Redknapp

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

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.

What is rare about Marinez, IMO, is not that he made the change - or that it worked (although in itself thats rare) but that he didnt do it in a desperate panic. He thought deeply about it, he thought about what he had and designed a system to suit that PERFECTLY. With that consideration, perhaps its not a surprise that it worked. This is what impressed me with Martinez. Not the change, not the success, but the reflection, thought, and understanding of his squad to come up with a winning formula.

And thats EXACTLY what the likes of AVB should have done. There is no difference between Wigan and Chelsea in the respect that the managers had what they had to work with - and no opportunity to change it before the next transfer window.

I realise there was pressure on him to produce a certain style of play, and accept that would always have been the end goal - but it was foolhardy to think it could be implemented IMEEDIATELY and with the players available.

Genuinely I do not think Harry adapts, I dont think its a strength of his at all. It seems to me whenever we change from our standard set up it is 90% unsuccessfull. Whenever we dont have wingers to play with, you might see patient build up - I see no forward options and opportunities.

Because we play intuitively, as soon as the usual balance is dusrupted we faulter. This is the only time Harry adapts successfully - when it is forced upon him. Bale on the LW, Modric in the middle - these werent tactical choices by Redknapp, they were desperate compromises due to injury to first team players. In these scenarios REdknapp makes it work - but its not like he does it by design - its like he does it because he has to.

 

[elltrev]

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.

"There is no achievement for getting to 3rd, the achievement is finishing there". I totally agree. I'm saying that he should be judged on our final league position (4th, one point behind 3rd) and the season as a whole. A lot of people are only judging him on our slip from 3rd to 4th, and giving him no credit for getting us to 3rd in the first place (as Armchair Expert was doing.)

As for the transfer targets, we haven't signed Cole, Beckham or Neville, so that's irrelevant to me. And I'm fudging sick of people going on about Saha and Nelsen. They were free, they replaced Bassong and Pav, arguably played better than both of them, and will probably now be leaving.

He's done well with Parker; he's also done well with Friedel, Walker, Gallas, Kaboul, Sandro and Adebayor.

Of course Vertonghen and co aren't his targets? Based on what evidence? Who is going over Harry's head and forcibly buying players that Harry doesn't want?

As I said, I have no problem with people criticising Harry for his flaws; I just can't stand it when people give him no credit at all, and act as if he has played no part in our success over the last 3 years.

P.S. What do you mean exactly by committing suicide 2-0 up at the Emirates?

 

[Armchair Expert]

"There is no achievement for getting to 3rd, the achievement is finishing there". I totally agree. I'm saying that he should be judged on our final league position (4th, one point behind 3rd) and the season as a whole. A lot of people are only judging him on our slip from 3rd to 4th, and giving him no credit for getting us to 3rd in the first place (as Armchair Expert was doing.)

As for the transfer targets, we haven't signed Cole, Beckham or Neville, so that's irrelevant to me. And I'm fudging sick of people going on about Saha and Nelsen. They were free, they replaced Bassong and Pav, arguably played better than both of them, and will probably now be leaving.

He's done well with Parker; he's also done well with Friedel, Walker, Gallas, Kaboul, Sandro and Adebayor.

Of course Vertonghen and co aren't his targets? Based on what evidence? Who is going over Harry's head and forcibly buying players that Harry doesn't want?

As I said, I have no problem with people criticising Harry for his flaws; I just can't stand it when people give him no credit at all, and act as if he has played no part in our success over the last 3 years.

P.S. What do you mean exactly by committing suicide 2-0 up at the Emirates?

Your not taking the core argument into the equation. The players available achieved less than the sum of their parts for a huge portion of this campaign AND the one before.

Square pegs in round holes, crap formations and taking the eye off the ball and mentally managing England for the last 5 months cost us.

So no, Harry doesn't take massive credit for having us 'challenging at Christmas', as that stat means precisely fudge all.

All the evidnce suggests that any average premier league manager would achieve similiar results with our resources.

Edit: Its as simple as this; our strongest squad for 20 years, the weakest premier league since its inception (Man U dingdonged by Basel then Bilbao, City out in the group phase champs league then lost to Sporting, Chelsea imploding, LIverpool gone) and we were in the perfect place at the perfect time to do something special.

All is ticking over well, were beating teams we should be beating, all of a sudden it all completely implodes. Why?

 

[raboner]

my goodness! some of the essay-esque posts in this thread make my head spin.

 

[elltrev]

Your not taking the core argument into the equation. The players available achieved less than the sum of their parts for a huge portion of this campaign AND the one before.

