Redknapp's Autobiography

[The Moonlit Knight]

Hate to say it (especially as I didn't necessarily know what I thought of the lad at the time) but there was a bloke called Andros Townsend who 'Arry decided to take to QPR on loan the following season. Perhaps if he hadn't been distracted he'd have noticed. Letting Pienaar go back on loan in that January window wasn't the greatest either was it? Let's face it Jumpers, the man made mistakes. No worries. It happens. What a shame he will never ever cop to then in this specific situation...

Look, there were injuries, absolutely, but 12 point leads don't disappear just because of those with the squad he had.

Pienaar is only good on the left side of a 4-5-1 in my view, so I don't think that was a factor. We did try him on the right a few times and he was terrible. Townsend was two years younger than he is today, and was on loan to Leeds to when Lennon got injured. Also Townsend was a left sided winger at that stage. I find it telling that Redknapp talks about lack of strikers and centre backs, but for me it was always that we didn't have a natural replacement for Lennon. A right footed, right sided winger who could step in when required.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Harry thinking the role of managers is over-rated is just proof that he's doing it wrong.

And I suppose you know more about football and football management than he does?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Agree, just ask the fans at Utd if they think the role of Fergie was over rated.

No one said it was over rated. But it IS exaggerated. Those are two totally different things.

It doesn't just apply to the football world. It applies to every world. If you have excellent staff who know what they're doing then they require minimal guidance (and in fact usually thrive better under minimal guidance). All they need is a framework of what they need to deliver within. They hardly need managing at all. I don't doubt football is no different. It's harder to manage substandard staff than excellent staff. So the secret to being an excellent manager is very simple. Make sure you hire the right staff. And that is the real skill of a good football manager too. Ensuring you get the best staff (players) comparative to your budget.

Quite often getting it right tactically is the easy part. It's when managers try to be too clever that it goes wrong. This said of course Managers make a difference, as do players. Most regular Premiership players are very similar in ability to each other and it's just form that usually sets them apart (and form can be dictated by many things including attitude) but you always get those extra special players (like Bale for us last season) who are definitely worth 10pts to 15pts a season. I'd say an extra special manager can eek out those 10pts to 15pts also through tactical observations, motivation and astute player purchases etc. That's what separates the great from the good. And that's very fine margins indeed.

There are also different managers for different types. Some of the "star" managers I think would flounder badly in the lower leagues. Some star lower league managers wouldn't stand a chance in the top flight.

 

[the dza]

Pienaar is only good on the left side of a 4-5-1 in my view, so I don't think that was a factor. We did try him on the right a few times and he was terrible. Townsend was two years younger than he is today, and was on loan to Leeds to when Lennon got injured. Also Townsend was a left sided winger at that stage. I find it telling that Redknapp talks about lack of strikers and centre backs, but for me it was always that we didn't have a natural replacement for Lennon. A right footed, right sided winger who could step in when required.

I don't think Townsend had a defined flank at that point in his career did he? I remember seeing him for us in the Cup v Charlton, I'm sure he played on the right (and also smashed one in from 20 yards or so). And he did that with his right foot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHlWwlbH0TY

*edit* and that was his debut, so he showed right off the bat that he can play down the right. We loaned him 2 seasons running iirc and it was a weird decision both times, given our lack of pacey-winger types to cover for Bale and Lennon in those days.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I don't think Townsend had a defined flank at that point in his career did he? I remember seeing him for us in the Cup v Charlton, I'm sure he played on the right (and also smashed one in from 20 yards or so). And he did that with his right foot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHlWwlbH0TY

He was playing the majority of his games on the left wing. It was only last season at QPR where he started putting runs of games together on the right wing and started looking so much better. He must scare defenders to death because usually a full back will show a player onto their weaker foot by moving them inside where necessary. But they can't do that to Townsend because moving to the inside is his strongest foot. But he is also happy to go around the outside and stick a right footed cross in.

It may be that we've splashed £26m on a player to play on our right side only to find we have a home grown talent in the squad who is a better prospect and a more effective Premiership player.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

*edit* and that was his debut, so he showed right off the bat that he can play down the right. We loaned him 2 seasons running iirc and it was a weird decision both times, given our lack of pacey-winger types to cover for Bale and Lennon in those days.

And yet if we hadn't loaned him, he may not have ended up being the player he is today. I like the fact we loan our youngsters out to get first team football.

 

[the dza]

Jumpers, I probably didn't make my points very clearly with my initial post, I'll try to clarify:

1. Townsend showed that he could play on the right in his first game for us. Where he was picked to play after that was up to the management, but he showed it nonetheless. I was at the game, I'm not just going on the youtube clip. He scored, got man of the match and then we loaned him to Watford 11 days later.

