africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
You must be pleased with this season then, as that objective was met
LOL. nice one
although he does clarify what he means
-
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
LOL. nice one
although he does clarify what he means
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Redknapp had never evidenced he could produce what he has, and his status at the time was such that were we in this position looking for a manager he would never have got a look in.
Yet he has shown clear ability to handle the situation and even thrive in it.
Which is the point. Not where we were, but who he was - and where we are now.
But of course if you cant see then there is no point....
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
Redknapp had never evidenced he could produce what he has, and his status at the time was such that were we in this position looking for a manager he would never have got a look in.
Yet he has shown clear ability to handle the situation and even thrive in it.
Which is the point. Not where we were, but who he was - and where we are now.
But of course if you cant see then there is no point....
I think the signs were there. Just like they are there with Moyes & O'Neill (and I actually wouldn't want either because I don't like their general style of football). Throughout his managerial career Redknapp's team usually punch above their weight (and I'm talking about the quality of players rather than the stature of the club) and he did it for years. Not just a flash in the pan one or two seasons, but for years.
I don't agree that Redknapp needs replacing at all at the moment. He is doing extremely well under us (or rather, we are doing well under him!) and I think Managers should only be willingly be replaced when they are a) consistently failing combined with b) there are better alternatives around. The crux of the matter is where people think Spurs are in the pecking order.
My personal belief is that top six isn't failing. The word consistent is also key, because Managers do deserve time AND if they've had previous success with the club then they earn even more. You don't replace a Manager at the first sign of trouble if they've been doing a good job over the last couple of seasons (which is why I thought the Jol sacking was utterly disgusting), especially if there are real tangible obvious reasons as to why the team isn't performing and there is little that Manager can do about it.
But when I read some of the replacements people have in mind, I am blown away. From the unrealistic (we need to do everything we can to get Mourinho or Hiddink!) to the mind blowing (Owen Coyle's our man!). As I stated above Moyes & O'Neill are two what I would regard as realistic targets who I feel would probably at least maintain our current level (which in this era of sugar daddies is our real target and the best we can achieve unfortunately). And then people start talking about Martinez (who has had some very good players at Wigan and underachieved with them IMO), Lambert (Mr Long Ball extreme, why not just bring in Pulis?! Also one season doesn't prove that he can maintain it) or Rodgers (nice playing style but one good season doesn't prove he can cut it).
Any managerial appointment is a risk. As is signing any player. But you can certainly mitigate that risk somewhat by looking at historical facts for the Manager in question. I think many people have been surprised how well Redknapp has got Spurs playing (myself included) but even though I was sceptical about his appointment at the time I was also very confident that he would steer us clear of relegation that season (although I thought it would be a much more close run thing than it actually was) and saving us from relegation and stabilising us back in mid-table is what he was hired to do IMO. He exceeded that and people want to punish him for it. And we complain about loyalty towards us
You must be pleased with this season then, as that objective was met
Ive said so numerous timea already - what is your point?
The latest argument above is not about replacing Arry - more about the general logic applied as to his hypothetical replacements in relation to where he was at the time of signing with us
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
So just to confirm you're pleased with the season just gone and don't want Harry replaced for next season?
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
MK, IMO Harry had shown he could do a decent job, never shown that he could do what he has done though.
When he took over we were in a largely false position created by terrible management, I never had any fear of the drop or finishing anywhere near it.
Redknapp got us back on an even keel and thats exactly what I expected him to do.
The point being though, had we never signed Redknapp and he was still with a lower (premiership) level side - he wouldnt get a look in for our vacancy. And the fans would decry it as ridiculous and fanciful and (my favourite) "too much of a risk"
And yet we have seen ourselves that a manager who never ever managed at this level, and was never going to get the chance too - is actually very capable.
When he took over we were in a largely false position created by terrible management, I never had any fear of the drop or finishing anywhere near it.
Redknapp got us back on an even keel and thats exactly what I expected him to do.
The point being though, had we never signed Redknapp and he was still with a lower (premiership) level side - he wouldnt get a look in for our vacancy. And the fans would decry it as ridiculous and fanciful and (my favourite) "too much of a risk"
And yet we have seen ourselves that a manager who never ever managed at this level, and was never going to get the chance too - is actually very capable.
West Ham under Redknapp = 14th - 10th - 14th - 8th - 5th - 9th - 15th
Redknapp enjoyed a good 3 season spell at West Ham when a great crop of young players came through the ranks - Ferdinand, Lampard, Carrick, J.Cole & Defoe, during that period i don't think they were 'punching above their weight' at all considering they had that core of youth players all coming through together - just looking at that list of players the only comparable list i can think of is Manchester United when the likes of Beckham Giggs & Scholes (etc) were all coming through - why can't we produce players like that !
anyway after West Ham he was at Portsmouth when Milan Mandaric was throwing silly money (for there position) at premiership quality players to give them the edge in the Championship. once in the premiership they spent high on wages to get a caliber of player higher than what a club like Portsmouth should realistically be able to attract - when the money disappeared so did their (relative) success.
