• 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

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
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.... ;)
Click to expand...

Argh I can't fudging help myself.... :)

As usual I think people are just arguing past each other - constantly making their own point and not responding to others' points, which are subtley different. Maybe I'm guilty of it too.

Speaking for myself, let me say clearly that I completely understand your point in the above quote, have understood it when others have made it before, and agree with it. Generally speaking, I actually think Martinez or Rodgers could do very well for us.

The point that I've been trying to make is based on a belief that such a debate (could other managers now be better for us than Harry) has more use if we frame it in terms of our current reality. And our reality is that Harry is our current manager, and so replacing him with someone unproven at this level (like Martinez or Rodgers) would a) be a risk that I personally wouldn't take at this time, and b) would be a bigger risk than when we appointed Harry, because our situation now is totally different to our situation then.

As I said, I think people are just arguing 'past' each other, as ArcspacE has said that he's not even talking about replacing Harry. I guess he's just talking in a general and hypothetical sense: could other managers take us further than Harry now? Whereas I'm talking more in a practical sense: would it be a good idea to replace Harry with someone else?

Can we agree that this is the case, or will we not even agree on this?!

EDIT: Actually I was getting frustrated because I felt ArcspacE was trying to argue that our situation when we appointed Harry wasn't significantly different to our situation now... or at least refusing to accept / believe that it was, despite what seems to me like undeniable, objective evidence!
 
Last edited:
Mick,


Excellent reading and some very interesting points. As ever, at the end of it all we're far closer in agreement than it might at first appear...your AVB points are taken, I would be gambling on the fact that he has learnt something about man- management...your idea of AVB working ith Harris for a year or so is actually excellent, alas I fear neither man could handle it ego-wise sadly...

mick cooper said:
Trust me, I know you know your football, unlike some of the half wits who shout and railagainst HR.

I also know that the players are not entirely to blame, and that the slide that occurred happened for the reason that everyone recognises, but I don't hold with the myth that it is all down to HR taking his eye off the ball. Primarily because it hardly sits well with any employer to see a potential employee setting fire to the castle they leave, either out of spite or indolence, so for that reason I believe he would not have "not given a fudge" or "shown his arse" to anyone in the period.

My personal belief is that the reason is because of the speculation, and it was a combination of the uncertainty in the team - at the prospect of losing a talismanic and charismatic manager, as well as a certain amount of laissez faire, but not the total ambivalence that is suggested.

You know as well as I do, that any great manager inspires a team, but when you walk out onto the pitch, its the collective will and cohesion of the 11 men out there that wins the game, so to absolve the players is a sign of ignorance of playing the game, or a wilful desire to pin the blame on the man they didn't like from the start.

Statistics, meh - can't stand them, but in the face of the gloating half wits who trot them out on a repetitious basis, I simply fought back with a few that stand in HRs favour, strangely they are largely ignored, but any amount of stats that fit the bill of condemning him are paraded in large font and repeated metronomically.

To suggest that I ignore the effect a manager can have, would mean that I would have to suggest that Ferguson had nothing to do with 20 years of manure dominance, or Busby, Wenger, Shankly or even our own Bill Nick and their place in the history of their respective clubs. The effect of those managers was to inspire their players, in some cases to be a better team than the sum of their collective parts, something that I believe is HRs greatest asset.

He is condemned for his indecision, poor tactical nous, lack of ambition, loyalty, honesty, integrity and every damn human and professional failing under the sun. People scour records and consult the great GHod OPTA and offer every manager under the sun as a viable alternative. Why?, so they can justify their own particular prejudice, and to substantiate their own personal belief that they know more about football than he does - or me, or you.

I have stood up for HR, because I don't believe in all of the crap that comes out in the media, and I don't care about the prejudices of football fans, or take violently against the personalities of people that I don't know. I also don't think I know everything that there is to know about football, but I do know that I have been watching it for long enough to know good football when I see it, and have played enough of it to recognise good players when I see them.

The period when our game fell apart hurt me just as much as anyone else, but I don't feel the need to do a fudging autopsy on it, all day and every day. I also don't feel the need to find the guilty and have them punished, because fundamentally, we have got the basis for a bloody good team, and a bloody good squad, under an inspirational and effective manager. It makes more sense to me to remove the wasters and the "past it" from our squad (and maybe even the management team - which seems to be rather large..........another discussion) and get in the players that we need to strengthen the overall squad.

