But that's the whole point - very little suggested Redknapp would manage what he did with us so to dismiss other managers based on their track record (when Arry's a the time was shady at best) is bizarre or at the very least - managers such as Rodgers, Lambert, Martinez, etc. have a whole lot more going for them than Redknapp at the time.
-
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
But that's the whole point - very little suggested Redknapp would manage what he did with us so to dismiss other managers based on their track record (when Arry's a the time was shady at best) is bizarre or at the very least - managers such as Rodgers, Lambert, Martinez, etc. have a whole lot more going for them than Redknapp at the time.
Has anyone heard from mr redknapp recently? Starting to get slightly worried
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
On Redknapp's supposed 'tactical knowledge in the big games', why do people forget the season we finished 4th? Why do people forget that we needed results against Chelsea, Arsenal, and Emirates Marketing Project away and got them all? What is the explanation for it? Total luck? People say he has a losers mentality but he's said he set the team up at Emirates Marketing Project to 'have a go at them' against the advice he was given, and it worked. We were ahead of them at the time, and could have easily tried to set up for a draw if we wanted. But we didn't and we went for it. Then last season, wins against Inter, Arsenal away, Milan away...of course he has enough 'knowledge' for the big games. But I don't really think football works like you have knowledge for certain games and not others, you either get the game or you don't. In any case, he has gotten results against big teams in big games. He has also set us up this season where we have definitely deserved something from big games again, United at home and City away. Chelsea away.
You know what? Part of the fact that we got results when we got 4th in 09/10 was because of luck. Chelsea and Arsenal had good chances in those games and Gomes pulled off spectacular saves to keep us in the lead, if the ball went slightly in another place we could have easily drawn or lost. And part of the reason we didn't get results in big games this season was because of bad luck. But people view management as some sort of all-controlling key that these men hold, where the decisions that they make can effect the result of the game on an absolute level, as if they are just pulling one lever or another and this or that could happen, and the good manager needs to recognise which one they need to pull. That happens sometimes, sure. Sometimes, a manager will get tactically outsmarted, but most other times, all the managers in this league know as much about football as each other, so every move they make is counter-acted, pretty quickly. It levels out, and then it becomes about the players, luck, the officials, the wind, the pitch, confidence, form, and all sorts of other crazy stuff.
The reason to have a good manager is not so you can find the one that has the magic secret and all the tactical knowledge that will help us win every game and react to every situation he is faced with in the perfect way. The reason to have a good manager is to give your team the best possible chance, so that you are on the even footing with every other club in the league in that regard. I'm not saying a manager's knowledge doesn't have an effect, because it does. Put me in charge of Spurs and immediately we wouldn't be on an even footing, and wouldn't be giving ourselves the best possible chance. But all you can do with a manager is try to give yourself the best possible chance. You can't get a manager in with massive tactical knowledge and expect to win everything because it doesn't work like that.
As an example, people have listed Rodgers and Lambert as better tactical managers in this thread. But we played Swansea, in the middle of an utterly terrible run, and beat them 3-1. Rodgers set up his team to play the way he always does, a way that has beaten Emirates Marketing Project and Arsenal this season so it isn't a 'wrong' way by any means, because it gets results. Harry set us up to press them extremely high up the pitch, force them into bad passes and give them absolutely no time on the ball. We ended up winning fairly comfortably in the end and create good chances. Why did Rodgers, as this superb tactical manager, not change it up when he realised what was happening? It's because there isn't some magic secret. At the end of the day it was his players vs our players, and no one is going to say Rodgers doesn't understand tactics because of it. I'm sure Rodgers completely knows his football, and constantly studies to keep up to date, but at the end of the day you'll employ him because you want your team to be coached and play a certain way, not because he is some guarentor of success because he 'knows' more about tactics.
There's other examples. I've been massively impressed with how flexible Lambert is in his tactical set ups this season. He has no qualms about changing systems even in game to get an advantage. But he can still lose games. He comes up against tactical dunce Harry, who tells Bale to play where he wants. And Bale destroys them. Yes, I know we lost to them at home, but that can happen. It was down to tactics, Harry admitted we were too open, but it's not as if this proves that Harry knows nothing, and should be sacked on the basis of it, because he has also proven that his tactical plan (to let Bale roam) can outsmart the manager who outsmarted him.
My point is, the knowledge that each of these managers possess largely evens itself out. You employ a good manager to give yourself the best possible chance. But no manager by themselves is going to guarentee success. Harry tactically by himself may not be the best, but he knows his stuff. He knows his football. And the thing that makes him cleverer than most is the fact that he knows that he doesn't know everything, and that's why he is very willing to take advice of people who know more about the game than he does. Sometimes he won't listen and go with his gut, and we will beat Emirates Marketing Project away and secure our first 4th place finish. Sometimes he will listen and we will lose at home to Norwich for being too open. But there's also hundreds of other games for us where he's probably listened and got results because he is a good manager and knowing when to listen is a skill in itself.
But tactics can only do so much. And no manager is going to come here, give us his tactical secrets and watch us waltz to the title. AVB is probably excellent tactically, but it didn't work for him at Chelsea. At the end of the day football can be cruel. It could be argued we were lucky to get 4th in 09/10, and unlucky not to get 3rd this season. Harry was the manager for both of those years, and his tactical knowledge was the same. He gives us as good a chance as any manager because it's about finding the right man for the right club, and I'm pretty confident Harry suits us. Football can be decided so much by luck that you really shouldn't judge success by the odd league placing because of the odd points difference. You should judge by roughly what positions you are finishing over a number of years, so you know you are on the right track, in the right ball park and you have consistency. Harry's results in his full seasons in charge read: 4th, 5th, 4th. No reason to get rid of that.
You know what? Part of the fact that we got results when we got 4th in 09/10 was because of luck. Chelsea and Arsenal had good chances in those games and Gomes pulled off spectacular saves to keep us in the lead, if the ball went slightly in another place we could have easily drawn or lost. And part of the reason we didn't get results in big games this season was because of bad luck. But people view management as some sort of all-controlling key that these men hold, where the decisions that they make can effect the result of the game on an absolute level, as if they are just pulling one lever or another and this or that could happen, and the good manager needs to recognise which one they need to pull. That happens sometimes, sure. Sometimes, a manager will get tactically outsmarted, but most other times, all the managers in this league know as much about football as each other, so every move they make is counter-acted, pretty quickly. It levels out, and then it becomes about the players, luck, the officials, the wind, the pitch, confidence, form, and all sorts of other crazy stuff.
The reason to have a good manager is not so you can find the one that has the magic secret and all the tactical knowledge that will help us win every game and react to every situation he is faced with in the perfect way. The reason to have a good manager is to give your team the best possible chance, so that you are on the even footing with every other club in the league in that regard. I'm not saying a manager's knowledge doesn't have an effect, because it does. Put me in charge of Spurs and immediately we wouldn't be on an even footing, and wouldn't be giving ourselves the best possible chance. But all you can do with a manager is try to give yourself the best possible chance. You can't get a manager in with massive tactical knowledge and expect to win everything because it doesn't work like that.
As an example, people have listed Rodgers and Lambert as better tactical managers in this thread. But we played Swansea, in the middle of an utterly terrible run, and beat them 3-1. Rodgers set up his team to play the way he always does, a way that has beaten Emirates Marketing Project and Arsenal this season so it isn't a 'wrong' way by any means, because it gets results. Harry set us up to press them extremely high up the pitch, force them into bad passes and give them absolutely no time on the ball. We ended up winning fairly comfortably in the end and create good chances. Why did Rodgers, as this superb tactical manager, not change it up when he realised what was happening? It's because there isn't some magic secret. At the end of the day it was his players vs our players, and no one is going to say Rodgers doesn't understand tactics because of it. I'm sure Rodgers completely knows his football, and constantly studies to keep up to date, but at the end of the day you'll employ him because you want your team to be coached and play a certain way, not because he is some guarentor of success because he 'knows' more about tactics.
There's other examples. I've been massively impressed with how flexible Lambert is in his tactical set ups this season. He has no qualms about changing systems even in game to get an advantage. But he can still lose games. He comes up against tactical dunce Harry, who tells Bale to play where he wants. And Bale destroys them. Yes, I know we lost to them at home, but that can happen. It was down to tactics, Harry admitted we were too open, but it's not as if this proves that Harry knows nothing, and should be sacked on the basis of it, because he has also proven that his tactical plan (to let Bale roam) can outsmart the manager who outsmarted him.
My point is, the knowledge that each of these managers possess largely evens itself out. You employ a good manager to give yourself the best possible chance. But no manager by themselves is going to guarentee success. Harry tactically by himself may not be the best, but he knows his stuff. He knows his football. And the thing that makes him cleverer than most is the fact that he knows that he doesn't know everything, and that's why he is very willing to take advice of people who know more about the game than he does. Sometimes he won't listen and go with his gut, and we will beat Emirates Marketing Project away and secure our first 4th place finish. Sometimes he will listen and we will lose at home to Norwich for being too open. But there's also hundreds of other games for us where he's probably listened and got results because he is a good manager and knowing when to listen is a skill in itself.