Southampton - Relegated
being 27 im not too clued up on what he done prior to west Ham but in the 20 years or so before managing Spurs i wouldn't say he done anything out of the ordinary with the tools at his disposal at the clubs he managed (taking in to account money spent and a good crop of youth players) and i wouldn't have said he has a history of getting teams punching above their weight - maybe on the surface it looks that way but delve a little deeper and you see outside factors played their part.
he still done a good job at West Ham/Portsmouth - but considering the evidence he done a job which was to be expected of a decent manager - my opinion of course
This is the point i ve been trying to push across all alfternoon - pehaps you d have more luck
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
Maybe. But those would be the same fans decrying Moyes or O'Neill. It's the fans wanting a Manager who has only had one or two seasons in the Premiership that have me bemused. Redknapp had tons of Premiership experience so therefore I am saying was less of a risk than someone with none. But as Burkinshaw proved with us (and Di Matteo at Chelsea) it isn't the be all and end all and quite usually it's simply about being the right man, at the right place at the right time.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I doubt I will, Im a hater dont forget, irrational and illogical and I just hate Harry and like to call him saggy face and mean things like that - I would in fact like to see Spurs lose just to prove my twisted point as correct....
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
How he got West Ham finishing in those positions is anyones guess :x
this is a good point, Harry Redknapp has proven to everyone who doubts that we should go for a manager with potential that it is not what you have won at a previous club which says you have the correct tools to do well in your next job, yet still they sit there saying we shouldn't be taking a chance on an un proven manager.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I wouldnt want MON within a hundred miles of the Spurs job, Awful, overated manager IMHO. I have huge respect for Moyes, but I wouldnt like him in the hot seat purely for the style of play (something I believe is engrained with him - Im not sure I see it changing). I always maintained when we got Harry he would have us playing attractive football, its his default position - equally I maintain with Moyes in charge people would think Graham had returned...
I would actually go with someont like Rodgers, not only because I love the attributes he shows as manager but also ...
because of this. Sometimes its as simple as being a 'fit', nothing more. And again, I think Rodgers would fit VERY well.
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
You're moving the goalposts. It's about risk management. If after 8 games next season we have 2pts and are looking totally clueless then all of a sudden Managers we're looking at now and thinking "They aren't suitable" BECOME suitable. Because our aim changes from being top six to survival. The fact that manager may surprise us and take us to new heights (combined with the fact that had we been higher up the league he wouldn't have got a look in for the job) means nothing.
Basically you're the owner of a multi million pound company. Your company under the current MD is running a healthy profit. He decides to leave. Do you a) replace him with a 23 year old who has one years experience of running a company since he left Uni (for a smaller company, with less pressure but has demonstrated he has some radical ideas that have proven positive in the market place and he has turned a small company around to become profitable) or b) a 50 year old who has demonstrated that he can keep (rather than turn) a company profitable but hasn't demonstrated he can turn a company from a solid profit to a spectacular one? It's an obvious choice isn't it, it's b. MD A may well be better than MD B, but as the company is performing well already the risk ratio is simply too much.
Now reverse the situations, you need a new MD and your company is struggling and is in real danger of going under if it doesn't pick up soon. Then the choice becomes broader and MD A is probably the better option.
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
Based on what? The playing style is similar, but over one season that proves nothing. Rodgers has a group of players that he has coached very well, who respect him and he has them punching above their weight. Can he maintain that motivation? We need him in charge of Swansea for another season to see. But more importantly than that, giving a journeymen some belief and coaching a tight unit is one thing. Getting an already great player and having to man manage them is completely another. They tend not to like being told what to do, especially by an inexperienced Manager.
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
But surely it's situational?! Basically if you have nothing or little to lose then an unproven Manager with potential is a good choice?
E.g. Liverpool are a perfect example. They're comfortable mid-table. Not really in any danger of being relegated, and with the right couple of purchases should be challenging top six next season. If this was Spurs, I'd also be saying that Rodgers would be worth a risk.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Rodgers playing career was ended in his early 20s, at 38 (I think?) he has spent at least 15 years building towards being the best manager he can be. He has big club experience in his time with Chelsea, and is now in his 3rd management position. While he hasnt spent decades managing, Im not sure he is an inexperienced manager at all.
Think about it, most 38 year old managers have only been working at it for a few years after their playing days finish - Rodgers has the better part of 2 decades worth of preparation.
He has had two seasons with Swansea, not one, each being hugely successful. The strength of his work with this team is not only in his ability to take journeymen players and train them into being composed footballers but also his ability to build into the squad a very well rehearsed style of play (most often they remind me of a more organised version of Spurs) which itself breeds continuity and consistency.
He is a huge believer in technical players, in a team unit and in attacking football - all things that would suit us perfectly.
He has the ability to not only make lesser players believe they can play football toe to toe with the best of them, but actually DO IT as well.
There is a tremendous amount going for him, and I believe if he took the Spurs job it would take only a meeting with the players for them to be on board with his philosophy.
no sorry i do not agree with the sentiment that a manager who has achieved a lot somewhere else is in anyway more likely to achieve something with your club than a lesser known manager that has shown the attributes you require from him. of course there are a handful of exceptions, but most if not all of those (and we're talking 3/4/5 tops in the world) will be out of our reach.
if there is a person who has shown X Y and Z of what you want from a future manager then you get them in because they are the best person for the job - wining a trophy with another team does not equal winning a trophy with your team - the sooner clubs in our position realize this the sooner English managers will get the experience their foreign counterparts get and sooner they prove that we too can produce top managers
(of course if there is a manager who has the required attributes who has achieved top level success that we can get then fine go for them but too many people focus on what a manager has won rather than the qualities that he will bring here)
Last edited: