Arry the tactician

[simyid]

Joey55 and the eager clappers who adored his post (and who of course do not include themselves in his "99% of SC members" who "know f*** all about football/tactics") should really just admit that they will never accept any criticism of the lovable manager they perceive as "saviour".

And because they perceive him as such and they really like having a "good old British style, approachable" manager and it comforts them so much, they will also use all kinds of arguments and desperate retorts to try and prove that their beloved new idol does not have any tactical flaws or ever makes tactical / selectional mistakes - even after a run of games when we were the better team for most of the match (Villa twice, severely depleted Everton, Stoke, Wolves, Hull) and yet got just 4 points out of 18.

Basically, you had a hump after the Spaniard with high reputation abroad was asked to replace another lovable, approachable manager - and never supported "that Spanish" Wandery/Random/whatever other childish name you could think of, and whom you couldn't always read as easily as your Jols or Redknapps.

That's basically the crux of the debate, really. You are blindly pro-Redknapps; others are not and as such are more open-minded about their merits and flaws.

But to say things like "supporters don't know anywhere as much as the manager and should therefore just shut up and suck up" is frankly, just not very accurate.

I would argue that the dedicated supporters, who have been following and watching their club for many long years may often see certain aspects and problems before it seemingly becomes apparent to a coach who has been with a club for one or two years and would not have followed this particular club as avidly as the supporters.
It seems a bit strange how long it would take some managers to reach the same conclusion as many or even most dedicated supporters have done quite a while ago - think of Doherty under Hoddle; Stalteri, untouchability of Jenas, freezing out Davids and Mendes under Jol; Keane's automatic starting place, Bentley's 23 consecutive games before finally being dropped, and now possibly finally the beginning of the end for guaranteed place for Crouchy under Harry.

Remember, for coaches/managers etc this is just another job (however lovable this manager may be to many people). For supporters it is a huge part of their life - and many are far from the obnoxious fools that Joey camp are trying to pcture them as, just because those supporters dare to question some of the decisions of their beloved manager.

if both those things were true then defoe would not have got 20 goals this season would he?
on a seperate point i don't see the point in being so bitter about the whole thing. so people love harry who could blame them, good guy, great manager why do u have point out his flaws, no manager is perfect i mean wenger's persistent starting of player of the claibre of denilson, song, almunia, eduardo players who would struggle to get into alot of teams. hie stubborness in the tranfer market and his failure to rise to the big occasion and also being the worst loser in football. SAF constant crticism of the media, contiual faith in wes brown and owen and oshea. i mean all mangers have flaws who cares it's just the best managers have less

 

[StartingPrice]

if both those things were true then defoe would not have got 20 goals this season would he?
on a seperate point i don't see the point in being so bitter about the whole thing. so people love harry who could blame them, good guy, great manager why do u have point out his flaws, no manager is perfect i mean wenger's persistent starting of player of the claibre of denilson, song, almunia, eduardo players who would struggle to get into alot of teams. hie stubborness in the tranfer market and his failure to rise to the big occasion and also being the worst loser in football. SAF constant crticism of the media, contiual faith in wes brown and owen and oshea. i mean all mangers have flaws who cares it's just the best managers have less

The tax man don't:wink: I personally have heard Kevin Costner vow to bring him down for summit, even if it's just tax evasion. Or was that Al Capone? Though way 'lovable rogue' Al Capone would want to bring 'lovable rogue' 'Arry down (and what his connection to HM Customs is I can only guessmg.

I blame Gordon Brown:grin:

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

Tactical threads...never a good idea.

 

[spurs_viola]

if both those things were true then defoe would not have got 20 goals this season would he?

on a seperate point i don't see the point in being so bitter about the whole thing. so people love harry who could blame them, good guy, great manager why do u have point out his flaws, no manager is perfect i mean wenger's persistent starting of player of the claibre of denilson, song, almunia, eduardo players who would struggle to get into alot of teams. hie stubborness in the tranfer market and his failure to rise to the big occasion and also being the worst loser in football. SAF constant crticism of the media, contiual faith in wes brown and owen and oshea. i mean all mangers have flaws who cares it's just the best managers have less

Defoe's place was not under threat and he would always be the 1st choice striker (quite rightly at the moment). The point was about the 2nd striker / partner for Defoe in attack.