Square pegs in round holes, crap formations and taking the eye off the ball and mentally managing England for the last 5 months cost us.

So no, Harry doesn't take massive credit for having us 'challenging at Christmas', as that stat means precisely fudge all.

All the evidnce suggests that any average premier league manager would achieve similiar results with our resources.

But they also achieved more than the sum of their parts for a huge portion of this campaign and the campaign two seasons ago.

I agree with the second line.

Challenging for the title at Christmas means 'precisely fudge all' as much as slipping from 3rd to 4th means 'precisely fudge all'. All I am arguing is that Harry should be judged on the season as a whole as opposed to only being judged on the worst sections of it (or indeed the best sections of it).

I don't know what evidence you're referring to here, but perhaps you're right in your general conclusion.

For the record I'd like to see Harry given one more season, to see what we can do without (hopefully!) the England distraction (or the court case or his health problems, though they didn't seem to interfere that much). When he first came his strength was getting a balanced team and putting round pegs in round holes, plus giving the players confidence. Let's hope he gets back to that way of things.

 

[Jordinho]

People are far too eager to talk about absolutes. Harry is no tactical genius, but neither is he a complete dunce. Like most managers he's somewhere in between. If you think he doesn't have any understanding of the tactical side of the game and does no form of preparation on it you are wrong. The key is how much he feels the players need detailed instructions on what to do and not to do. He just likes to keep it simple as that's how he thinks it works best. There's also some stubbornness in sticking to something that isn't working because you believe it should be and really want it to work.

 

[bookhouseboy]

Its as simple as this; our strongest squad for 20 years, the weakest premier league since its inception (Man U dingdonged by Basel then Bilbao, City out in the group phase champs league then lost to Sporting, Chelsea imploding, LIverpool gone) and we were in the perfect place at the perfect time to do something special.

Way too advanced;
it's as simple as this: 4-5-4; triffic.

 

[mick cooper]

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.

so what?
Do you want me to stop defending my opinion? If other people keep making comments like this, which to someone from my perspective are senseless, I should just stop due to the length of time you have been watching football?

I'm impressed that you can look at a game of football and determine that it was all the managers fault when it goes wrong. Out of the 20 games we won, you are giving all of the credit to the players, and the 9 losses are all down to Harry are they?

That would be a nice bit of analysis.

You are right, the goalposts haven't moved, and in my opinion, you, Volspur and everyone else who blames Harry for it all going wrong, are simply putting the ball in your own net.

So I guess we are not going to agree, are we? But what you don't see is me continually putting out posts eulogising HRs stewardship, man management and and tactical acumen. I'm satisfied that he's getting far more right than he's getting wrong, and with financial backing he will do as well if not better next season, and that to ditch him is to fail to understand the issues. You only ever see me reply to yet another anti Harry post, particularly the ones that trot out the same tired and erroneous accusations
In my view.

 

[mick cooper]

Your not taking the core argument into the equation. The players available achieved less than the sum of their parts for a huge portion of this campaign AND the one before.

Square pegs in round holes, crap formations and taking the eye off the ball and mentally managing England for the last 5 months cost us.

So no, Harry doesn't take massive credit for having us 'challenging at Christmas', as that stat means precisely fudge all.

All the evidnce suggests that any average premier league manager would achieve similiar results with our resources.

Edit: Its as simple as this; our strongest squad for 20 years, the weakest premier league since its inception (Man U dingdonged by Basel then Bilbao, City out in the group phase champs league then lost to Sporting, Chelsea imploding, LIverpool gone) and we were in the perfect place at the perfect time to do something special.

All is ticking over well, were beating teams we should be beating, all of a sudden it all completely implodes. Why?

I had some respect for your opinions before this post, I didn't particularly agree with them, but you usually express yourself well.

This is just a one dimensional post - with "agenda" written all the way through the middle

 

[indianspur]

i was looking at points totals over the last few years since Jol was in charge

Jol's 3 seasons he completed........52...65...60

Redknapp's 4 seasons completed...51...70...62...69

there isnt a staggering difference points wise

 

[milo]

People are far too eager to talk about absolutes. Harry is no tactical genius, but neither is he a complete dunce. Like most managers he's somewhere in between. If you think he doesn't have any understanding of the tactical side of the game and does no form of preparation on it you are wrong. The key is how much he feels the players need detailed instructions on what to do and not to do. He just likes to keep it simple as that's how he thinks it works best. There's also some stubbornness in sticking to something that isn't working because you believe it should be and really want it to work.

