sack him

[HappySpur]

I'm not sure getting rid of Harry is the answer, but I do feel our lack of ambition, possibly at boardroom level, during the last two transfer windows has been a major factor.

Letting Cahill go to Chelski was, IMO, a bad mistake - even if he would have cost us 10m to 15m it would still have been worth it, IMO. At the moment we have a crumbling and decaying defense, which with Kings will he wont he play approach, is so unsettling.
Also I think the King situation is starting to take its toll. Don't get me wrong I love Ledders but just because he has served us so well in the past surely that shouldn't guarantee him a start each time he's fit.


rant over

But that's over simplifying the issue. Cahill chose Chelsea because they met his ridiculous wage demands. And he hasn't been that special for them. In fact, other than scoring goals, he's had a fairly poor start to his Chelsea career. So we take the fact that Levy runs the club with the future in mind, and use it as a bludgeon to shift blame from the coach to the boardroom. At the end of the day, do we want an average defender making more than our best players? I doubt this would be a good situation. Perhaps King has hit the end of his career, but we loaned out Caulker (needfully) and Bassong (who was excellent two years ago) and have padded our defense with old players. And why did we buy Khumalo? It seems there was an answer to our current problems at the back that doesn't involve mortgaging the future on an average player and doesn't include looking solely at old players. FFS, Harry looked at Campbell at one time. And wasn't there that German kid, Tasci, that would have been cheaper but we never made any move for? It's a complex issue and the blame lies with age (catching up to King), a nasty injury (to Dawson), a reliance on experience (despite the obvious injury issue), the fact that class centerhalves can cost more than strikers and treating Bassong like a 4 dollar whore.

 

[Kinger]

Is this thread a joke?

I think Harry has done a great job for us. It might be time for him to move on (to the England job), but we should not sack him. Not many managers would have brought in the three players Harry did last summer and without them we wouldn't be where we are now.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

Cahill chose Chelsea because they met his ridiculous wage demands.

Did they? I seem to remember there being a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on the deal specifically because Chelsea wouldn't pay him the sort of money he was demanding. I could be wrong but the way I remember that deal going through involved him climbing down on his wages.

 

[Misfit]

your response to my post does not make any sense at all.

What I mean is, that you're right of course. Long-term, to do this over a number of yr, decades even, we need larger revenues.

However right now, we're competing and competing bloody well, despite the smaller revenues. Our squad on matchdays can go up against anyone in this league. It isn't an excuse right now so not sure why it's even mentioned tbh. For the last 3 yrs we've had enough talent to qualify for the top 4, even with no strikers last season and crapping ourselves in the finall furlong, we finished 6 pts off 4th. But, the strikers were truly awful so that has to be taken into account - fair enough

Ultimately though, we could have another £70m a yr in revenues and it would be for almost nought unless the attitude of the club changes, in terms of the players and staff anyway.

Maybe Harry isn't the man for the job. In many ways, this has all come a bit too late for him and it's unfair to expect him effect this. Who knows what might have happened if Harry had got the gig when ENIC took over. If he does stay next season though then I hope he can address the attitude in the short term at least.

In short, maybe there should be more demanding that certain standards are met and no longer a hope. From those within the club anyway. If they aren't, will we ever meet those standards long-term? This all seems a bit too loosey goosey right now. Probably just as bad as the suggestion from some that we panic and fire Harry before the season is even over.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

At the end of the day, do we want an average defender making more than our best players?

For the record Gary Cahill made one particularly outstanding block/clearance off the line in the game at Stamford Bridge. That kind of average defending cost us 2 points on the day, (3 in terms of the gap on Chelsea). That kind of averaging defending could be the difference between 4th and 5th. In short, we should have signed him for exactly the reasons that we're now witnessing. Lack of options at the back.

 

[Misfit]

Did they? I seem to remember there being a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on the deal specifically because Chelsea wouldn't pay him the sort of money he was demanding. I could be wrong but the way I remember that deal going through involved him climbing down on his wages.

He probably did but he's on about 80K still. Faaaaaark that!

