Redknapp

[ArcspacE]

Redknapp had proved himself over some time. Given the right material he would achieve.

I don't disagree with any of that

Simply want to suggest / demonstrate the double standards applied here (whether intentionally or not) - those managers given the right material and time as you said - could also prove themselves. There is absolutely nothing to suggest they'd do worse than Arry hypothetically because he was on their 'level' by and large when he took over his first big club.

That is all.

 

[mudshark]

I think many people's problem with Redknapp, and the reason why there's a sense of begrudging is that there's always the suspicion he's acting more in his own interest than that of the club, and that if those two things happen to coincide, well that's just ... coincidental. Some were of the opinion he was over-cautious in the Villa game, for example, settling for a point because that was quite likely to be good enough for 4th and, even though it was already clear that might not mean Champions' League, it would be enough to trigger some contractual bonus clause or something. All that may or may not be true, but Redknapp does little to dissuade people from forming these sorts of opinions about him, I find, and such situations are then easily turned into failures that carry with them an echo not of glory, but of acquisitiveness.

 

[thfcsteff]

Can't agree that Redknapp had a shady record. He's done fairly well given the clubs he's been at. West Ham were consistenly in the top half under him, Portsmouth won the Division One title and he kept them up. The subsequent financial meltdowns were down to the insane wages someone else thought it approriate to offer players. Ten years at Bournemouth, ten at West Ham (7 as manager) and 6 at Portsmouth.

What other managers in this league were even close when he came to us if you exlude SKY 4 managers?

Mate,

I think it's fair to say many of us swallowed our pride when he was appointed and became good little hypocrites...well, I'll speak for myself anyway (!!!) because prior to his joining us, I thought he was one of the dodgiest geezers in football and did NOT like or rate him particularly highly. West Ham isn't a great example IMHO, he and Storrie seemed to run that place...

 

[Jordinho]

Mate,

I think it's fair to say many of us swallowed our pride when he was appointed and became good little hypocrites...well, I'll speak for myself anyway (!!!) because prior to his joining us, I thought he was one of the dodgiest geezers in football and did NOT like or rate him particularly highly. West Ham isn't a great example IMHO, he and Storrie seemed to run that place...

He's never been one to turn down an easy buck, that's for sure. Right now I see Holloway as the next Redknapp, but I wouldn't want him anywhere near us. Can put together a whole squad over a summer and make them perform. Has clauses in player's contracts, giving him part of the fee if the player is sold on.

 

[parklane1]

There is of course the standard response of "Why did it take 30+ years and a desperate Daniel Levy for Redknapp to get a big club opportunity? Especially if he was so good?"

Ir Redknapp was truly the messiah his pals in the press make him out to be, you would think that he would have been offered bigger jobs in the past. Strange that he never was.

 

[ArcspacE]

Ir Redknapp was truly the messiah his pals in the press make him out to be, you would think that he would have been offered bigger jobs in the past. Strange that he never was.

And yet when he was the clear favourite for an even bigger job he was snubbed by a man who managed the mighty Swiss 20 years ago

Just to add - I still think that was a mistake btw

 

[Jordinho]

And yet when he was the clear favourite for an even bigger job he was snubbed by a man who managed the mighty Swiss 20 years ago

Just to add - I still think that was a mistake btw

The FA obviously had other considerations than the media and the common man.

 

[parklane1]

And yet when he was the clear favourite for an even bigger job he was snubbed by a man who managed the mighty Swiss 20 years ago

As i always said he was never going to get that job, he would have been a big a disaster as KK and the FA knew that.

Redknapp is well liked by his pals in the press and that is because they know he is always up for a "rent a quote" and they built his reputation for him, those who look at one trophy in over 30 years may see it diffrently.

 

[Jordinho]

As i always said he was never going to get that job, he would have been a big a disaster as KK and the FA knew that.

Redknapp is well liked by his pals in the press and that is because they know he is always up for a "rent a quote" and they built his reputation for him, those who look at one trophy in over 30 years may see it diffrently.

There's so much more to rating a manager that it's getting ridiculous seeing this brought up again and again. It's also not true. They may not be MAJOR trophies, but he has won Division One with Portsmouth, Division Three with Bournemouth, Football League Trophy with Bournemouth and Intertoto Cup with West Ham.

Graham, Gross, Santini, Ramos all came here with several trophies to their name. Didn't work out so well did it?

There's virtually nobody out there with a bunch of trophies AND Premier League experience that isn't already manager of Arsenal, City or United or retired. Ancelotti have moneybags PSG. Some other names are Alex McLeish, Avram Grant, Rafa Benitez. Claudio Ranieri has won a few cups.

 

[parklane1]

There's so much more to rating a manager that it's getting ridiculous seeing this brought up again and again. It's also not true. They may not be MAJOR trophies, but he has won Division One with Portsmouth, Division Three with Bournemouth, Football League Trophy with Bournemouth and Intertoto Cup with West Ham.

Graham, Gross, Santini, Ramos all came here with several trophies to their name. Didn't work out so well did it?

There's virtually nobody out there with a bunch of trophies AND Premier League experience that isn't already manager of Arsenal, City or United or retired. Ancelotti have moneybags PSG. Some other names are Alex McLeish, Avram Grant, Rafa Benitez. Claudio Ranieri has won a few cups.

