midfielder in the box.

(I'm not sure if that part is totally clear, it'd be handy to have pictures to help explain things sometimes. :p)


But on to another clear advantage. 2 Strikers against a possession team that is packing the middle of the pitch means that long balls will have more potential than they would with just a lone striker.



but also allows to the team to match the oppositions 5 man midfield whilst still giving them two forwards to worry about.

This part is true, but at the same time I can't quite express the value of that second striker. The trade off is that they will have 2 less wide players to worry about.

I think that's the best way I can describe it. Would you rather defend against 2 wingers and 2 full backs or 1 extra striker and another CB (in addition to 2 CBs and a DM)?

Yes, they would have to deal with a second striker, but they would have 2 wide midfielders to deal with 2 wing backs and 2 full backs to cover the 2 CBs against 2 strikers. The 4-5-1 would defend against a 3-5-2 like they would against a 4-4-2 as far as the full backs go.

The second striker is valuable yes, but the 2 wide players you're trading him for were also valuable.

Just for the sake of being fair, set pieces have one extra CB and that striker instead of 2 wingers (wingers are usually not great in the air, but are useful defending counterattacks, so you can make of that what you will.)
 
Long, isn't it?

Well, a simpler answer is that a back 3 against a lone striker is usually a bad idea... One of the very very very few examples of when it's a good idea is when you're playing against a false 9 and deploy a DM to track him, making it a back 4 when the false 9 plays as a striker, but following him into midfield to make a 6 vs 6 with 4 men in the middle of the pitch for both teams. But to simply make a statement without backing it up leaves the other person without any evidence to work with. If I had said "the most effective way to play against Barca is to use 3 defenders", people would be "WTFing" me until the cows came home, which is why taking a few moments to explain something at least offers an insight into what could potentially be a very strange sounding statement.


Edit:

Lol, beaten to it.

Yes, I could have just said that, but I was trying to be constructive. :p
 
Last edited:
I should have said long but insightful. I don't mean to belittle such an excellent post with a snide remark. Top post.
My apologies.
 
I didn't take offence or anything. I just get comments like that quite often, so I automatically defended my posting style. Thank you. No worries at all. :)
 
The dressing rooms at both Portsmouth and Southampton were split after he left, one or two of the players have since came out and talked about it.

I've mentioned on here before that I used to eat a lot in a restaurant a lot of Portsmouth players ate at.

Harry is not highly regarded amongst them. Two in particular are not fans - one now retired and the other surprisingly came to Spurs, despite having no love at all for Redknapp.
 
I've mentioned on here before that I used to eat a lot in a restaurant a lot of Portsmouth players ate at.

Harry is not highly regarded amongst them. Two in particular are not fans - one now retired and the other surprisingly came to Spurs, despite having no love at all for Redknapp.

Scara dining in Nandos with Sol Campbell and Defoe/Crouch/Kaboul/Kranjcar!
 
Back