Two excellent articles on Harry and tactics

[miles_64]

I understand that there is already a thread on Harry's tactical acumen but I think these two articles by the Guardian bloggist, Jonathan Wilson, give a much more measured and balanced start to a discussion.

The first article, here was written a month or so after we battered Inter at home. The article draws comparison between Clough and Redknapp and their focus on simple instructions and their own style of play rather than the opposition's.

Redknapp is so much of the lineage of Clough that he even deploys the same percentages. "You can argue about formations, tactics and systems forever, but to me football is fundamentally about the players," he began a column in the Sun. "Whether it is 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, the numbers game is not the beautiful game in my opinion. It's 10% about the formation and 90% about the players. If you have the best ones and they do their jobs, then they can pretty much play any way you want them to."

It also gives some firm examples of how Harry reacts to events in a match:

And whatever Redknapp says, he has proved himself tactically astute at times this season. In the away leg of the Champions League play-off, Spurs were unsettled by Young Boys' high pressing, and could have been annihilated before half-time. Redknapp withdrew Benoît Assou-Ekotto to add an extra holding midfielder in Tom Huddlestone, dropping Gareth Bale back to left-back, which steadied the ship, then brought on Niko Kranjcar for Modric, giving Spurs a player who naturally cuts in from the left, adding midfield solidity and creating a pathway for Bale's surges. 3-0 was transformed into 3-2, a deficit Spurs rapidly wiped out in the second leg.

Against Aston Villa, Spurs, having begun with a 4-4-2 with Van der Vaart on the right and Peter Crouch and Pavlyuchenko as twin strikers, trailed 1-0 at half-time. Off came the Russian, on went Aaron Lennon, while Van der Vaart, who had been drifting infield anyway, took up a central role just behind Crouch. With a direct opponent, Stephen Warnock was pinned back, and Villa lost much of their thrust down the left. Van der Vaart, involved in more dangerous areas and revelling in playing off Crouch, scored twice.

Then at Arsenal a week ago last Saturday, Redknapp made the opposite change, bringing on Jermain Defoe for Lennon and pushing Van der Vaart out to the right from a central role. This time, of course, Redknapp was happy to talk tactics. "I changed it at half-time, opened it up even more really – stuck Rafa out on the right, and brought Jermain on to give us two targets upfront," he said. "In the first half I played with two wingers, and we were stretched … I've got a front man up there, with Rafa in behind, when we lost possession they outnumbered us in midfield and played through us and played around us, and we had to narrow it up in the second half."

The second article here asks whether Harry is the right man for the England job. The main point is that Harry is not well known for his ability to shut games down.

Killing the game is not pretty. It is not something that wins reams of positive media coverage. But it is necessary, particularly at international level where football has become increasingly attritional because of the lack of time available to coaches to develop attacking cohesion.

If he takes the England job, Redknapp will probably inspire a short-term jolt of optimism and his uncomplicated attacking approach may bring impressive results against lesser opposition. The problem, though, will come when England have to break up the game against opponents of similar or greater stature. Tottenham are the third-best team in the country and have let in 14 goals in four games against the two sides better than them and six in two against the fourth-best. In tournament football, that equates to comfortable qualification followed by an exit against the first serious contender England meet, which is pretty much where they have been since 1968.

I largely agree with this blog although we did travel with a depleted side to Liverpool a few weeks ago and seemed to do a pretty good job of shutting up shop and nearly sneaking a win at the end.

I hope these articles provide a little more depth than some of the oft-heard Harry bashing on SC.

 

[Adam456]

We were never ahead against ManU and we came back from 2-0 to beat the scum in the Autumn. It's easy to make those comments when we've just been beaten and conceded 8 but the truth is that Harry has been inspirational in some places and made mistakes all over the pitch and at many times of the game. Closing it out or being attritional is just one aspect.

When it comes to playing the big boys you need your best players. You don't want to be carrying people. You need to win the midfield. You need to defend well. You need to pass the ball well. You need to keep possession more than the other side. You need to unlock defences. You need to vary your play. You need to get your final balls right. You need to take your chances. You need to calm the game down at key moments. You need to go for it high tempo at others.

At the moment we are about the 3rd best team because our combination of all the above has been about 3rd best

 

[miles_64]

I agree with you point re: the Manchester United game. We didn't need to have a period of frustrating the opposition in that game as much as we did against Arsenal. In fact, it was poor concentration that cost us against Man U.