On another point, it is interesting how a response like mine can bring the protestations against the "bitterness" - while the post which said that 99 % of SC members know fuck all about football for daring to question the current team manager draws applause and "safety in comfort" approval.
And the usual, pathetically predictable attempt at a pompous put-down from SS57 when he has nothing constructive to say.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Tactical threads...never a good idea.

Ain't it the truth.

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

Ain't it the truth.

Sure is. I would never be caught dead in a tactical discussion.

Personally I think Harry is doing a great job anyway, not like we are creating the chances to score. Tactics that create 20 shots on goal suggest that the tactics aren't really the issue.

 

[SpurSince57]

Defoe's place was not under threat and he would always be the 1st choice striker (quite rightly at the moment). The point was about the 2nd striker / partner for Defoe in attack.

On another point, it is interesting how a response like mine can bring the protestations against the "bitterness" - while the post which said that 99 % of SC members know fuck all about football for daring to question the current team manager draws applause and "safety in comfort" approval.
And the usual, pathetically predictable attempt at a pompous put-down from SS57 when he has nothing constructive to say.

Oooh! Alliteration! Aren't you a clever little sausage!

Not nearly clever enough, mind, to use a dictionary to look up 'pompous', but we can't have everything, can we?

 

[Gilzeanking]

the post which said that 99 % of SC members know fuck all about football for daring to question the current team manager draws applause and "safety in comfort" approval.
.

Its hilarious...Joey says 'You're all idiots'....the general SC response being 'Nail On The Head Joey'...

..One of the best laffs I've had on here in years :rofl:

While Joey often has interesting arguments ,there is no evidence whatsoever that he is right any more than others..

 

[spurs_viola]

Oooh! Alliteration! Aren't you a clever little sausage!

Not nearly clever enough, mind, to use a dictionary to look up 'pompous', but we can't have everything, can we?

:roll:...

 

[donny1013]

3 interesting stats from F365:

Tottenham have lost only once in their last 12 games in all competitions.

They have kept seven clean sheets in their last nine Premier League games.

Harry Redknapp has only made three substitutions in Tottenham's last four games.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

3 interesting stats from F365:

Tottenham have lost only once in their last 12 games in all competitions.

They have kept seven clean sheets in their last nine Premier League games.

Harry Redknapp has only made three substitutions in Tottenham's last four games.

Here's another stat, we have won 4 of our last 12 league games.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Very impassioned, vaguely comprehensible, but who knows what the fuck it has to do with the question posed in the opening post? Who knows what the fuck it has to do with anything very much?

Who knows what the fuck a bloke who thought that Mido was better than Kanoute is doing ridiculing anyone on a football forum.

 

[mike_l]

Was gonna reply to something but I've lost the will, why is this thread still going round in circles, and small ones at that?

Some think Redknapp should have made changes, some think he was right not to, I think that's as far as this discussion is gonna get.

By God I hope we win the next game otherwise it's going to be unbearable on here.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

After reading through this thread I'm still waiting to read some detailed, valid and rational reasons as to what exactly Redknapp should have done differently. What exactly does he change? Who does he bring on and take off? How will this affect our formation and shape? What about the Villa threat on the break? What was our best way to score a goal?

Steve, Joey isn't right, as his theory assumes that someone who is educated, intelligent (in a general and footballing way) and who has played and watched football at various levels (UK, European & world) for many years is somehow less qualified to on occasion make a better tactical judgement than someone who wasn't particularly well educated (your average footballer), isn't particularly intelligent (your average footballer turned manager) who has probably watched football only slightly more than you have.

We are not talking coaching per se. Something which many managers don't have a great deal to do with anyway these days. We are talking here about tactics. Tactics isn't just substitutions, it's the utilisation of personnel to achieve the best outcome.

But in answer to your question I would have taken off the very ineffectual Defoe and the tiring (but who played well) Crouch and replaced them with Gudjohnsen and Kranjcar. I would have pushed Modric up to play with Gudjohnsen and put Kranjcar out on the left.

Villa were soaking up our ariel bombardment and our CM's were always mindful of not being caught on the break (and both rarely get into the oppositions box anyway), so what we needed to do instead of the predictable pattern that was emerging of us either trying to hit Crouch or getting as far as the 18 yard box and shooting was to carve open a proper chance where a defender couldn't fling himself in the way.

