Arry the tactician

[southlondonyiddo]

Dont get me wrong, he's done a good job at Spurs (no better than BMJ) but clearly he is tactically lacking

Great motivator but at the very top level you have to make decisions that change games, if need be

How can he not make any substitutions yesterday? We're supposed to have this excellent squad and a bench full of quality but Harry doesn't change a thing in the persuit of a valuable 3 points

All this struggling and striving to get that CL qualifying spot and probably for what, getting shown up as a 1 trick pony in Europe!!

Harry's venture into Europe with Pompey was comical and I'm doubting If our adventures in Europe with Harry will be any better

 

[rich75]

He didn't make a change because the team were pressing and playing well together.
The bench , possibly Krankcjar aside, didn't offer any guaranteed game changing moment.

 

[Krafty]

There was some muppet shouting for about 30 minutes 'Harry make a change' but I'm with Harry on this one.

Crouch was doing very well in the air, Modric was effective and Bentley was getting plenty of the ball and offering width on the right.

Bring on Gudjohnsen, you lose the aerial threat of Crouch and bring in a better technique, but in a very crowded part of the pitch.

Kranjcar would have brought some fresh legs, but I dont think he would bring something extra (that say bringing on Lennon would do). The team was doing well, and a sub could easily take the sting and pace out of the game.

If you wanted to do something drastic, like bringing on a striker for a mdifielder or centre back, there is every chance it would have backfired and then you would still be on at harry. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Quite simply, like a lot (too many you could say) of games we needed an early goal and we would have romped home. Its why we arent quite top quality, but we will get there

 

[sunnydelight786]

That's what marks out "great" managers from "good" ones, the decisions they make. How many times have you seen SAF, Wenger and Mourniho (when he was managing Chelsea) go for it. Countless times I have seen them throw a extra attacker on or change the formation/team around. More often than not they get rewarded for being brave. We moan about them being lucky getting late goals, when infact it's got nothing to do with luck. It's the manager being brave, fortune favours the brave.....

 

[Mornstar]

agreed, fortune favours the brave

 

[sunnydelight786]

agreed, fortune favours the boobs...i mean brave

Arf....:grin:

 

[nedley]

That's what marks out "great" managers from "good" ones, the decisions they make. How many times have you seen SAF, Wenger and Mourniho (when he was managing Chelsea) go for it. Countless times I have seen them throw a extra attacker on or change the formation/team around. More often than not they get rewarded for being brave. We moan about them being lucky getting late goals, when infact it's got nothing to do with luck. It's the manager being brave, fortune favours the brave.....

Agreed. The game was crying out for a supersub and non of our starting 11 were going to score in a brothel with a £10 note wrapped around their knob. My intuition was that a sub would have scored the winner but im not a PL manager. But as you said, fortune favours the brave.

 

[dontcallme]

We were playing well yesterdayand everyone was playing well, no need to make a change. Villa were looking quite good on the break so sending in an extra forward wouldn't have been a smart move.

Harry's doing a great job lets not make up inadequacies which aren't there.

 

[TheWaddler]

It's all very well digging Harry out for his tactics, but no alternative tactical suggestions are offered other than a vague "bring on a sub". Hardly revolutionary that idea is it, and that is with the benefit of hindsight.

We were knocking on the door all game, just couldn't quite get over the line. Harry got his tactics spot on IMO.

 

[StartingPrice]

He didn't make a change because the team were pressing and playing well together.
The bench , possibly Krankcjar aside, didn't offer any guaranteed game changing moment.

I would agree with ths - though it was a bit frustrating; and I suspect that if it had been next week Guddy would have come on (or, Pav. would be fit and get a gamemg.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

It's all very well digging Harry out for his tactics, but no alternative tactical suggestions are offered other than a vague "bring on a sub". Hardly revolutionary that idea is it, and that is with the benefit of hindsight.

We were knocking on the door all game, just couldn't quite get over the line. Harry got his tactics spot on IMO.

