• 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's Autobiography

I couldn't be 100% sure but I always suspected it was the case, his comments have confirmed what I thought was true.

I still maintain he was our best manager since Venables. I realise he had a better squad than most of our managers have had in the Premier League era, but I think people twist/distort the facts regarding just how much of a mess we were in when he took over. Ramos was playing our best defender in Europe, which meant he couldn't play in the league games due to his chronic knee condition. Redknapp put a stop to that nonsense as soon as he came in. He steadied the ship, gave us more steel and we finished the season respectfully. The way some people go on on here you'd think Steve Kean could have done the same job. Then we finished 4th in his first full season. Don't get me wrong, we had the squad to do it, but Spurs were a bit of a laughing stock over the last 15 years, I never believed we could get 4th largely because of our mentality. Even now AVB has a big job on his hands to try and turn us into winners, it won't happen overnight, you only get the mentality once you've won.

Back to my main point, if he had held his hands up and said I got carried away with media frenzy that went into overdrive when my name was mentioned as the next England manager, I wanted the England job so desperately I got sidetracked and it lead to a dip in form for Spurs despite my best efforts to finish on a high. I could have accepted it and forgiven him somewhat. I don't want to be a profit of doom, but that season could have repurcussions for years to come. Arsenal may have reclaimed their place in the Champions League last season anyway, we'll never know.

Indeed.

I said the same at the time. It was the way in which he consistently found new ways to deny any responsibility which annoyed me the most...there again, he's always been consistent in that regard. Anyway, we march on! ;-)
 
TBH I cannot believe Redknapp is being talked about in the same breath as double European Cup and league championship winning Clough. The fact that Redknapp was being talked about as England manager shows how poor England
have been in producing coaches in recent years. The situation with him and clough have few parallels, except they were both huge attention seekers and have dubious links to agent bungs. BTW all those talking up Clough as the England Manager have a rather romanticized view of the man. In reality whilst undoubtedly a brilliant manager, he was also an alcoholic and had a difficult, uncompromising personality that often alienated those closest to him, remember his fall outs with the chairman at Derby County, players at Leeds, and eventually Peter Taylor. People also forget that Bobby Robson was a great manager in his own right both before and after England.
 
Last edited:
Indeed.

I said the same at the time. It was the way in which he consistently found new ways to deny any responsibility which annoyed me the most...there again, he's always been consistent in that regard. Anyway, we march on! ;-)

Steff why the hell would you line the pockets of that man by buying his book?
 
TBH I cannot believe Redknapp is being talked about in the same breath as double European Cup and league championship winning Clough. The fact that Redknapp was being talked about as England manager shows how poor England
have been in producing coaches in recent years. The situation with him and clough have few parallels, except they were both huge attention seekers and have dubious links to agent bungs. BTW all those talking up Clough as the England Manager have a rather romanticized view of the man. In reality whilst undoubtedly a brilliant manager, he was also an alcoholic and had a difficult, uncompromising personality that often alienated those closest to him, remember his fall outs with the chairman at Derby County, players at Leeds, and eventually Peter Taylor. People also forget that Bobby Robson was a great manager in his own right both before and after England.

No one is saying he is anywhere near Clough in terms of managerial ability, but the two were both the logical choice in footballing terms to be the next England manager and both were wrongly ignored.

Robson was a great manager in his own right, but Clough was better and there's no doubt about it.

EDIT: Clough didn't become an alcoholic until near the end of his career, his wife said as much.
 
Last edited:
I stuck up a lot for him on this board over the last couple of years as did you. But I must say my opinion of him has changed since this book, I always suspected he took his eye of the ball during his last few months at the club and he doesn't acknowledge or accept any accountablity for it from the quotes I have seen. Has your opinion of him changed? I'm interested to know. I still thank him for what he did for us on the pitch though.

Have you read the book, or just going from the excerpts from the papers? It's enlightening, but probably more enjoyable for old timers. It actually made me realise how **** football has become over the last 30 years, and that's as a reflection on society as much as the game itself.

'"Tactically naïve.". I have heard that plenty of times in my career. It washes over me now. I know I wouldn't have lasted as long as this in the game if I didn't know how to set up and organise a team, and improve players. People make out it is all down to motivation, as if all I've got by on throughout my life is the gift of the gab. If that is what they want to believe, fair enough, but players soon see through a smooth talker. I have principles, I have my own style. I like teams with width, I like my defenders to play out and I believe in putting the best players in the position where they can do the most damage, a favourite position, where they feel at home.'