The substitution and use of, I am suggesting, wouldn't have changed our overall formation or our ability to contain Villa's break threat. It would have put two more intelligent thinkers and users of the ball up front that (along with Kranjcar) may have interacted better and more intelligently to break down a stubborn Villa defence.


And as my last pice of evidence against Joey's theory I call as a witness Dave Bassett.

 

[StartingPrice]

Steve, Joey isn't right, as his theory assumes that someone who is educated, intelligent (in a general and footballing way) and who has played and watched football at various levels (UK, European & world) for many years is somehow less qualified to on occasion make a better tactical judgement than someone who wasn't particularly well educated (your average footballer), isn't particularly intelligent (your average footballer turned manager) who has probably watched football only slightly more than you have.

We are not talking coaching per se. Something which many managers don't have a great deal to do with anyway these days. We are talking here about tactics. Tactics isn't just substitutions, it's the utilisation of personnel to achieve the best outcome.

But in answer to your question I would have taken off the very ineffectual Defoe and the tiring (but who played well) Crouch and 1 replaced them with Gudjohnsen and Kranjcar. I would have pushed Modric up to play with Gudjohnsen and put Kranjcar out on the left.

Villa were soaking up our ariel bombardment and our CM's were always mindful of not being caught on the break (and both rarely get into the oppositions box anyway), so what we needed to do instead of the predictable pattern that was emerging of us either trying to hit Crouch or getting as far as the 18 yard box and shooting was to carve open a proper chance where a defender couldn't fling himself in the way.

The substitution and use of, I am suggesting, wouldn't have changed our overall formation or our ability to contain Villa's break threat. It would have put two more intelligent thinkers and users of the ball up front that (along with Kranjcar) may have interacted better and more intelligently to break down a stubborn Villa defence.


And as my last pice of evidence against Joey's theory 2 I call as a witness Dave Bassett.

1 - As I said above, BC, I think if the match had fallen a week later Guddy may well have come on, as this is surely the type of match he was brought in for - which, of course, does beg the question "if he wasn't fit why was he on the subs bench?"

2 - Mythological creatures, such as Dave 'Arry' Bassett, have no place in the realm of reality:wink:

 

[mil1lion]

Wasn't Gudjohnsen getting ready to come on against Villa? The commentator said he was. It seems like Harry was going to bring him on but decided against it because we were on top.

The thing is, if we'd have thrown more caution to the wind against Hull, Stoke, Wolves and Villa at home, i'm confident we would have come out with more than 1 point. Sure we might have still lost 1 or 2, but most likely would have got at least 1 draw and 1 win. Obviously its easier said with hindsight, but i do think when you have a subs bench with quality attacking players, and you're struggling for a goal, its well worth putting them attacking players on. We often talk about how good our bench is, but we're not using it enough imo.

 

[ealingspur]

and also, how unfit could he really be to not be able to play 15 minutes?!

 

[StartingPrice]

Wasn't Gudjohnsen getting ready to come on against Villa? The commentator said he was. It seems like Harry was going to bring him on but decided against it because we were on top.

The thing is, if we'd have thrown more caution to the wind against Hull, Stoke, Wolves and Villa at home, i'm confident we would have come out with more than 1 point. Sure we might have still lost 1 or 2, but most likely would have got at least 1 draw and 1 win. Obviously its easier said with hindsight, but i do think when you have a subs bench with quality attacking players, and you're struggling for a goal, its well worth putting them attacking players on. We often talk about how good our bench is, but we're not using it enough imo.

I think you are right - can't remember if he actually got stripped off, or if the commentator just 'thought' it would happen, though.

 

[Stoof]

Who knows what the fuck a bloke who thought that Mido was better than Kanoute is doing ridiculing anyone on a football forum.

Woah woah woah, let's not open up cans of worms here, BC. The camp was pretty split on that one.

Here's another stat, we have won 4 of our last 12 league games.

But another equally valid stat, BC, is that you have won precisely 0 of your last 4,521 games as manager of Spurs.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

But hypothetically my spurs managerial record reads played 4521, won 4520, drawn 1.

The drawn game was the one we were 7-0 down to Liverpool with a few minutes remaining. I ran out of time.