Someone produced a list of players and started pushing the word marginalised against players, as if it were some unfair mark of cain, painted on the heads of the innocent by a cruel and despotic leader. The people that don't get to play for the team are the ones who aren't good enough to make the team and the system work, that the manager wants to play - if they are not good enough, they need to play better, if they can't, then others get to play. Marginalised my arse.

AVB - I was convinced he would fail and said so before he arrived, and in my mind I knew it would be because he can't inspire players, which RDM obviously can, but doesn't perhaps have the technical nous to make them better than some dour, obdurate defensive machine. Personally I hope he gets the job. He'll be sacked by January and that should disrupt their season.

Maybe some kind of arrangement with AVB, working with Harry might produce a merger that gives us the technical and tactical edge, and HR provides the leadership, man management and inspiration that the vapid AVB doesn't seem to possess. If we got rid of Bond and replaced him with AVB, then kept HR on for a season or 2 before phasing AVB into the hotseat and HR into a DOF type role, or retirement, that might work for everyone, AVB isn't stupid and he would learn from HR on what makes footballers tick, the players would accept him, and the manager that emerged would finally become one to run a PL team.

My reservations about AVB were always about him being accepted by the players, not about his technical knowledge of the game. Have you ever worked for a manager with lots of academic qualifications but no practical knowledge to fall back on? If you get one with no charisma or personality as well, then you know life is going to be unpleasant.

So for all of the crowing posters who have dug up stats about RDM vs AVB, - well done you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Moonlit Knight said:
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.
Click to expand...

I actually agree that Rogers needs another year in the Prem to prove himself, however we should not forget he worked at Chelsea under Mourinho...
 
milo said:
I agree that any managerial appointment is a risk and find it hard to understand why anyone could think otherwise. What I find odd is that people think that replacing Redknapp will be easy or that it will be easy for the next manager to improve on our results under Redknapp.
Click to expand...


Obviously, as fans we are basically quite ignorant - we only have the public face of the club and the team performances to judge and base our opinions on.

To twist your question around - what does Redknapp do that is would be extremely difficult to replace?
 
elltrev said:
Argh I can't fudging help myself.... :)

As usual I think people are just arguing past each other - constantly making their own point and not responding to others' points, which are subtley different. Maybe I'm guilty of it too.

Speaking for myself, let me say clearly that I completely understand your point in the above quote, have understood it when others have made it before, and agree with it. Generally speaking, I actually think Martinez or Rodgers could do very well for us.

The point that I've been trying to make is based on a belief that such a debate (could other managers now be better for us than Harry) has more use if we frame it in terms of our current reality. And our reality is that Harry is our current manager, and so replacing him with someone unproven at this level (like Martinez or Rodgers) would a) be a risk that I personally wouldn't take at this time, and b) would be a bigger risk than when we appointed Harry, because our situation now is totally different to our situation then.

As I said, I think people are just arguing 'past' each other, as ArcspacE has said that he's not even talking about replacing Harry. I guess he's just talking in a general and hypothetical sense: could other managers take us further than Harry now? Whereas I'm talking more in a practical sense: would it be a good idea to replace Harry with someone else?

Can we agree that this is the case, or will we not even agree on this?!

EDIT: Actually I was getting frustrated because I felt ArcspacE was trying to argue that our situation when we appointed Harry wasn't significantly different to our situation now... or at least refusing to accept / believe that it was, despite what seems to me like undeniable, objective evidence!
Click to expand...

I think Arcspace was basically using the point that I was, that is to say Redknapp (pre Spurs) wouldnt get a lookin for the job now (which I dont believe is an unreasonable assumption at all) and yet "in the real world" it is Redknapp who got us into this position. Arc is trying to point out the hypocrisy in managers being slated as "to much of a risk" when the man we have in charge would be called exactly that. I appreciate that point, but my angle is more looking at breaking through the entrenched ideas that only "big" managers can take "big" jobs (which I think is more in line with Billy)

I understand where you are coming from - the here and now - and on the face of it follow your thinking. We are in a far superior position to previously, we are working at a level where fine margins make a difference - we want some guarantee of success (or at least minimizing of risk). Then I think it through some more, and realise I dont actually agree. I agree in the principle of making the best, most considered choice you can - but not in the idea that Martinez, Rodgers etc present to much risk.

I suppose that comes down to your definition of risk, or risk mitigation. Perhaps you prefer a "tried and tested" appointment so that you have the feeling of security in knowing how they will perform. I can understand this, but it is a mirage, top managers flop badly regularly.