2. He could have been given plenty of game time FOR US in those first occasions where he went out on loan, due to lack of like-for-like cover for Bale and Lennon. The pace, directness and willingness to shoot were things he possessed from the very beginning, things he showed in that debut v Charlton. Some of us couldn't work out why he was sent on loan at the time, the fact that it happened 2 seasons running seems like bad management to me.

In the main, I agree with you, that loaning out youngsters is a good thing and has worked well for us. With Townsend though, I feel that he could have made a good contribution had he been allowed to stay, because we badly missed Lennon and Bale whenever they picked up knocks during the late part of the season. Andros could have been the go-to player. Two January's in a row we loaned him out and we could have done with him here.

Anyway, I'm glad he's here now and playing his part. It's good to have Spurs boys in the squad.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

yea if he was man of the match playing right mid in his first game you have to question the management as to why he wasn't played there more often.

 

[Jurgen the German]

You're not comparing like for like there. In one scenario the manager is under an artificial restriction (changing the players) and in the other he isn't.

Now try the same statement except that in the first one Redknapp replaces City's team with Willie McKay players and loads of his old mates he used to manage who are getting on a bit. Mourinho spends what Palace can afford on some young players that want to learn their trade under Mourinho.

It's a very different outcome.

I disagree that Mourinho would be successful at Palace, which I assume is what you're saying? Look at all the clubs he's worked at; Chelsea, Inter, Real Madrid and Chelsea again. Clubs that are either huge in stature and visibility or incredibly wealthy, or both. Hasn't exactly ever had to work on a shoestring. Everyone cites what he achieved at Porto, winning the league in Portugal with Porto is hardly a massive achievement, it's like winning La Liga with Barca or Real. Granted they won the Champions League but they had a nice run of teams. Apart from Man United, they played Lyon and Deportivo La Coruna, followed by Monaco in the final.

Not a chance in hell he would go to a club the size of Palace, he's all about clubs that are successful already which give him the maximum chances of winning and more importantly boosting his inflated ego even more.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Speaking of autobiographies, Fergie's book comes out in a couple of weeks, surely it will be a great read and a must buy.

 

[thfcsteff]

And yet if we hadn't loaned him, he may not have ended up being the player he is today. I like the fact we loan our youngsters out to get first team football.

A very good point in fairness...one thing with Townsend which apparently held him back until he kicked in another gear this summer, was his attitude.

I just think that there are times, when you're focussed 100% on the task at hand, that you might see the same things you saw barely 12 months later when at another club. In Harry's case, he clearly recognized what Townsend could do, and enlisted him at QPR to help (when doubters such as myself didn't see anything much beyond some pace)...

We will never know I suppose, and always hold our own views. With regards to Pienaar, again I can see your point but would again question whether a fully focussed manager might've been able to find a way to accommodate a player who was very talented and did not lack work rate. In the end, sometimes you surely have to handle situations that you find yourself in with sometimes odd solutions.

One thing I do like about this thread, it marks (for the first time) a genuine discussion and exchange of views and opinions between many of us who have perhaps not been able to engage as such before. I like that very much mate. makes for a way better forum. Anyway, I look forward to reading to book (as stated, Harry got my money!!!) and again, nice to share different opinions without rancor. In the end, as many say, we did reach the CL with him in charge and that night in Manchester was fantastic.

 

[thfcsteff]

Speaking of autobiographies, Fergie's book comes out in a couple of weeks, surely it will be a great read and a must buy.

This. I had the good fortune to spend a couple of hours with him during the 94 World Cup (spontaneous, unplanned) and he was great value, superb, would not let me and my mate get the drinks (he insisted) and just LOVED talking football. I learnt more from him in 2 hours than you could imagine. A genuinely great bloke.

 

[Superted]

And I suppose you know more about football and football management than he does?

I was waiting for this response from you. Its a bit of a childish argument don't you think?

I don't need to be a football manager myself to understand that the importance of the like of Wenger, Ferguson, Mourinho, Guardiola, Hiddink, etc etc etc is not exaggerated or over-rated. Whether that be Fergie's influence in the dressing room, Mourinho's in-depth scouting and analysis of the opposition or Wenger's philosophy on football development of his young team, I'd back that every day over Harry's go out and run around a bit.

Harry said you don't need to manages player like VDV as he is already good enough. The role of a manager is not to teach a footballer how to take a throw in. At that level you're not teaching them how to play the game but you're setting them up to win the next game.

Your argument in a later post regarding non-football managers is flawed as well. To an extent they can be left to do their job but a managers role again is not to tell them how to do their job, but on giving direction and leadership to ensure the manner in which they do their job leads to the team/organization achieving their goals. And yes, in this case I can talk from experience and I'd back myself about knowing more about this than Harry.