'I only mention this again because Inter Milan's manager at the time was Rafael Benitez, who is widely acclaimed as one of the game's great tactical thinkers. And if I had done what he did in the second leg at White Hart Lane I'd have been absolutely slaughtered. Naïve wouldn't have been the half of it. Despite his thirty eight minute hat-trick in the first match, Rafa made absolutely no extra provision for Bale at all in the return. I find that so strange. When the game began, we couldn't believe our luck. We had been working all week on how to counteract what Inter would do to Gareth and, when it came to it, Rafa left him, one on one, with Maicon. I felt sorry for the lad.'

On Gareth Bale - 'To me, he's a model professional. No problem, low maintenance. I was lucky with that Tottenham team because of them were the same. Modric, Pavlyuchenko, Defoe, Crouch - they were all good lads and did not give me any hassle.'

'We had taken Rafael Van Der Vaart that summer, and he made a huge difference to us in Europe. He was one of Daniel's signings. The chairman asked me if I wanted to take him on loan, and I said, "Of course.". Then he came back and said we couldn't arrange a loan but he could an unbelievably cheap permanent transfer. Would I still be happy? It sounded a fantastic opportunity and I jumped at it.'

'Rafael was another one who said I wasn't much for the tactics board, but what did he think would happen? That I would him in the team and tell him how to play? I put Van Der Vaart in a position I thought would suit him best, and let him dictate the game. The better the player, the more advice should be kept to a minimum. Of course we had moves and tactical plans, but you have to walk players through at Bournemouth a lot more than you do at Tottenham.'

'People think Daniel and I were always clashing over players, but it wasn't like that. Yes, he had his own views, but we never made a signing that wasn't run by me first - and even though I knew he didn't fancy some of my choices, I got most of them. Daniel was unsure about Younes Kaboul and Scott Parker for reasons of injury and age but ended up trusting me so we went for them.'

'So what went wrong in that last season? I wish I knew for sure. We were right up there in the league and with the addition of one or two top quality players I do believe we were capable of winning the title. Instead, injuries caught up with us. On just about the final day of the window we bought Louis Saha on a free transfer from Everton - to be serious about winning the title I thought we had to act more decisively and boldly than that.'

'I know that some of the conventional wisdom is that I was distracted by talk of the England job, and that is a sexier story than having too many injuries, but sometimes the simple explanation is the genuine one. We lost Lennon, who was to key to us, and age was finally catching up with Ledley King. I was partly to blame for that. We were short of central defenders and I probably gave Ledley a few games too many. He was struggling and, as much as he was saying to me he wanted to play, he really wasn't fit. Towards the end there were a couple of games where we really struggled and so did Ledley, and I am sorry I put in him that position. He was such a great boy and, when he was fit, a fantastic player.'

'In the last four games we had Kaboul and William Gallas fit again, we won three and drew one.'

'I'm not blaming Fulop for Tottenham missing out on the Champions League - we had plenty of chances to secure the points ourselves'

'Looking back, would have I survived even had Bayern Munich won the Champions League final? I just don't know. I have no problem with Daniel Levy. He was the first person to ring me and wish me luck when I took over at Queens Park Rangers and even on the night I left Tottenham, the car phone rang and it was Daniel. "Harry, let's keep in touch," he said. "I hope we can still be friends.". I thought, "He's got some front. He's just sacked me and now he wants to be mates.". But we have stayed in touch. I am not one for grudges.'

'I received a lot of praise for my first season at Tottenham but, believe me, any fool could have taken that club out of the bottom three.'

'Often the heartbeat of the club is an unsung hero - in the case of Tottenham it was Michael Dawson. I don't think any English football club can succeed without a player like that in the centre. Brave as a lion, head the ball off the line one minute, up for a corner and putting his head where it hurts the next - he was the guy that led by example. Off the field too. If there was a hospital visit or a charity function, Michael was always the first to put his hand up. There will always be players with more ability than Michael - the goalscorers, the match winners - but every manager will know what I mean when I say there is no individual more important to the club.'

'Sometimes the role of the manager gets exaggerated. Any decent coach could have kept Tottenham up that season.'