 

[seanwhite1961]

Up until a few weeks ago, it was almost impossible to turn on the radio without being subject to an unending barrage of Gooners raging against Wenger, seemingly exacerbated by that 10 point gap to third and Spurs supposedly playing "Arsenal-style" football(surely shome mishtake? When was it "1 nil to the Tottenham"?).

There does seem to have been a complete reversal between the 2 clubs. We had 6 straight wins Oct/Nov, Arsenal had 7 straight wins just recently. That raging seems to have abated somewhat. You're best to have a poor start and strong finish than the reverse.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

However right now, we're competing and competing bloody well, despite the smaller revenues. Our squad on matchdays can go up against anyone in this league. It isn't an excuse right now so not sure why it's even mentioned tbh. For the last 3 yrs we've had enough talent to qualify for the top 4, even with no strikers last season and crapping ourselves in the finall furlong, we finished 6 pts off 4th. But, the strikers were truly awful so that has to be taken into account - fair enough

This is the bit I don't agree with. Whilst we do have the players to go up against anyone in the league on the day, we don't have the finances to build a squad that can complete over the course of the season. If we admit that, (it's a fact so it would be better to agree), then I think there are, really, two options.

You could get numbers in and have a largely mediocre squad but with depth, meaning that the fact that you've not the quality is mitigated by the fact that like for like replacements through the season can be carried out with little dip in performance, (albeit that performance is likely to be mediocre). this works well enough for teams like stoke and everton in my view. it puts a self imposed cap on league placing but reduces the risk of poor performance leading to relegation.

Or you could pay top dollar, (wages), for a few very good players, backed up with solid first teamers, a few old timers and a few youngsters. The risk here is that one or two of your top players underperform or suffers injuries. This approach is a high risk high reward approach and I think this is the one we have taken. Liverpool tried a similar approach under Benitez. Good first XI, not a great deal of depth to the squad.

We have a few very solid midfielders that make up the depth of our squad. Up front and defensively we're over reliant on Adebayor and some old hands respectively. If you're going to blame Redknapp for not rotating enough, you need to realise that there is likely to be a subsequent drop in performance when you do rotate. So if you don't want that drop in performance, you play the first XI whenever possible. That's the trade off. And that is why, come the end of the season last year and this, we're struggling. In my view.

I see it as a natural consequence of where we are as a club at the moment. An extra £70-80m in revenue would allow us to build a squad more capable of competing over the course of a full season in the league. As long as this £70-80m affected us only and was not some kind of industry wide increase in revenue, (a new TV deal for example), meaning the bar had simply been raised.

 

[HappySpur]

For the record Gary Cahill made one particularly outstanding block/clearance off the line in the game at Stamford Bridge. That kind of average defending cost us 2 points on the day, (3 in terms of the gap on Chelsea). That kind of averaging defending could be the difference between 4th and 5th. In short, we should have signed him for exactly the reasons that we're now witnessing. Lack of options at the back.

Awesome. Let's make decisions about personnel based solely on scouting the games we play. By that logic, we should by the Chelsea goalposts which denied us twice and saved us once.

In that game, they had 5 Shots, 2 OT and 4 Blocked. We had 11 shots, 4 OT and 6 blocked. Seems our defense was much better.

We didn't concede a goal in that game, so judging by it alone, we need nobody.

 

[StartingPrice]

Up until a few weeks ago, it was almost impossible to turn on the radio without being subject to an unending barrage of Gooners raging against Wenger, seemingly exacerbated by that 10 point gap to third and Spurs supposedly playing "Arsenal-style" football(surely shome mishtake? When was it "1 nil to the Tottenham"?).

There does seem to have been a complete reversal between the 2 clubs. We had 6 straight wins Oct/Nov, Arsenal had 7 straight wins just recently. That raging seems to have abated somewhat. You're best to have a poor start and strong finish than the reverse.

As I said yesterday, the fact that we have imploded at exactly the same time in the season, but with a better, more mature and more experienced side, no CL football, and from a much better position in the league, is what really bothers me. It may be the limit of 'Arry's ability to take us as far as he did - in which case we should thank him for what he has done. What I don't want to see, if he doesn't get the Angrrrrrlund job, is for us to get into a good position for the third season running and then implode, because it really would suggest a causal link. If we had had a poor(er) start to the season and finished like a house on fire, even if we got exactly the same number of points as we will do anyway this season, I would not feel this disquiet.