For me its all about the man, not the CV - which I believe is the point Billy is arguing towards. If you have a man that fits the ethos of the club, is a committed professional, has skills you desire (man management, coaching, communication?) then that man is the one for the job. If he happens to have 10 league titles then great, if he doesn? Then so what!?...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I think Arcspace was basically using the point that I was, that is to say Redknapp (pre Spurs) wouldnt get a lookin for the job now (which I dont believe is an unreasonable assumption at all) and yet "in the real world" it is Redknapp who got us into this position. Arc is trying to point out the hypocrisy in managers being slated as "to much of a risk" when the man we have in charge would be called exactly that. I appreciate that point, but my angle is more looking at breaking through the entrenched ideas that only "big" managers can take "big" jobs (which I think is more in line with Billy)

I understand where you are coming from - the here and now - and on the face of it follow your thinking. We are in a far superior position to previously, we are working at a level where fine margins make a difference - we want some guarantee of success (or at least minimizing of risk). Then I think it through some more, and realise I dont actually agree. I agree in the principle of making the best, most considered choice you can - but not in the idea that Martinez, Rodgers etc present to much risk.

I suppose that comes down to your definition of risk, or risk mitigation. Perhaps you prefer a "tried and tested" appointment so that you have the feeling of security in knowing how they will perform. I can understand this, but it is a mirage, top managers flop badly regularly.

For me its all about the man, not the CV - which I believe is the point Billy is arguing towards. If you have a man that fits the ethos of the club, is a committed professional, has skills you desire (man management, coaching, communication?) then that man is the one for the job. If he happens to have 10 league titles then great, if he doesn? Then so what!?...
Click to expand...

but then we had to appoint a new manager - we were bottom of the table and failing fast.

We just finished 4th, we hardly need to get rid, do we?
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Obviously, as fans we are basically quite ignorant - we only have the public face of the club and the team performances to judge and base our opinions on.

To twist your question around - what does Redknapp do that is would be extremely difficult to replace?
Click to expand...

I realize this question wasn't aimed at me, but I think it's an interesting one so I'm taking the liberty to give my answer.

I don't think there are any specific qualities Redknapp has that would be extremely difficult to replace, however he offers quite a lot.

1. Stability. He has proven with us and in most of his previous jobs that his teams very rarely under perform, or at least not for very long. In many ways he is the safe, low risk option, we know what we get. Seeing as any (realistic) managerial appointment has quite a bit of risk to it, and looking at how many managers fail and are fired within 2-3 seasons that stability is quite valuable to us.

2. Tactical ability. I know he gets a lot of stick for his supposed lack of tactical knowledge, but I think he is quite good. He isn't world class, but he's good. He immediately brought in players to give our team balance in his first transfer window at the club. Since then he has fairly consistently put out well balanced sides and done transfer business to give us a fairly balanced squad. He has gotten thing wrong several times, no doubt, but most of the time he puts out good solid teams. There have been many managers who have been seen as very good tacticians who have failed recently, and who have gotten tactics horribly wrong. AVB, Daglish, Benitez - all supposedly very good tactical managers and I can think of quite a few ways where, at least with hindsight, they have made terrible tactical decisions. At least as bad as Harry. People seem to compare Harry to the best in the world, and even with some selection bias to the currently successful managers. I think that is at least part of the reason why his tactical ability is rated as lowly as it is by some.

3. Morale and motivation. Often argued as Harry's strongest point, not unreasonably so. Our (and other) players like him, morale has generally remained high throughout his Spurs career. He turned around a very poor run towards the end of last season, followed by a very difficult transfer window and two crushing defeats against the top teams in the country at the start of this season in excellent fashion to bring us up to a brilliant level. He also turned around our poor run this winter/spring to secure 4th. This is valuable, without a doubt. I'm also of the opinion that there is a balance between tactics and motivation. It's probably not a zero sum game, but heavy tactical drilling will in most cases affect motivation while players will enjoy more freedom. Or in other words more intense detailed tactical work and instructions will come at a cost to morale and motivation.
 
supporters of Everton, Villa, Blackburn even Leeds must tinkle themselves laughing if they rad all this anguish and intellectualising (?) over sacking a manager who achieved the 4 finishes we've experienced under our manager.
 
Perhaps we must hire him as an assistant


ept_sports_sow_experts-949228566-1275863649.jpg
 
mick cooper said:
but then we had to appoint a new manager - we were bottom of the table and failing fast.