But tactics can only do so much. And no manager is going to come here, give us his tactical secrets and watch us waltz to the title. AVB is probably excellent tactically, but it didn't work for him at Chelsea. At the end of the day football can be cruel. It could be argued we were lucky to get 4th in 09/10, and unlucky not to get 3rd this season. Harry was the manager for both of those years, and his tactical knowledge was the same. He gives us as good a chance as any manager because it's about finding the right man for the right club, and I'm pretty confident Harry suits us. Football can be decided so much by luck that you really shouldn't judge success by the odd league placing because of the odd points difference. You should judge by roughly what positions you are finishing over a number of years, so you know you are on the right track, in the right ball park and you have consistency. Harry's results in his full seasons in charge read: 4th, 5th, 4th. No reason to get rid of that.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
I don't disagree witht he facts that you have trotted out in any of your posts, you have done a good job of collating them and putting them on the table.
You have then reached the conclusion that you want to reach, based on your opinion that HR isn't good enough to manage the club in future, ergo he needs to be replaced.
When levy has decided what to do we will find out if you are right. In my opinion that the facts you present aren't supported by the proposition that you make, based on your analysis of them. Particularly when you trot out "facts" like, he's only won one trophy in 30 years. Had he been managing Liverpool, Manure and Bayern Munich in that period, I would agree - but he was managing Bournemouth, Wet Spam, Pompey and S'oton, all clubs on limited resources in comparison with Spurs, the first truly top flight club he has managed. With us he has effectively turned around the fortunes of the club.
You say he doesn't have a winning mentality, yet under him we have won (almost) double the amount of games we have lost under him, and he has the highest points per game than any other Spurs manager.
You have your opinion, and I disagree with it. Far from getting rid of him, we should keep him - for a minimum of one more season, but give him the money to buy the players we need, to not only replicate the better part of last season, but to cut out the more awful performances that you highlighted (which hurt me just as much as any Spurs fan.) We also need to dispose of the players that form no part of the clubs future, and bring on the younger ones who are ready to step up.
The last thing we need to do is to throw the baby out with the bath water, its the wrong conclusion to draw from the facts that you used as the basis of your analysis.
In my opinion.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
And your post is another typical example of the complaints I have continually made against you.
I do not feel persecuted by you, because you are not in a position to do so, and certainly have said nothing to make me feel that way. What you are doing is dogging my posts with inane, sniping comments. You have clearly intimated I am a keyboard warrior - which in my understanding is someone who acts hard and tough, and tries to intimidate through threats of cyber violence, which is something I have never done.
I have never expressed any of my support, or opinions about Redknapp in a manner that I wouldn't do, to your face, in any conversation, anywhere. I would also walk away both physically and verbally from someone who expressed their "opinions" in the way you have been doing, every time you see a post from me in a thread regarding Redknapp.
africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
agree with most of this but disagree with the idea tha giving him money will replicate the better part of the season. that level of performance (winning all those game on the 'trot') i dont think will be matched unless we have undoubted title contending quality, and even then the chances of doing that again is slim.
to me that punch above our wieght has distoted people's ideas of who we are where we should regulalry be operating.
If people give redknapp his chance and he gets a bit of money to spend then the liklehood of people getting upset because we didnt replicate those kind of first half of season results are high,
those results are pretty historical
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
He took over S'oton when they were in the relegation zone and playing like brick, to blame him for that - is totally out of context. Had he managed them from the start of the season and then they went down, that would be a different thing. This is yet another example of you taking something thats a fact, and then employing poor analysis to reach a conclusion.
Your analysis of the Portsmouth situation is so fudged up and wrong its pointless commenting on it
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
I've seen this comment before, yet I have never noticed him doing that.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
My point (that I was trying to make) was that with the money, he will have a good chance of replicating the good and cutting out, or cutting down on the bad results.
Unlike some I can't see into the future, but from past experience (of suporting Spurs) I'd say that investment in the team, if applied well and supported by the money now needed to buy quality players, is the thing most likely to make a team step up in performance. (ie Greaves, Peters, Sheringham, Modric type of signings)
I don't know what you are trying to say here
"If people give redknapp his chance and he gets a bit of money to spend then the liklehood of people getting upset because we didnt replicate those kind of first half of season results are high"
Surely if he gets a good pot to spend - and we don't lose too many top players, we should do well?
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
Excellent point, and if I remember rightly Rodgers was really complimentary about HRs tactical nous after the game.
The key point was that pretty much all teams except the ones with better players, employ the (new) Chelski model of packing the defence and relying on the occassional foray up the field when we are stretched in attack. Swansea came and played football against us, and we beat them because man for man we have better quality players (see league table for details) and on the day the tactical policy paid off.