The Goons have always played sheeeeeee-ite hoof-and-chase-it crap results first and last football, except for in the recent epoch, when they have copied us

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

Awesome. Let's make decisions about personnel based solely on scouting the games we play. By that logic, we should by the Chelsea goalposts which denied us twice and saved us once.

In that game, they had 5 Shots, 2 OT and 4 Blocked. We had 11 shots, 4 OT and 6 blocked. Seems our defense was much better.

We didn't concede a goal in that game, so judging by it alone, we need nobody.

Hmmm! You're not the brightest spark are you? No one is suggesting what you have posted at all. My guess is you have made an attempt to deflect from the obvious point I was making in order to draw attention away from your own idiotic ramblings. It hasn't worked. Either that or you have spectacularly missed the point.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

What I don't want to see, if he doesn't get the Angrrrrrlund job, is for us to get into a good position for the third season running and then implode, because it really would suggest a causal link.

There is a 'causal link' or 'reason'. Money. We haven't got enough of it to pay our players the amount it takes to get 4th or better in the league on a regular basis.

 

[Misfit]

SNAFU: Are you saying Chamack (however the hell you spell it) or that Korean bloke they signed from Monaco are better striking options for assnal than Saha or Defoe are for us? How's about the random defenders they've had to play at the cesspit all season through injury. Their midfield depth? Tell me you're joking.

Nah, easy excuse to make. Do we have the strongest squad? No. Do we have squad of comparable strength to assnal and chelsea. Yes we do (it's best to agree with this etc). Huddlestone has been out all season, shame, and Sandro appears to made from sugar-glass and that is unfortunate. But even without those two adding depth, are Ramsey or Diaby really hugely more talented than the likes of Kranky or Pienaar was when he was here (who Harry seemed at great pains to never play btw)?

There are reasons why one team has overhauled our big lead over them and and why t'other is breathing down our necks right now but to just say it's because we're not strong enough and it's the money holding us back is well, lazy and making excuses really.

I guess it comes down to this. If we finish outside the top 4, it's understandable and actually excusable. Or it isn't. I go with option 2 myself. I sense that you disagree.

About rotation - rotating doesn't mean you have to play the entire second XI FFS. In fact, who does that, regularly anyway? Tell me, I'd like to know if any manager does that outside of youngster teams in the cups. Apart from Harry that is?

 

[StartingPrice]

There is a 'causal link' or 'reason'. Money. We haven't got enough of it to pay our players the amount it takes to get 4th or better in the league on a regular basis.

Not the inference you are drawing.
The inference was that if we implode for a third season running, at the same stage in the season, and having got ourselves into a good position, it is likely to be down to limitations in Rednapp's management abilities.
I really don't see what that has to do to finances.
Nor do I see a causal connection between the amount of money we pay and the fact that teams who pay far less than us seem far fitter at this stage in the season, having played the same number of games.
I would think that the lack of fitness conditioning has more to do with it, anyway.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

There are reasons why one team has overhauled our big lead over them and and why t'other is breathing down our necks right now but to just say it's because we're not strong enough and it's the money holding us back is well, lazy and making excuses really.

I guess it comes down to this. If we finish outside the top 4, it's understandable and actually excusable. Or it isn't. I go with option 2 myself. I sense that you disagree.

About rotation - rotating doesn't mean you have to play the entire second XI FFS. In fact, who does that, regularly anyway? Tell me, I'd like to know if any manager does that outside of youngster teams in the cups. Apart from Harry that is?

I do disagree. And have never stated that we should change all XI players from game to game. It's bizarre that you have somehow decided that's something I have said. I can throw in a FFS if it clarifies for you just how mental you're being in trying to claim I have.

Lack of finances isn't an excuse, it's a reason. Newcastle are over performing hugely this season, in the same way that we did 2 seasons ago. No doubt their fans will change their expectations on the back of it and get umpty when Pardew can't replicate next season. The manager will be the same, the players will largely be the same, the finances will more or less be the same so what will have changed? The same thing that has changed at Spurs. Fans expectations.

