Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

[noddy1991]

Sorry mate that is rubbish, what about KK and the money he spent.

money generally trumps everything these day. look how chaotically chelsea has been run post mourinho but cos of huge pots of cash they still win things. the fact that the 4 fa cups they've won in the last 6 years have all under different managers says it all.

 

[parklane1]

OK, what do you think Bayern's plan B was?

They did not need anymore then getting one of the strikers to finish off one of the 31 chances they made. Plan B comes in when you are not playing well, they were all over Chelski and most would have thought that they would eventually put one away/

Plan B comes in when you game plan is not working, ie you are being outplayed, overrun which was not the case last night.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

They did not need anymore then getting one of the strikers to finish off one of the 31 chances they made. Plan B comes in when you are not playing well, they were all over Chelski and most would have thought that they would eventually put one away/

Plan B comes in when you game plan is not working, ie you are being outplayed, overrun which was not the case last night.

OK, but isn't that almost identical to Spurs? Even during our bad run of results we were dominating teams, dominating chanes and dominating possession. So that means we didn't require a Plan B during those matches?

 

[elltrev]

This. Irrespective of the run of games or how it is achieved (e.g. if we blaze a trail in the first half of a season and then stutter over the line, or if we have a poor start and have a terrific end to a season) if we finish 3rd we're in dream world (because there is no way we should be there with the current financial situation OR the current crop of players), if we finish 4th we've punched above our weight and should be delighted, if we finish 5th we should be pleased and if we finish 6th we should be content because...

a) we don't have the money for massive transfer fees OR wages so we are unlikely to be able to compete for our rivals for a "sure thing" improvement
b) we don't have the money or the wage budget to buy five or six players to take a chance on who the big boys aren't interested in yet, e.g. Berbatov, Modric, Sandro etc. And if you buy five or six players like that, only one or two ever turn out to be as good as Berbatov or Modric. We simply can't afford to speculate ?ú40m of funds to find all of them flop.

The trouble is, people keep on arguing past each other in this debate because some are focusing on our financial disadvantage whereas some are looking at out current team and how it compares to those around us.

As a club, OF COURSE we're punching above our weight, and the last 3 years have been a huge success. I would hiope that no-one would disagree with that. But if you're talking about Harry as a manager (ignoring skill in transfers), then the clubs' finances are irrelevant. What's important is how our team compares to those around us. And most would agree that Friedel, Gallas, King (generally), Walker, Lennon, Modric, Sandro, Modric, Bale, VDV and Adebayor are of a similar quality to Arsenal's and Chelsea's players. And so Harry shouldn't be judged as if we're an an underdog, because in terms of our squad we're on a similar level to Arse and Chelsea.

Personally, given that we finished above Chelsea and 1 point behind Arse, I think he's done a decent job this season overall.

Also, in contrast to what others seem to think, I think he's been very good in the transfer market. When he arrived our squad was nowhere near Chelsea's and Arsenal's, but now it's right up there without having spent loads of money. Friedel, Walker, Gallas, Kaboul, Sandro, Parker, Adebayor - all excellent signings.

 

[parklane1]

[/B]

OK, but isn't that almost identical to Spurs? Even during our bad run of results we were dominating teams, dominating chanes and dominating possession. So that means we didn't require a Plan B during those matches?

Plan B would have been bringing a striker on instead of a DM against Villa, or would you disagree with that.

 

[DHSF]

[/B]

OK, but isn't that almost identical to Spurs? Even during our bad run of results we were dominating teams, dominating chanes and dominating possession. So that means we didn't require a Plan B during those matches?

Yes but Bayern apparently are hundreds of times better than us with a much much better manager. Didnt ya know that. Heynckes (or whatever his name is - definitely missing a vowel) is SO much better than Harry.

 

[parklane1]

Yes but Bayern apparently are hundreds of times better than us with a much much better manager. Didnt ya know that. Heynckes (or whatever his name is - definitely missing a vowel) is SO much better than Harry.

Thanks for adding to a good debate.

 

[Jimmy-g]

Plan B would have been bringing a striker on instead of a DM against Villa, or would you disagree with that.

I agree with this entirely but where do you stop, all it needed was for one of our "superstars" to score a couple more goals and we would have got third easily, ultimately the players are just as much to blame as Redknap, we win as a team and lose as a team.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Plan B would have been bringing a striker on instead of a DM against Villa, or would you disagree with that.

That's one isolated game, and that was for the last what? Four minutes of the match? What about Stoke when we switched to 3-5-2 and completely outplayed them after a shakey first half? Is that not a plan B (see I can take games in isolation and use them as an example too).