'I didn't pull any tactical masterstrokes that season. We got organised, we released Modric, played him in the middle rather than wide, and in the transfer window I brought in a few players who greatly improved our squad - two strikers Jermain Defoe and Robbie Keane, a reserve goalkeeper, Carlo Cudicini, plus Wilson Palacios and Pascal Chimbonda. Keane, Chimbonda and Defoe had all been sold by Ramos, so I already knew that they would fit in with the existing group. They were all good players and I couldn't understand why he had let them go.'

'Roman Pavlyuchenko was a fans' favourite and had tons of ability, but I always thought he was a different player away from home. He was a great family man and he seemed to be uneasy with any time he spent away. He could be unplayable at White Hart Lane one week and anonymous on the road the next, yet the supporters never seemed to see it, and that became a problem for us. In the end, it he wasn't in the team, I was almost reluctant to name him among the substitutes because after ten minutes, if the game wasn't going well, the fans would begin to chant his name and that would make the other strikers on the field even more nervous. Supporters are entitled to their opinions, obviously, but I don't think they realise that, sometimes, something that seems harmless can have a very real and damaging effect.'

On West Ham - 'Looking back, I think I created a lot of my own problems there, too. I was out of order at times. I would argue with Terry and the other directors in a way most other managers wouldn't. If they uttered something in a board meeting that I thought was rubbish, I'd say so, and I was probably wrong to talk to them like that.'

On Florin Raducioiu - 'I was very harsh on Florin at the time but, looking back, perhaps I was as much to blame for his failure. He came from a very different culture, a very different style of football, and maybe I didn't have as much patience with him as I should have. Everything he did irritated me, right from the start when we met to discuss the transfer and he kept asking about the quarantine arrangements for his dog. I wondered why he wasn't as interested in our ambitions for West Ham. Yet if his wife lived the dog, as he said, why shouldn't he be concerned? I think a lot of managers were feeling their way through this new era at the time. It wasn't like dealing with Stuart Pearce or Ian Wright. The players were coming to a new country and they were unsure, too. If I had a player like Raducioiu now, I would handle him differently.'

Still on Florin Raducioiu - 'I stopped believing in him, and didn't get the best out of him for that reason. When I see film of him playing now, I am sure my original instinct was right, and he could have been a great player in the Premier League. Maybe I was on his case too much and didn't give him enough time to adapt.'

'I'm 66 now. I was 36 when I got my first job at Bournemouth. Looking back, what would I tell that young man now? What would I do differently? Certainly, I would counsel against being so hot-headed with chairmen. When I think back to how I used to speak to the business people who owned football clubs, I wince. I never saw it from their point of view, never appreciated that they were making a commitment to the club, too. I viewed every argument in simple terms, black and white, right and wrong; those who knew football versus the amateurs. If the boss said something daft, I was on him, and that wasn't helpful - to the club, or to me, really. Those guys have still got the power and will wait for the right moment to get their own back. Certainly at West Ham I was too confrontational and it cost me in the end.'

'It's an idea to think before speaking to the press, too. Not because I have been stitched up, but because a flippant aside or a one-liner can sometimes cause more trouble than it is worth. The number of times I've seen something in the headlines the next day and thought, "Harry, son, what have you done?".'

'I listen to some managers talking bull****, but because they keep a straight face, they have a reputation as serious football men. I couldn't do that but maybe if I engaged the brain before speaking a few times, I wouldn't have so many rows.'
 
TBH I cannot believe Redknapp is being talked about in the same breath as double European Cup and league championship winning Clough. The fact that Redknapp was being talked about as England manager shows how poor England
have been in producing coaches in recent years. The situation with him and clough have few parallels, except they were both huge attention seekers and have dubious links to agent bungs. BTW all those talking up Clough as the England Manager have a rather romanticized view of the man. In reality whilst undoubtedly a brilliant manager, he was also an alcoholic and had a difficult, uncompromising personality that often alienated those closest to him, remember his fall outs with the chairman at Derby County, players at Leeds, and eventually Peter Taylor. People also forget that Bobby Robson was a great manager in his own right both before and after England.

Why not? We're not discussing ability here, but reasons as to why certain managers are overlooked for reasons other than ability.

Edit : Robson was a GOOD manager before and after England. But for England he was dreadful.
 