 

[Bullet]

1. Townsend showed that he could play on the right in his first game for us. He scored, got man of the match and then we loaned him to Watford 11 days later.

2. He could have been given plenty of game time FOR US in those first occasions where he went out on loan, due to lack of like-for-like cover for Bale and Lennon... the fact that it happened 2 seasons running seems like bad management to me.

Precisely dza!

When Lennon got injured Redknapp ruined the entire team play and shape, it was totally unnecessary game after game.

And we had so many injuries because Redknapp played the same players all the time, even when they were hobbling.

Those are the main reasons why we fell to pieces, not because of the England speculation IMO.

 

[harr1984]

He was playing the majority of his games on the left wing. It was only last season at QPR where he started putting runs of games together on the right wing and started looking so much better. He must scare defenders to death because usually a full back will show a player onto their weaker foot by moving them inside where necessary. But they can't do that to Townsend because moving to the inside is his strongest foot. But he is also happy to go around the outside and stick a right footed cross in.

It may be that we've splashed £26m on a player to play on our right side only to find we have a home grown talent in the squad who is a better prospect and a more effective Premiership player.

Lets not get carried away. Was only the other week I was reading a match thread full of people whinging about how all he was doing was shooting etc. I rate Townsend, but I would bet my house that Lamela is far ahead of him by this time next year - probably a lot sooner....

 

[the dza]

Lets not get carried away. Was only the other week I was reading a match thread full of people whinging about how all he was doing was shooting etc. I rate Townsend, but I would bet my house that Lamela is far ahead of him by this time next year - probably a lot sooner....

Could we not play Lamela and Townsend in the same team? Swapping wings throughout the game would be my preference. Lamela seems like a craftier player, more likely to play a deft pass. Andros is very direct, relentless in trying to beat people. The two of them would strike a nice balance imo.

 

[Jordinho]

Agreed.

All he seems to have done with this book is ensure that he won't get the England job in the future. I don't get the point of it.

He gets a lot of attention. And some money. That's pretty much him sorted.

 

[scaramanga]

I disagree that Mourinho would be successful at Palace, which I assume is what you're saying? Look at all the clubs he's worked at; Chelsea, Inter, Real Madrid and Chelsea again. Clubs that are either huge in stature and visibility or incredibly wealthy, or both. Hasn't exactly ever had to work on a shoestring. Everyone cites what he achieved at Porto, winning the league in Portugal with Porto is hardly a massive achievement, it's like winning La Liga with Barca or Real. Granted they won the Champions League but they had a nice run of teams. Apart from Man United, they played Lyon and Deportivo La Coruna, followed by Monaco in the final.

Not a chance in hell he would go to a club the size of Palace, he's all about clubs that are successful already which give him the maximum chances of winning and more importantly boosting his inflated ego even more.

I don't think he'd be successful there either. I'm pretty sure he'd do a better job than Holloway though and a much better job than Redknapp could.

 

[harr1984]

Could we not play Lamela and Townsend in the same team? Swapping wings throughout the game would be my preference. Lamela seems like a craftier player, more likely to play a deft pass. Andros is very direct, relentless in trying to beat people. The two of them would strike a nice balance imo.

Of course, Id like to see Townsend on the left personally - he can still come inside and shoot as he is two footed and could see him being more unpredictable on the left than on the right. Not that I mind him on the right at all....

 

[braineclipse]

I disagree that Mourinho would be successful at Palace, which I assume is what you're saying? Look at all the clubs he's worked at; Chelsea, Inter, Real Madrid and Chelsea again. Clubs that are either huge in stature and visibility or incredibly wealthy, or both. Hasn't exactly ever had to work on a shoestring. Everyone cites what he achieved at Porto, winning the league in Portugal with Porto is hardly a massive achievement, it's like winning La Liga with Barca or Real. Granted they won the Champions League but they had a nice run of teams. Apart from Man United, they played Lyon and Deportivo La Coruna, followed by Monaco in the final.

Not a chance in hell he would go to a club the size of Palace, he's all about clubs that are successful already which give him the maximum chances of winning and more importantly boosting his inflated ego even more.

How do you think he got the Porto job in the first place? Perhaps by doing well at a smaller club?

If we were talking about a manager you rated very highly would you use the same language to describe a CL win? Remember he also won the Uefa Cup the season before that. His record at Porto was absolutely phenomenal, way beyond what can be expected for that club.

Obviously there's not a chance in hell he would go to Palace, that's not what's being discussed here. Which top class, top reputation managers ever do? Why would they.