We just finished 4th, we hardly need to get rid, do we?
Click to expand...

Not sure if you have been following Mick, its moved past "Sack Redknapp and replace him" into What if? Territory.

Hypothetically, IF we had to appoint a new manager (for whatever reason)...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
For me its all about the man, not the CV - which I believe is the point Billy is arguing towards. If you have a man that fits the ethos of the club, is a committed professional, has skills you desire (man management, coaching, communication?) then that man is the one for the job. If he happens to have 10 league titles then great, if he doesn? Then so what!?...
Click to expand...

There are many more desired skills than the ones you list of course, I'm sure you agree. Tactical knowledge, scouting/transfer ability, dedication, ability to handle pressure and so on and so on...

The thing is that all of those skills are very difficult to measure. A manager might do very well with one group of players, but fail with another, he might do very well with one club with their goals and targets, but fail with another. Objectively measuring their actual skill level for any given attribute seems to be tremendously difficult. Even well respected and highly rated chairmen, directors of football and owners seem to get managerial appointments wrong time and time again.

If you could somehow objectively measure these skills then of course an unproven manager would be just as likely to succeed as a proven manager (maybe apart from the respect the proven manager would get from the players when first starting). However since this seems almost impossible to do then long term success or success at multiple clubs in different situations is at least something to go by even though it obviously doesn't give anyone perfect knowledge.

Do you disagree with this? If so are there any chairmen or directors of football you think are particularly good at assessing these things? What are you basing it on that these things can be measured relatively effectively with good precision?
 
braineclipse said:
If you could somehow objectively measure these skills then of course an unproven manager would be just as likely to succeed as a proven manager (maybe apart from the respect the proven manager would get from the players when first starting). However since this seems almost impossible to do then long term success or success at multiple clubs in different situations is at least something to go by even though it obviously doesn't give anyone perfect knowledge.
Click to expand...

For the 645th time

Redknapp was exactly that (relative to managing a big club) and yet he was given his first job at a big club and look how it turned out

The fact we were in a middle of a mess back then (when he arrived) changes nothing from our bigger/overall objectives - else Levy would have offered him a 9-month contract to 'save us' and then looked elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
braineclipse said:
There are many more desired skills than the ones you list of course, I'm sure you agree. Tactical knowledge, scouting/transfer ability, dedication, ability to handle pressure and so on and so on...

The thing is that all of those skills are very difficult to measure. A manager might do very well with one group of players, but fail with another, he might do very well with one club with their goals and targets, but fail with another. Objectively measuring their actual skill level for any given attribute seems to be tremendously difficult. Even well respected and highly rated chairmen, directors of football and owners seem to get managerial appointments wrong time and time again.

If you could somehow objectively measure these skills then of course an unproven manager would be just as likely to succeed as a proven manager (maybe apart from the respect the proven manager would get from the players when first starting). However since this seems almost impossible to do then long term success or success at multiple clubs in different situations is at least something to go by even though it obviously doesn't give anyone perfect knowledge.

Do you disagree with this? If so are there any chairmen or directors of football you think are particularly good at assessing these things? What are you basing it on that these things can be measured relatively effectively with good precision?
Click to expand...

This is the trouble with trying to rate a manager. We don't get to see them in the dressing room, on the training pitch, analysing previous games, conducting transfers. We have to judge them indirectly - do the players look motivated? Have their performances improved under the manager? Has the team improved in areas in which it used to be weak? Have we made astute signings? Unfortunately even that doesn't give you the full picture.

Personally I like Martinez. I think a big part of it is that I like him in the literal sense of the term - he comes across really well in interviews, seems very articulate and thoughtful. Also that interview with him in the Mail was really interesting - the fact that he's a trained physio and has a real focus on reducing injuries, that he watches games up to 10 times until he feels he knows exactly what went wrong in them. The fact that he believes in choosing a system that suits the players, and that he seems to have successfully drilled his team into effectively using and understanding their 3-4-3 formation - quite innovative and exciting. And their run at the end of the season seems to show that he can give players the confidence to play well and play attractively, when the results really matter.

Hypothetically, if we suddenly had no manager for whatever reason, I'd be excited if we appointed Martinez.

Let's face it, the only proven managers for a top 4 PL team are probably Fergie, Wenger, Mourinho and maybe Ancelotti. And then (aside from Redknapp) you have Moyes, Jol and Pardew who've managed teams into challenging for the top 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back