That is the reality.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

Not the inference you are drawing.
The inference was that if we implode for a third season running, at the same stage in the season, and having got ourselves into a good position, it is likely to be down to limitations in Rednapp's management abilities.
I really don't see what that has to do to finances.
Nor do I see a causal connection between the amount of money we pay and the fact that teams who pay far less than us seem far fitter at this stage in the season, having played the same number of games.
I would think that the lack of fitness conditioning has more to do with it, anyway.

Have they though? Played the same number of minutes? You mgiht be right of course, but I don't think you've done the homework on it. I haven't so I can't comment on that. I would suggest though that we don't rotate as much as some would like us to purely because there is a lack of real depth to the squad in some positions. Left back, right back, left midfield, right midfield and up front for example. We can mix and match a bit in the centre of the park and a centre back, but I'd say half of the first XI pick themselves and we would pretty much all of us pick them every game if we were picking the team.

Maybe that's done to Redknapp not balancing the squad properly. Maybe. Maybe it's down to the route we've taken in building that squad. That's my view anyway.

 

[StartingPrice]

Have they though? Played the same number of minutes? You mgiht be right of course, but I don't think you've done the homework on it. I haven't so I can't comment on that. I would suggest though that we don't rotate as much as some would like us to purely because there is a lack of real depth to the squad in some positions. Left back, right back, left midfield, right midfield and up front for example. We can mix and match a bit in the centre of the park and a centre back, but I'd say half of the first XI pick themselves and we would pretty much all of us pick them every game if we were picking the team.

Maybe that's done to Redknapp not balancing the squad properly. Maybe. Maybe it's down to the route we've taken in building that squad. That's my view anyway.

You misunderstood me - I meant the teams have played approximately the same number of games as us, not individual players.
How Redknapp used them is down to him.

There is an approximate equivalence between the amount spent on players and ability of those players, I just don't see that as necessarily having a big impact on our fitness as a team at this stage in the season. Like I said, there are plenty of teams who have played approximately the same number of games as us, who are considerably below us in the table, and who do not appear to be so physically and mentally tired as our lot.

 

[teddyboy]

But that's over simplifying the issue. Cahill chose Chelsea because they met his ridiculous wage demands. And he hasn't been that special for them. In fact, other than scoring goals, he's had a fairly poor start to his Chelsea career. So we take the fact that Levy runs the club with the future in mind, and use it as a bludgeon to shift blame from the coach to the boardroom. At the end of the day, do we want an average defender making more than our best players? I doubt this would be a good situation. Perhaps King has hit the end of his career, but we loaned out Caulker (needfully) and Bassong (who was excellent two years ago) and have padded our defense with old players. And why did we buy Khumalo? It seems there was an answer to our current problems at the back that doesn't involve mortgaging the future on an average player and doesn't include looking solely at old players. FFS, Harry looked at Campbell at one time. And wasn't there that German kid, Tasci, that would have been cheaper but we never made any move for? It's a complex issue and the blame lies with age (catching up to King), a nasty injury (to Dawson), a reliance on experience (despite the obvious injury issue), the fact that class centerhalves can cost more than strikers and treating Bassong like a 4 dollar whore.

I don't agree with your view on the Cahill thing but that to oneside are you serious about Bassong..!?!?!

He is only ever good enough to be cover, at best...

 

[Mr Pink]

I don't agree with your view on the Cahill thing but that to oneside are you serious about Bassong..!?!?!

He is only ever good enough to be cover, at best...

He looked good enough beside Dawson the season we finished fourth though....there were plenty of examples of that, a regular run of games and he was actually pretty decent.

 

[the watson]

Not to join the 'Capello quitting put our season into turmoil' bandwagon, (you cant make excuses for anyone after such a reversal of form) but it does anger me how badly he reacted to the media attention. Would it have been that hard for him to dismiss the talks until summer? I guess it must be naive of me to speculate as to why Harry Redknapp of all people would refuse to comment when there's a microphone shoved in front of him.