Last edited:
No one is saying he is anywhere near Clough in terms of managerial ability, but the two were both the logical choice in footballing terms to be the next England manager and both were wrongly ignored.

Robson was a great manager in his own right, but Clough was better and there's no doubt about it.
Not sure I agree with you Jurgen. Maybe Clough was head and shoulders above anyone at the time in footballing terms, but his personality made him a massive risk. Remember England had had their fingers burnt by the Don Revie fiasco. As for Redknapp I think it is arguable at best that he was a better choice than Hodgson, in fact if you look at their respective CV's Hodgson ****es all over Harry. Who knows what the criteria of the selectors were? I imagine it was building for an eventual future past the so called "golden generation." Perhaps Hodgson has a better record of building a long term team than Mr quick fix Redknapp.Harry is out of order to criticise them for selecting Hodgson like he was some kind of anointed one.
 
Last edited:
Why not? We're not discussing ability here, but reasons as to why certain managers are overlooked for reasons other than ability.

Because unlike clough who was a brilliant manager, imo Redknapp is/was not and certainly not head and shoulders above Hodgson.
 
So you are stating that Robson was a great manager, but that Clough was head and shoulders above him?

In 82, yes Robson had won the UEFA cup and FA cup with a very good Ipswich side, a great achievement, but then Clough had performed a minor miracle with Forest. Managers like Clough and Ferguson are in a league of their own imo.
 
Last edited:
In 82, yes Robson had won the UEFA cup and FA cup with a very good Ipswich side, a great achievement, but then Clough had performed a minor miracle with Forest.

I still think we are talking cross purposes. We aren't talking about ability, or even comparative ability between candidates, but personality types not having a chance of getting the top job even if they are potentially the best candidate.
 
Not sure I agree with you Jurgen. Maybe Clough was head and shoulders above anyone at the time in footballing terms, but his personality made him a massive risk. Remember England had had their fingers burnt by the Don Revie fiasco. As for Redknapp I think it is arguable at best that he was a better choice than Hodgson, in fact if you look at their respective CV's Hodgson ****es all over Harry. Who knows what the criteria of the selectors were? I imagine it was building for an eventual future past the so called "golden generation." Perhaps Hodgson has a better record of building a long term team than Mr quick fix Redknapp.Harry is out of order to criticise them for selecting Hodgson like he was some kind of anointed one.

Sorry mate, but we/the FA need to quit this way of thinking. Do we want successful sides at club/international level? I agree to an extent you can't have a loose cannon like Di Canio whose negatives outweigh his positives, but this is not the case for Redknapp and certainly wasn't for Clough. I would take a manager occasionally shooting his mouth off and upsetting some people in exchange for European Cups and league titles.

Jumpers said it best, the FA care far too much about their image rather than the England side's success. The bottom line is Clough would have given us a better chance of winning than Hodgson.

It's an intersting debate. Some (not all) football fans couldn't give a feck what players get up to on and off the pitch, but they expect managers to be upstanding, polite, graceful and politically correct elder statesmen.
 
Because unlike clough who was a brilliant manager, imo Redknapp is/was not and certainly not head and shoulders above Hodgson.



This, one trophy in over 30 years of being a a manager shows how " great " a manager his pals in the press built him up to be.
 
I still think we are talking cross purposes. We aren't talking about ability, or even comparative ability between candidates, but personality types not having a chance of getting the top job even if they are potentially the best candidate.

Sorry mate I'm not making my point very well. With Clough it was all about the personality imo, how could it have been about any thing else based on his achievements especially in 82. With Harry it is making a huge assumption that it was just his personality that cost him the job. Harry while he may have been *cough* slightly dodgy was in no way the same league as Clough when it came to being outspoken.
 
This, one trophy in over 30 years of being a a manager shows how " great " a manager his pals in the press built him up to be.

This argument is flawed.

England need an English manager. I hate it when foreign coaches are in charge of any country. Surely the whole point in international competition is that the entire set up is from that country?

Due to lack of opportunities in recent years, there are very few viable English candidates for the England job.

Finally because of the length of service that Fergie and Wenger have given to their clubs, coupled with the fact that other competitive clubs during this era have tended to go down the foreign route, has meant limited opportunities. For all the will in the world no manager is going to be challenging for the title with the likes of West Ham or Portsmouth, unless they suddenly get a sugar daddy.