As for the Villa game? It's an argument I've had in years gone by that bringing a DM into the team is often an attacking move. I've even seen some people suggest that good teams don't need a DM #-o But quite often a good attacking solution is to bring on a DM for an attacking player, have the DM sit back and protect whilst both full backs get forward too. So by taking off a forward and putting on a DM you remove one player from the attack, and allow two more to join in.

 

[parklane1]

I agree with this entirely but where do you stop, all it needed was for one of our "superstars" to score a couple more goals and we would have got third easily, ultimately the players are just as much to blame as Redknap, we win as a team and lose as a team.

Do not disagee, but a DM instead of a striker when a win would have made sure we finished third was not the best decision.

 

[elltrev]

Do not disagee, but a DM instead of a striker when a win would have made sure we finished third was not the best decision.

In fairness we were down to 10 men, so bringing on a second striker would have been difficult.

Personally I would have brought Defoe on in a straight swap to Adebayor.

But as Moonlit said, that was just one decision in one of 38 league games.

 

[parklane1]

That's one isolated game, and that was for the last what? Four minutes of the match? What about Stoke when we switched to 3-5-2 and completely outplayed them after a shaky first half? Is that not a plan B (see I can take games in isolation and use them as an example too).

As for the Villa game? It's an argument I've had in years gone by that bringing a DM into the team is often an attacking move. I've even seen some people suggest that good teams don't need a DM #-o But quite often a good attacking solution is to bring on a DM for an attacking player, have the DM sit back and protect whilst both full backs get forward too. So by taking off a forward and putting on a DM you remove one player from the attack, and allow two more to join in.

I used the Villa game because that was the latest example of his wrong ( imo) decisions, but we are never going to agree are we.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Do not disagee, but a DM instead of a striker when a win would have made sure we finished third was not the best decision.

Thing is how many times under Jol were we dominating a game, struggling to score and he'd put a third striker on the pitch and then we'd turn to complete brick, and no longer dominate the game? You still need balance and as we were down to 10 men I think it would have been very tough to accomodate two strikers and still create chances for them.

 

[parklane1]

In fairness we were down to 10 men, so bringing on a second striker would have been difficult.

Personally I would have brought Defoe on in a straight swap to Adebayor.

But as Moonlit said, that was just one decision in one of 38 league games.

We would have sown up the third and CL if we had scored a winner, we were all over Villa and we put a DM on and settled for a point.

 

[parklane1]

Thing is how many times under Jol were we dominating a game, struggling to score and he'd put a third striker on the pitch and then we'd turn to complete brick, and no longer dominate the game? You still need balance and as we were down to 10 men I think it would have been very tough to accomodate two strikers and still create chances for them.

Jol has nothing to do with a debate about the strengths or weaknesses of Redknapp, and you do know that.

 

[Jimmy-g]

Do not disagee, but a DM instead of a striker when a win would have made sure we finished third was not the best decision.

I do agree with you but The players should get just as much blame as Redknap, we still finished fourth and are improving, thats all I can say really.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I used the Villa game because that was the latest example of his wrong ( imo) decisions, but we are never going to agree are we.

I don't think the Villa game is a good example to use for any purpose as we were down to 10 men. I think if you want to blame Redknapp for the Villa game you're better off going down the route of why on earth haven't we signed a left back to at compete with Ekotto for the position, if not replace him as first choice. Same with Lennon on the right. By not having a ready made replacement for Lennon, we often had to go to this non-existant Plan B and that is what cost us.

I've been doing some analysis on our bad run of results (I still refuse to say form, because I don't believe we were playing that badly during the run) and for me there were three contributing factors that trump everything else:

1) Lennon gets injured we lose all shape and have to fit square pegs into round holes to accomodate. This completely ruined our attacking shape and made it harder to hit teams on the break, or break them down when they were playing deep.
2) During this period Bale developed a hero complex. Bale roaming around all over the place is fine if Lennon is staying wide and giving us width but when Lennon was out we had no width that side and then Bale would come in too tight and we'd have no width that side either. We effectively started playing a diamond formation which no one has really got to work successfully in the Premiership (cost Ancelotti his job at Chelsea!).
3) For some bizarre reason Redknapp dropped Dawson in favour of Kaboul when Dawson was playing superbly. Then Dawson got injured and defensively from set pieces we fell to bits.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Jol has nothing to do with a debate about the strengths or weaknesses of Redknapp, and you do know that.

I am using it as a relevant example to this debate that whilst it seems logical to score goals you need more attacking players on the pitch, the opposite is actually true. To be an effective attacking unit you still need a shape and balance about the team. Just throwing on forwards doesn't work, and quite often has the opposite effect to what you are trying to achieve. That was demonstrated under Jol many times because his plan B was often to switch to 4-3-3 with three forwards and it rarely achieved anything but for us to lose all attacking momentum.