Top post. Spot on

 

[metalgear]

i was looking at points totals over the last few years since Jol was in charge

Jol's 3 seasons he completed........52...65...60

Redknapp's 4 seasons completed...51...70...62...69

there isnt a staggering difference points wise

good perspective.

but the real issue is could harry have done more with the squad we had - i mean look at the riches: modric, bale, VDV, lennon, parker, sandro, walker etc... could this squad achieve much more than the 69 points? looking at the near misses and the bad games, the feeling is that this squad should have done better. now that's harry's responsibility.

 

[elltrev]

good perspective.

but the real issue is could harry have done more with the squad we had - i mean look at the riches: modric, bale, VDV, lennon, parker, sandro, walker etc... could this squad achieve much more than the 69 points? looking at the near misses and the bad games, the feeling is that this squad should have done better. now that's harry's responsibility.

It's a fair question, but it's not fair or logical to only look at the near misses and the bad games. We also went on an 11-game run of 10 wins and 1 draw (0 losses), which Harry surely deserves some credit for.

 

[elltrev]

i was looking at points totals over the last few years since Jol was in charge

Jol's 3 seasons he completed........52...65...60

Redknapp's 4 seasons completed...51...70...62...69

there isnt a staggering difference points wise

Better to only look at full seasons. Or at least to discount the games that Santini and Ramos were in charge of, and to average out Jol and Redknapp's points over 38 games in those seasons. So Jol's would be:

57 ... 65 ... 60

and Redknapp's:

62 ... 70 ... 62 ... 69

If the team hadn't got 10 points out of the last 12, I think Harry might have been sacked. Who knows.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

It's a fair question, but it's not fair or logical to only look at the near misses and the bad games. We also went on an 11-game run of 10 wins and 1 draw (0 losses), which Harry surely deserves some credit for.

I am yet to see anyone refuse credit for that achievement. Nobody is yet to acknowledge Harry got us there - lets face it - its basically a given.

It was a show of what we could do when things went right.

That isnt the issue. And would it really make a difference if Armchair Expert (for example) typed "Harry did really well up to Christmas, then...." then proceeded to critisise Harry?

The issue is how badly things went wrong, and why (which is of course entirely subjective)

 

[VolSpur]

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

I'm not understanding your sentiment.

Yet we got 4th... Well that would still equal Europa League right? Well done.

Are you happy with finishing in the Europa League spots? I'm not.

The fact remains that we were miles ahead in 3rd place and somehow managed to blow it. Who do you want to put the blame on? Levy? The players should get some, but I could almost guarantee you weren't sticking up for Harry when we were on our string of bad results... Which lasted about 3 months mind you.

And who are these better players to choose from? All Harry did when Lennon was out was put out a formation of 3 defensive midfielders and totally unbalanced our starting 11. He was switching Bale wide right when we were all yelling "Bale left" and even putting Modric wide right as well. He played players out of position when he could just have easily played Gio wide right (and Kranjcar before he was injured), to keep our balance and width.

And if you think Gio's not good enough, then in any case we should have been after a wide replacement in the January window. Harry clearly didn't want to use him so why would any sensible manager continue on without any cover for either flank for the rest of the season? it just doesn't make sense. Especially when you consider the history of how often Lennon gets injured.

 

[mick cooper]

I am yet to see anyone refuse credit for that achievement. Nobody is yet to acknowledge Harry got us there - lets face it - its basically a given.

It was a show of what we could do when things went right.

That isnt the issue. And would it really make a difference if Armchair Expert (for example) typed "Harry did really well up to Christmas, then...." then proceeded to critisise Harry?

The issue is how badly things went wrong, and why (which is of course entirely subjective)

errm - what?

The people who decry Harry's right to manage our club do so on a manifesto of blaming him for the clubs fauilure to finish 3rd, because we were X points ahead of the 4th placed team at Christmas. They cite the collapse as being proof that he was too busy preparing to be England manager and he is a tactic clown shoe. The list then goes on, but we'll settle on the main points of the manifesto.

The question raised was - if he is such a tactical testicle how come he managed to get us to that point? The HR out phalanx can't have the argument every way that suits them. He can't be good enough on one hand but not on the other.

 

[mick cooper]

I'm not understanding your sentiment.

Yet we got 4th... Well that would still equal Europa League right? Well done.

Are you happy with finishing in the Europa League spots? I'm not.