Spot on. I suffered the same fate as Krafty unfortunately, except the muppet to my right moved on as far as "Make a fucking sub 'Arry you ****!"

The rest of our team is very good, apart from our strikers at the moment. They are both 'flat-track bullies' and I think this will be one of the reasons we don't get 4th, having said that we have no option as Pav isn't good enough and Gudjohnsen is not fit and hasn't played at Prem level for a while.

 

[mike_l]

I love the fact that everyone is blaming us not winning on Harry not making a change. Bringing on an attacking player for another attacking player probably wouldn't have changed a thing, Villa were too focussed in their defending.

Bringing on an attacking player for a defender or dm could just have easily lead to Villa getting one on the break and nicking it as it could have gotten us a winner.

Fortune may favour the brave but if we had lost to Villa it would have been disasterous for us.

 

[StartingPrice]

I love the fact that everyone is blaming us not winning on Harry not making a change. Bringing on an attacking player for another attacking player probably wouldn't have changed a thing, Villa were too focussed in their defending.

Bringing on an attacking player for a defender or dm could just have easily lead to Villa getting one on the break and nicking it as it could have gotten us a winner.

Fortune may favour the brave but if we had lost to Villa it would have been disasterous for us.

I think, in truth, we need to be congratulating Villa (who area very good team, especially away from home), rather than blaming anyone. Would have been different if we had got one, and we really should have had a pen.

 

[thewolfman]

I think the problem is that we dont have a plan B. Defoe and Crouch are a good front two but Crouch is not prolific in front of goal so his job becomes to supply Defoe. I dont think it's a coincidence that we struggle if Defoe isnt playing well because he is our only serious goal threat and in truth, Defoe has been a shadow of the player he was from August to November, in the last month or so.
We should be better at set pieces, even though in Bale and Bentley we have brought in 2 great dead ball players, but we struggle because it seems years of mediocre crossing and corners have caused our team to forget our to attack a good free kick/corner. With King/Dawson/Crouch/Huddlestone all attacking the 6 yard box, we should be a goal threat every time.
As for subs, we didnt really have anyone who could have made a difference because subs would have been like for like unless Hudd/Wilson came off for an attacking player and I'm sure Harry was worried by the fact that Villa would have then kept a five man midfield and left ourselves open for a pacey counter attack.
But for all of this, we really need to be positive. Given we seriously stared relegation in the face last season (2 points/8 games I think) We dont have much to moan about. True we dropped points where we shouldnt have but we also have won games we didnt deserve and will do again this season I'm sure. As a team, we are a work in progress. CL qualification was a big ask for this season yet it is still within our grasp. The important thing is we are heading in the right direction with a young squad who will only get better. Sure there are still issues to iron out but they take time and I'm sure than Harry is aware of them. He has only been in charge for just over a year, look how far we have progressed.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I must admit, I do sometimes wonder if Harry and I are watching the same display, and I do wish he were both more decisive and brave with his changes, but I think tactically lacking is the wrong term. Tactics isn't just a 'during the game' thing, it's a 'getting the team right and setting them up well' thing as well. Ultimately, we are playing well, we are dominating games and we are creating chances while being reasonable at the back. Tactics are surely at least partly to thank for these occurances.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

I love the fact that everyone is blaming us not winning on Harry not making a change. Bringing on an attacking player for another attacking player probably wouldn't have changed a thing, Villa were too focussed in their defending.

Bringing on an attacking player for a defender or dm could just have easily lead to Villa getting one on the break and nicking it as it could have gotten us a winner.

Fortune may favour the brave but if we had lost to Villa it would have been disasterous for us.

There HAS to be a scapegoat though mike......otherwise people's lives become empty if they cant say to someone on Monday at work when having the football discussion.."yeah we didn't win cos Keano was shit".