 

[Rossi22]

New training ground, new start. I can't see what good giving Harry(who has one year left on his contract) millions of pounds to spend on players will do.

 

[Fuego]

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say!?

My point was that you shouldn't base your belief on whether or not Harry should be sacked PURELY on whether or not we got CL (which is what the poster that I initially responded to was saying), because much of that was out of our hands. League position or, even better IMO, number of points is a far more fair and sensible kind of target to use if you're that way inclined.

More generally speaking, I think basing ones opinion strictly on whether or not we reached a specific target is a simplistic and short-term way of thinking that is pretty foolish IMO. Unfortunately it's rife in football.

It seems you partly agree with me in that you don't think Harry's future should hinge on the outcome of the Bayern-Chelsea game. But it seems that you disagree with me in that you place a lot of importance on league position rather than points total.

I was offering my point of view, in the event that it was shared by the poster you quoted. My first post in this thread was along the same line, the CL final ultimately decided whether it'd be sacking a manager that got us CL football or sacking one that didn't. I just felt that it being out of our hands meant Harry could have been saved, as he would have if WBA had beaten Arsenal... It being out of our hands was a problem.


I totally agree with you that league position is a crazy way to judge a manager's achievements. Look at Mourinho's 95 point record breaking Chelsea... The Invincibles won the title with 90 points the year before... Emirates Marketing Project and Man United have 89 points, so either of them would have lost in both those years with those points... Another year though, either of them could have won the title.


But points isn't a safe way to rate things either... When the title is decided, teams can play 14 year olds from the youth team if they want, although they don't usually go that far, I remember Man United reserves playing Chelsea reserves at the end of the season for premier league points... So it's hard to judge... In my previous post, I created a freak season to make us win the league with 50 points, 50 points is fudging terrible, but you can't sack Harry if he wins us the league, even if he does it with 50 points.

The problem with football is that it is a results business to the extreme. Stoke - Spurs... History just says "Stoke won".... Chelsea - Wigan, history says "Chelsea won".... Upon closer inspection, you can see fine details that should have a much bigger impact on a chairmen's opinion than the result, but you can't keep a book full of these little notes and judge a season based on that. You'd have a list for every team and create a final league table yourself to judge your manager on.

So everyone is left with the cruel, unforgiving system that sees Di Matteo remembered as "couldn't quite rescue Chelsea's season via league position, but won the CL, FA cup and qualified for the CL via the CL."

Owen Coyle's footnote for the season will say: "Relegated"... It won't mention the referee that caused it. (Foy. Bolton's GK had two hands on the ball and the ball was knocked out of his hands.)


Now, people can say "over the course of a season, people end up where they deserve to be", but that is gonads. Generally a team is at the correct end of the table, but everyone can move a place or two due to officials alone.. Let alone all the other crazy brick that happens...

You cannot say "if X goal would have stood, Man United wouldn't have scored afterwards", but every league table I see that shows results after incorrect decisions have been reversed all say: Man United win the title, Tottenham finish 3rd.

I've seen 3-4 of these tables (one was extremely suspect), but the same deal happens... A group of people from different clubs all sit down and watch a fudgeton of replays, award penalties with 100% conversion rates, take goals away and add goals.

I think either the Telegraph or the Guardian had one that was particularly good, but I can't find it... There are plenty around though.



So overall, no matter how you judge a manager, it is likely to be fudged up in one way or another. But that's why I dislike the wording of this poll.

"Are you happy with Harry?", "Do you think Harry should be given a new contract and our transfer kitty to spend?", etc are all less absolute ways of everyone saying how they feel about the manager...

This board has people that feel Harry taints any success he brings and would want him out if we won the league.... There are some that believe Harry was good enough to save us from relegation (many believe an ape could have done this though), but isn't good enough to take us to the next level. (The next level probably being part of a new big 4.... Manchester 1 and 2, Spurs and Chelsea after they spend another 150 million and somehow avoid FFP.)

It greatly varies, so you can have 20 anti Harry views that are all totally different, I picked two of the more contrasting views.... There's plenty of middle ground.


So yes, judging a manager purely on if he gets the CL or not is slightly harsh. I would hope that anyone that would prefer Harry to not be manager next season has more than "he didn't get us CL football" to work with... If a young manager comes in, completely changes the style of the team as well as half the players... Then in that transition has to compete with the Manchester clubs, Chelsea (if they strengthen significantly and play better) and some new superpower... That manager will have no hope in hell... So I do appreciate it's not as simple as "he didn't get us CL football"... But I think the CL football point has more to it than "we were a penalty shootout away", so both are not quite that simple.