The fact remains that we were miles ahead in 3rd place and somehow managed to blow it. Who do you want to put the blame on? Levy? The players should get some, but I could almost guarantee you weren't sticking up for Harry when we were on our string of bad results... Which lasted about 3 months mind you.

And who are these better players to choose from? All Harry did when Lennon was out was put out a formation of 3 defensive midfielders and totally unbalanced our starting 11. He was switching Bale wide right when we were all yelling "Bale left" and even putting Modric wide right as well. He played players out of position when he could just have easily played Gio wide right (and Kranjcar before he was injured), to keep our balance and width.

And if you think Gio's not good enough, then in any case we should have been after a wide replacement in the January window. Harry clearly didn't want to use him so why would any sensible manager continue on without any cover for either flank for the rest of the season? it just doesn't make sense. Especially when you consider the history of how often Lennon gets injured.

daft comment - you know that an incredible set of circumstances conspired to prevent entry into the CL to the 4th placed team this season

Krancjar got a chance in the NLD and was so spectacularly woeful that I would say his performance was the major catalyst in our collapse. Every time GDS has played for us he has been insipid and anonymous, thats what makes them low down on the pecking order. They are not good enough to hold starting slots. To get them they have to outperform peers - see Sandro v Parker for details.

Frankly, with Lennon out I'd rather run out a set of traffic cones, rather than play GDS, based on what I have seen of him.

HR has been playing Bale all over the shop to accommodate Bales growing ego (presumably to encourage him to stay.) When Bale hugs the left wing he gets double teamed, switching the wingers gives the defenders something to deal with apart from the simple task of marking the man they prepared for. I'm not defending it as a good idea, I think it sucks, as double teaming against wingers ties up a player and leaves gaps to exploit. My guess at why he does it.

 

[elltrev]

I am yet to see anyone refuse credit for that achievement. Nobody is yet to acknowledge Harry got us there - lets face it - its basically a given.

It was a show of what we could do when things went right.

That isnt the issue. And would it really make a difference if Armchair Expert (for example) typed "Harry did really well up to Christmas, then...." then proceeded to critisise Harry?

The issue is how badly things went wrong, and why (which is of course entirely subjective)

From what I've read a lot of people don't credit him for that achievement! Either implicitly, by saying he's not good enough because he's at fault for us dropping from 3rd to 4th (instead of judging him over the whole season), or explicitly, by saying something like "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 was a show of what we could do when things went right. That isnt the issue" - my problem is with this kind of attitude - you seem to be saying that Harry shouldn't be judged for the things he did right (at which point we were challenging for the title), only for the things he did wrong. **Edit: maybe this ties in with my last paragraph, in that you're referring to what should be discussed, rather than what should be used to evaluate Harry**

"And would it really make a difference if Armchair Expert (for example) typed "Harry did really well up to Christmas, then...." then proceeded to critisise Harry?" - Honestly, for me, yes it would! All I'm saying is that people should judge Redknapp over the whole season, not just over the slump.

Of course people are going to discuss what went wrong more than they are going to discuss the period when things are going well, because it's a more interesting discussion and there's more to talk about. I've no problem with that. It's when people seemingly evaluate Harry as a manager based only on the negative whilst ignoring the positive, or in other words give him all the blame for poor form and none of the credit for good form.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

errm - what?

The people who decry Harry's right to manage our club do so on a manifesto of blaming him for the clubs fauilure to finish 3rd, because we were X points ahead of the 4th placed team at Christmas. They cite the collapse as being proof that he was too busy preparing to be England manager and he is a tactic clown shoe. The list then goes on, but we'll settle on the main points of the manifesto.

The question raised was - if he is such a tactical testicle how come he managed to get us to that point? The HR out phalanx can't have the argument every way that suits them. He can't be good enough on one hand but not on the other.

erm - no one has said we didnt do well to be in that position - which seems to be the accusation. Unless you are taking the views of a couple of total numpties and applying it to all how dont think the sun shines out of Harrys harris.

We did fantastically well up to Christmas, of course Harry played his part in that.

We did far from as well for a sustained period afterwards - and I dont think its unfair to point out Harry certainly played his part in that. Some will say he had his mind elsewhere and such - thats their opinion. I can certainly understand where that belief stems from.

When things are going well everything is easy, its when things arent going well that you really get tested - a test that (for me) Harry ultimately failed in.

I do believe we could have done much, much better. I do believe we did very well before Christmas. I use "we" to include the club, players and manager. I do though, ultimately, believe the manager is responsible over all - hence the fact you would probably have me pigeon holed as from the "Harry is a tactical testicle phalanx"