Sadly for Redknapp he blew his chance at being competitive (I don't seriously believe we should have a shout at the title either to be honest) among the big boys when he got fired from us because he could do the best possible job anyone could do at QPR, and realistically they aren't going to get into the top six.

As Redknapp stated himself, the role of a manager is often greatly exaggerated. I have little doubt that if Redknapp was in charge of Emirates Marketing Project or Chelsea and they kept him in charge for at least 3 seasons he would win trophies and almost certainly the title also. Likewise if Mourinho (the best manager in the world in my opinion) took over Palace and wasn't allowed to bring in any new players, they'd get relegated.
 
Sorry mate I'm not making my point very well. With Clough it was all about the personality imo, how could it have been about any thing else based on his achievements especially in 82. With Harry it is making a huge assumption that it was just his personality that cost him the job. Harry while he may have been *cough* slightly dodgy was in no way the same league as Clough when it came to being outspoken.

Redknapp is far superior to Hodgson in my opinion. Hodgson has moved around a lot more, where Redknapp has managed to stick jobs out despite his clearly volatile personality. Redknapp had one shot at the big time in England, and that was with us and we are hardly a giant or a shoe in for title contention. He did very well for us results wise and almost certainly over achieved in his time at our club. Hodgson has had two cracks with competitive teams in the Premiership and both times he blew it.

This said, I am very disappointed that Hodgson has fallen for the same trap as everyone else and is playing Lampard/Gerrard in the middle. However I think Redknapp would have done exactly the same thing. What I am sure of is that any Redknapp team is infinitely more entertaining to watch than Hodgson's teams. Hodgson's teams are dull and always have been.
 
This argument is flawed.

England need an English manager. I hate it when foreign coaches are in charge of any country. Surely the whole point in international competition is that the entire set up is from that country?

Due to lack of opportunities in recent years, there are very few viable English candidates for the England job.

Finally because of the length of service that Fergie and Wenger have given to their clubs, coupled with the fact that other competitive clubs during this era have tended to go down the foreign route, has meant limited opportunities. For all the will in the world no manager is going to be challenging for the title with the likes of West Ham or Portsmouth, unless they suddenly get a sugar daddy.

Sadly for Redknapp he blew his chance at being competitive (I don't seriously believe we should have a shout at the title either to be honest) among the big boys when he got fired from us because he could do the best possible job anyone could do at QPR, and realistically they aren't going to get into the top six.

As Redknapp stated himself, the role of a manager is often greatly exaggerated. I have little doubt that if Redknapp was in charge of Emirates Marketing Project or Chelsea and they kept him in charge for at least 3 seasons he would win trophies and almost certainly the title also. Likewise if Mourinho (the best manager in the world in my opinion) took over Palace and wasn't allowed to bring in any new players, they'd get relegated.

No its not, the press USED to say he was a great manager, to me a great manager is someone who has more to show on his CV then one trophy and three relegations.
 
This argument is flawed.

England need an English manager. I hate it when foreign coaches are in charge of any country. Surely the whole point in international competition is that the entire set up is from that country?

Due to lack of opportunities in recent years, there are very few viable English candidates for the England job.

Finally because of the length of service that Fergie and Wenger have given to their clubs, coupled with the fact that other competitive clubs during this era have tended to go down the foreign route, has meant limited opportunities. For all the will in the world no manager is going to be challenging for the title with the likes of West Ham or Portsmouth, unless they suddenly get a sugar daddy.

Sadly for Redknapp he blew his chance at being competitive (I don't seriously believe we should have a shout at the title either to be honest) among the big boys when he got fired from us because he could do the best possible job anyone could do at QPR, and realistically they aren't going to get into the top six.

As Redknapp stated himself, the role of a manager is often greatly exaggerated. I have little doubt that if Redknapp was in charge of Emirates Marketing Project or Chelsea and they kept him in charge for at least 3 seasons he would win trophies and almost certainly the title also. Likewise if Mourinho (the best manager in the world in my opinion) took over Palace and wasn't allowed to bring in any new players, they'd get relegated.

I can't say I agree with that. Special managers make a huge difference. It goes without saying that Ferguson and Wenger's impacts at their respective clubs, hell even Martinez at Wigan and Laudrup at Swansea were/are huge. Plenty of managers have spent money over the years at clubs and still won nothing. In any case
 
Back