You see boxing matches where a boxer, who has been seemingly getting battered, suddenly pulls out a great attacking flurry and defeats his opponent. The boxer has been thrashing away in attack for so long, that they tire from the onslaught they have been delivering, that they are too tired to defend themselves when the defending boxer breaks out from his continual defence. Ali was so good that he didn't waste time expending energy on delivering blows that didn't hurt his opponents, he was more clinical and generally only threw blows that hurt or scored points.
All season we battered teams but lacked the Gerd Muller or, as it turns out, RVP to trade in a hatful of goals.
But as MK pointed out, I'd rather see us play that kind of attacking, attractive football rather than the dire brick that Chelski served up.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
When you say "we" do you mean Spurs or Brighton?
Cogent - "wazzed" on?
Too funny.
"Tirade" over
ledleysswollenknee
Kevin Dearden
He does it regularly. One of the reasons Redknapp is unpopular with some of our support is that he is so sensitive to (even constructive) criticism. He becomes incredibly defensive and it becomes a 'me against them' scenario. We wouldn't have regular marathon threads where people argue the same fudging points over and over again, and he would be infinitely more popular, if he just kept his fudging mouth shut more often.
DHSF
Les Ferdinand
The problem is it was 'me against them' scenario because had idiotic fans who were against him from minute one. Hell theyre still against him now and have been during his tenure.
What do you expect? He has been relatively successful yet one bad run and people want him out. Even without the bad run people still would have wanted him out. Imagine if you were in Harrys shoes - he could win the CL yet people will still want him out.
How can you expect Harry to have any affinity with a club if fans constantly slag him off (behind his back i.e. on forums etc) and yes players and Managers I am sure use forums.
That is one of the aspects I tend to partly agree with
His last interview of 'They often forget they should be mid-table' was particurarly harsh, imv. Obviously someone afterwards told him he fudged up because his come back few days later was (after Hogson gor the job) - 'I'm lucky to manage such a big club'
ledleysswollenknee
Kevin Dearden
Rightly or wrongly, slagging off the players and manager is what fans do. You'd do well to convince me that Wenger hasn't got an affinity w/ Arsenal yet when they were going through a sticky spell earlier in the season half of their support were calling for his head!
No matter who is appointed manager of a football team, the choice is going to be popular with some and unpopular with others. Even when we were linked with Mourinho there were people on here saying they didn't want because of his style of football.
With regards to Redknapp, I think it's chicken and egg. You might say it's because "idiotic fans were against him from the start." Someone else might argue that the very same fans might have got behind him if he'd shown a little more humilty (at least in public) and stop saying and behaving like a mecenary. all the other managers do it, why not Redknapp?
Dicko
Michael Carrick
Nothing compared to King Kenny, If KK was a 10 then Harry is a 2 on that scale lol!!
DHSF
Les Ferdinand
The thing is im not actually sue he has acted like a mercenary. This criticism aimed at him because he wasnt saying "we" is a bit pedantic to say the least.
I think people from the get go had this perception of Harry and no matter what Harry did or said, this perception will have constantly clouded peoples judgement of him.
Besides I dont care if the Manager is a **** - as long as he is successful and Harry, for all intents and purposes, has been successful. Mourinho is a **** and Madrid fans really didnt like how he had conducted himself - yet he wins the league and hey presto - a new contract. Our fans though cannot see that we arent the best club in the UK we are not the best club in London yet we have cut the gap between ourselves and chelscum considerably despite inferior amounts of money. This in my opinion means that Harry thus far has been a success and some slack has to be cut for him.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
I don't think anyone thinks HR is a genius, or a particularly cultured or sensitive man.
In a world where any slight is siezed upon, whether intentional or not, his poor choice of phraseology is used to condemn him.
Why do people have to fabricate reasons to want rid of him, if they were more confident about their assumptions of his guilt, they wouldn't have to lift every carpet to find evidence of dirt.
ledleysswollenknee
Kevin Dearden
KK is an extremely rare position in that he is a club legend. Not only for his playing carrer but also the role he played post Hillsborough. He had unequivical, unwavering, unconditional support from all fans and still would have had he not been sacked. Anyone other than Dalgliesh would have been sacked months before he was because of pressure from the fans.
ledleysswollenknee
Kevin Dearden
For the record I'm not advocating the sacking of Redknapp. I generally like the bloke, his positives far outway his negatives and his time at Spurs has been largely a success. I haven't fabricated anything, I merely pointed out something about him that rubs me up the wrong way. Noone is immune from criticism.