This 'next level' that Harry can't take us to....

[StartingPrice]

That is just your perception of the post.

:roll:
No. It's what you said.
And I've explained why several times in several ways.

 

[Mullers]

:roll:
No. It's what you said.
And I've explained why several times in several ways.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

[StartingPrice]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Tell yourself that if you want.

I've told you how it is several times, and you have consistently not tried to address the posts I have made. You have looked for one thing to pull out so you can challenge the post. That is didacticism at it's most petty IMHO.

If you want to class that as disagreeing go ahead, I'm done :hello:

 

[Mullers]

Tell yourself that if you want.

I've told you how it is several times, and you have consistently not tried to address the posts I have made. You have looked for one thing to pull out so you can challenge the post. That is didacticism at it's most petty IMHO.

If you want to class that as disagreeing go ahead, I'm done :hello:

I've honestly tried to understand what you are going on about but I honestly don't see what you see, but if you want to continue the semantics for another 20 pages, go for it.

 

[StartingPrice]

I've honestly tried to understand what you are going on about but I honestly don't see what you see, but if you want to continue the semantics for another 20 pages, go for it.

Can't be bothered.

I have explained so many using capitalisation that what myself (and the others who think like me) is based on NOW and not in any way contingent on the future, and so not open to revision, and that by saying people who think like this will think something different in the future (IF), you are actually saying they either don't or can't really believe what they are saying. You haven't tried to engage that at all, instead you have used the Old Gibbo technique of trying to focus on one element that can distract attention and change focus.

I'm bored.

If you actually do want to understand what I've said, just go back and read the posts you didn't read properly in the first place.

 

[Mullers]

Can't be bothered.

I have explained so many using capitalisation that what myself (and the others who think like me) is based on NOW and not in any way contingent on the future, and so not open to revision, and that by saying people who think like this will think something different in the future (IF), you are actually saying they either don't or can't really believe what they are saying. You haven't tried to engage that at all, instead you have used the Old Gibbo technique of trying to focus on one element that can distract attention and change focus.
[ /QUOTE]
I didn't say that though, you did.

 

[StartingPrice]

Can't be bothered.

I have explained so many using capitalisation that what myself (and the others who think like me) is based on NOW and not in any way contingent on the future, and so not open to revision, and that by saying people who think like this will think something different in the future (IF), you are actually saying they either don't or can't really believe what they are saying. You haven't tried to engage that at all, instead you have used the Old Gibbo technique of trying to focus on one element that can distract attention and change focus.
[ /QUOTE]
I didn't say that though, you did.

:roll:
You didn't say it it is inherent in your sentence.

Look, I have explained this to you about five times now.
If quite a few people say NOW, based on our position NOW, and in no way contingent upon EVENTS IN THE FUTURE that we have taken a step up, and you claim that not very many people will be saying that if we finish fifth, then, in effect, what you are saying is there will be a significant reduction in the number of people saying this (which is STUPID andway, as no-one is going to say we are challenging for the title at Christmas if it is May, the season has finished and we came fifth). So, if they said we are title contenders NOW, based on where we are NOW, and not in any way contingent on EVENTS IN THE FUTURE, then, in order to detract that, (even though doing so does actually make sense^), they would, ineffect, be saying that when they claimed that we are title contenders NOW, based on where we are NOW, and not in any way contingent on EVENTS IN THE FUTURE, they didn't really mean that their statement wasn't contingent on EVENTS IN THE FUTURE.

So, either you are saying that the opinion itself is invalid, and no-one can claim to hold an opinion that we are title contenders NOW, based on where we are NOW, and not in any way contingent on EVENTS IN THE FUTURE. Or, you are claiming that when they hold that opinion, they are, in fact, insincere, as they will subsequently attempt to retract it based upon EVENTS IN THE FUTURE.

You can say that I am reading this into your statement as much as you want, but that is just sophistry. It is inherent in what you said, as I have explained to you. Now, unless, with reference to my explanation, you can show that it is not inherent to your statement at all, and therefore I am acting upon a false premiss, I'm done. Because you have now claimed more than once that I am just reading this into your statement, and I have patiently answered you each time, as I have done here...and if that is the best you can did/you are sticking to it, then you can toddle off and imagine you haven't been found out, which is rather sad, as you are doing it by the most tendentious, petty and childish of didactic means, rather than by way of a valid argument :hello:

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

Last night's tactics are evidence of why some of us aren't always entirely enamoured with Redknapp's management.

There's not being great at tactics (many managers aren't, including some good ones) then there's your own tactics actively damaging your chances. Redknapp repeatedly does this and doesn't seem to learn lessons no matter how painful.

His tactics last night were counter productive in the extreme and cost us.

Bollocks.

 

[Lilbaz]

Am I the only one who thinks tactics are overated by some on here? The most important thing is the style of play, Mourinho, Fergie and Wenger have their teams playing in a certain style that doesn't really change.
You may question substitutions but I think the majority of Harrys subs over the season have worked out well.

 

[Mullers]

:roll:
You didn't say it it is inherent in your sentence.

Look, I have explained this to you about five times now.
If quite a few people say NOW, based on our position NOW, and in no way contingent upon EVENTS IN THE FUTURE that we have taken a step up, and you claim that not very many people will be saying that if we finish fifth, then, in effect, what you are saying is there will be a significant reduction in the number of people saying this (which is STUPID andway, as no-one is going to say we are challenging for the title at Christmas if it is May, the season has finished and we came fifth). So, if they said we are title contenders NOW, based on where we are NOW, and not in any way contingent on EVENTS IN THE FUTURE, then, in order to detract that, (even though doing so does actually make sense^), they would, ineffect, be saying that when they claimed that we are title contenders NOW, based on where we are NOW, and not in any way contingent on EVENTS IN THE FUTURE, they didn't really mean that their statement wasn't contingent on EVENTS IN THE FUTURE.

So, either you are saying that the opinion itself is invalid, and no-one can claim to hold an opinion that we are title contenders NOW, based on where we are NOW, and not in any way contingent on EVENTS IN THE FUTURE. Or, you are claiming that when they hold that opinion, they are, in fact, insincere, as they will subsequently attempt to retract it based upon EVENTS IN THE FUTURE.

You can say that I am reading this into your statement as much as you want, but that is just sophistry. It is inherent in what you said, as I have explained to you. Now, unless, with reference to my explanation, you can show that it is not inherent to your statement at all, and therefore I am acting upon a false premiss, I'm done. Because you have now claimed more than once that I am just reading this into your statement, and I have patiently answered you each time, as I have done here...and if that is the best you can did/you are sticking to it, then you can toddle off and imagine you haven't been found out, which is rather sad, as you are doing it by the most tendentious, petty and childish of didacatic means, rather than by way of a valid argument :hello:

I think you've been getting ahead of yourself fella. You've made an assumption that I have seen many people saying that we have taken a step up. Perhaps you have but I certainly haven't. I've seen very few people saying that.

 

[stevenqoz]

People comment on what they think Harry does with regard to tactics. From what I can see the start and finish for him is what his own team is going to do. How are going to play, is his starting point. It is clear that the squad he has at his disposal has gradually improved and a few new pieces in the puzzle have worked out well....Parker and Ade come to mind. Being a vanilla 4 4 2 man he was challenged by the puchase of VDV and I believe he is still not totally comfortable with what to do with that player. From what I can see he has times used not only 4 4 2 this season but also 4 4 1 1, 4 5 1 and 3 5 2 as a plan B at times. If posters mean by tactics looking at the opposition and saying what do we need to do to make them less effective....it is more likely that Harry believes that generally he hopes his own side can overcome rather than stop the opposition. This may be seen in some ways as a naive approach but Harry would call it optimistic :grin:. He is fortunate that Spurs, if they go out to play their game with the attacking prowess and speed of our wide man, can be almost unstoppble. There may be a lack of subtlety in this approach but it can be devastating. The up tempo nature of our attacking game has the downside that it is difficult to maintain for 90 minutes but then few sides can be in charge throughout whatever the approach. As several posters have said Harry seems to do things regardless of the dangers....ie 3 v 2 in central midfield.....something that more tactical thinkers would not do. Sometimes it comes down to perception. Harry is very much a 'pecking order' coach which partly explains why Pav came on before Krankjar. The reality was that both lack EPL fitness. I suspect that with an available Kaboul we might have seen him on at RB with Walker pushing on to RM but Kaboul injured himself in the warmup.....so he didn't feel able to keep the first half shape...who knows?
To me Harry has established a pattern of play which is very much based on personell being fit and available.......the times when he has been more careful we seem to have almost come unstuck. Our next two opponents will present opportunities to play it quite openly again....hopefully those who are not hamstrung at the moment can do the job

 

[StartingPrice]

I think you've been getting ahead of yourself fella. You've made an assumption that I have seen many people saying that we have taken a step up. Perhaps you have but I certainly haven't. I've seen very few people saying that.

:???:

 

[guate]

People comment on what they think Harry does with regard to tactics. From what I can see the start and finish for him is what his own team is going to do. How are going to play, is his starting point. It is clear that the squad he has at his disposal has gradually improved and a few new pieces in the puzzle have worked out well....Parker and Ade come to mind. Being a vanilla 4 4 2 man he was challenged by the puchase of VDV and I believe he is still not totally comfortable with what to do with that player. From what I can see he has times used not only 4 4 2 this season but also 4 4 1 1, 4 5 1 and 3 5 2 as a plan B at times. If posters mean by tactics looking at the opposition and saying what do we need to do to make them less effective....it is more likely that Harry believes that generally he hopes his own side can overcome rather than stop the opposition. This may be seen in some ways as a naive approach but Harry would call it optimistic :grin:. He is fortunate that Spurs, if they go out to play their game with the attacking prowess and speed of our wide man, can be almost unstoppble. There may be a lack of subtlety in this approach but it can be devastating. The up tempo nature of our attacking game has the downside that it is difficult to maintain for 90 minutes but then few sides can be in charge throughout whatever the approach. As several posters have said Harry seems to do things regardless of the dangers....ie 3 v 2 in central midfield.....something that more tactical thinkers would not do. Sometimes it comes down to perception. Harry is very much a 'pecking order' coach which partly explains why Pav came on before Krankjar. The reality was that both lack EPL fitness. I suspect that with an available Kaboul we might have seen him on at RB with Walker pushing on to RM but Kaboul injured himself in the warmup.....so he didn't feel able to keep the first half shape...who knows?
To me Harry has established a pattern of play which is very much based on personell being fit and available.......the times when he has been more careful we seem to have almost come unstuck. Our next two opponents will present opportunities to play it quite openly again....hopefully those who are not hamstrung at the moment can do the job

Great post mate.