Yesterday, Crouch played well so it cant be him, Keane is at Celtic (although I still blame him a bit), and Jenas didn't get on the pitch, so it must be the fault of the tactically inept manager, whose team created 28 goalscoring opportunities during the 90 minutes.....yeah it must be his fault.

What people fail to realise when comparing managers and how they apparently make game changing decisions has a lot to do with the players that they have at their disposal. The only options we had yesterday were a half fit Gudjohnsen, and Niko, who although in decent form could only have really replaced Bentley or Luka, but it would have been a lot to ask of him to come on and adapt to the pace of the game in the dying stages.

 

[danielneeds]

That's what marks out "great" managers from "good" ones, the decisions they make. How many times have you seen SAF, Wenger and Mourniho (when he was managing Chelsea) go for it. Countless times I have seen them throw a extra attacker on or change the formation/team around. More often than not they get rewarded for being brave. We moan about them being lucky getting late goals, when infact it's got nothing to do with luck. It's the manager being brave, fortune favours the brave.....

That is rubbish...Mourinho the "great tactician" at Chelsea had a favourite game changing gambit of bringing on Robert Huth and sticking him upfront to lump balls at, it worked a couple of times, more often than not it didn't. Quite simply the teams you are talking about are usually better than their opposition and have the games won by the time it comes to subs. On the rare ocassions that a sub made the difference it is sometimes luck, sometimes a manager's instinct.

Redknapp brought on Pav who scored with his first touch at Leeds, was that genius or luck...?

 

[Spurs_Bear]

That is rubbish...Mourinho the "great tactician" at Chelsea had a favourite game changing gambit of bringing on Robert Huth and sticking him upfront to lump balls at, it worked a couple of times, more often than not it didn't. Quite simply the teams you are talking about are usually better than their opposition and have the games won by the time it comes to subs. On the rare ocassions that a sub made the difference it is sometimes luck, sometimes a manager's instinct.

Redknapp brought on Pav who scored with his first touch at Leeds, was that genius or luck...?

If Ramos had done it, it would have been genius, remember when he used to sub King about 60 mins in and bring on another striker (usually when we were losing) and everyone claimed a tactical genius. The same who then decided the best way to beat Redknapp's Pompey was to play Gilberto as an advanced LM?

It was complete luck with 'Arry though.

 

[southlondonyiddo]

When you play the same team for the entire 90mins and drop 2 points at home in persuit of a 4th spot people will ask questions as to why you did not freshen things up and make changes

If Keane had been on the bench Harry would have brought him on after about 65/70 mins!!!

Harry lets him go out on loan which is meant to make us stronger but in doing so meant we made no changes to gain the extra 2 points

Something doesn't make sense

............and If you think he wouldn't have brought on Keane, had he been on the bench, your kidding yourself

Harry could have bought on Kran/Eider or JJ or even Kaboul for all those corners we were winning.....but nothing:shrug:


All very well saying we played well, Yes we did but we dropped 2 points and didn't try something slightly different to get them

 

[dontcallme]

When you play the same team for the entire 90mins and drop 2 points at home in persuit of a 4th spot people will ask questions as to why you did not freshen things up and make changes

If Keane had been on the bench Harry would have brought him on after about 65/70 mins!!!

Harry lets him go out on loan which is meant to make us stronger but in doing so meant we made no changes to gain the extra 2 points

Something doesn't make sense

............and If you think he wouldn't have brought on Keane, had he been on the bench, your kidding yourself

Harry could have bought on Kran/Eider or JJ or even Kaboul for all those corners we were winning.....but nothing:shrug:


All very well saying we played well, Yes we did but we dropped 2 points and didn't try something slightly different to get them

That'e becasue you have no idea what would have happened. We were playing very well and creating chances. Everything was going well and we looked good to get 3 points. If we own everyone would have been happy with Harry not making changes.

If he bought an extra striker and we got caught on the break and lost we'd be calling him an idiot for changing something that was working. It's very easy to judge with hindsight but stupid to believe we would definitely have done better if we changed the team.

Harry got it right yesterday.