He has also had a couple of relegations during his time as a manager, the problem that a lot of people have with Redknapp is that he is not a great manager despite what his pals in the press say and his record shows that. It was a gamble to take a manager who has one Major trophy is over 30 years (and there were a lot who thought that at the time), now i hear some supporters say that if we took a chance on replacing him with Rogers,Lambert etc that it would be to much of a risk? to be honesti do not see much of a difference in risk levels.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Clearly the manager is never culpable for any losses then!

Point is, so many other factors affect the result of the game other than a manager standing on the touchline shouting instructions.

Sometimes Harry could do something different to help us win a game. Sometimes he will do things that do help us win the game. Sometimes he will get extremely lucky to have gotten the result and sometimes it will be so unlucky that he loses.

Point is, that's the case for every single manager in the league so it levels out. Managers can only give you the best possible chance if they are good - they can still lose games despite doing everything right. That's the nature of sport, especially ones that aren't typically high scoring.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

He has also had a couple of relegations during his time as a manager, the problem that a lot of people have with Redknapp is that he is not a great manager despite what his pals in the press say and his record shows that. It was a gamble to take a manager who has one Major trophy is over 30 years (and there were a lot who thought that at the time), now i hear some supporters say that if we took a chance on replacing him with Rogers,Lambert etc that it would be to much of a risk? to be honesti do not see much of a difference in risk levels.

Do you not see the difference between needing some drastic action because we were bottom of the league with a quarter of the season gone, and the difference between potentially screwing up a good thing because some people are unsatisfied with 2 top 4 finishes in 3 years?

I'm sure Rodgers would do great with us. I hope he is our next manager to be honest. But the risk isn't that he might not be good enough because Redknapp might not have been good enough, the risk is in the different circumstances we have now. On one, we needed to do something to get us out of the mess. Now, we don't actually need to try anything. We are having success. We have someone who is proven to get results out of our squad, over a number of years. There's absolutely no need to mess with that, especially when it's near enough impossible for someone to better what Harry is doing over a number of years.

Better means consistent top 3 and above finishes, and never out of the top 4. I'm sure Rodgers could get a top 3 finish once or twice over say 5 years. Could he do it every year? Because that's what it will take to actually do better than what Harry is doing right now. Over a number of years, Harry has us in the right area. With less luck, we could have finished 5th in 09/10. With more luck, we would have waltzed into 3rd in 11/12. The margins are fine and there are other factors than Harry's ability in play, but the point is, he has us in the right ball-park.

 

[Jordinho]

With a just bit more luck Redknapp's record could have been 7th, 4th, 4th, 3rd, two FA Cups and one League Cup. Who knows what could have been in the UEFA Cup had we beaten Shaktar that year.

Some improvements in the squad is more likely to help us achieve than a change of manager right now, unless it's a manager of undisputed world class.

 

[elltrev]

Do you not see the difference between needing some drastic action because we were bottom of the league with a quarter of the season gone, and the difference between potentially screwing up a good thing because some people are unsatisfied with 2 top 4 finishes in 3 years?

I'm sure Rodgers would do great with us. I hope he is our next manager to be honest. But the risk isn't that he might not be good enough because Redknapp might not have been good enough, the risk is in the different circumstances we have now. On one, we needed to do something to get us out of the mess. Now, we don't actually need to try anything. We are having success. We have someone who is proven to get results out of our squad, over a number of years. There's absolutely no need to mess with that, especially when it's near enough impossible for someone to better what Harry is doing over a number of years.

Better means consistent top 3 and above finishes, and never out of the top 4. I'm sure Rodgers could get a top 3 finish once or twice over say 5 years. Could he do it every year? Because that's what it will take to actually do better than what Harry is doing right now. Over a number of years, Harry has us in the right area. With less luck, we could have finished 5th in 09/10. With more luck, we would have waltzed into 3rd in 11/12. The margins are fine and there are other factors than Harry's ability in play, but the point is, he has us in the right ball-park.

Thanks for writing what I was about to write, and putting it very well.

I'll be interested to hear Arcspace and parklane1's responses (genuinely; it's an interesting debate!)

 

[Rorschach]

With a just bit more luck Redknapp's record could have been 7th, 4th, 4th, 3rd, two FA Cups and one League Cup. Who knows what could have been in the UEFA Cup had we beaten Shaktar that year.

Some improvements in the squad is more likely to help us achieve than a change of manager right now, unless it's a manager of undisputed world class.

You are right, but it's hard to read that list and not say fudge at the end.

 

[ArcspacE]

Do you not see the difference between needing some drastic action because we were bottom of the league with a quarter of the season gone, and the difference between potentially screwing up a good thing because some people are unsatisfied with 2 top 4 finishes in 3 years?

I'm sure Rodgers would do great with us. I hope he is our next manager to be honest. But the risk isn't that he might not be good enough because Redknapp might not have been good enough, the risk is in the different circumstances we have now. On one, we needed to do something to get us out of the mess. Now, we don't actually need to try anything. We are having success. We have someone who is proven to get results out of our squad, over a number of years. There's absolutely no need to mess with that, especially when it's near enough impossible for someone to better what Harry is doing over a number of years.

Better means consistent top 3 and above finishes, and never out of the top 4. I'm sure Rodgers could get a top 3 finish once or twice over say 5 years. Could he do it every year? Because that's what it will take to actually do better than what Harry is doing right now. Over a number of years, Harry has us in the right area. With less luck, we could have finished 5th in 09/10. With more luck, we would have waltzed into 3rd in 11/12. The margins are fine and there are other factors than Harry's ability in play, but the point is, he has us in the right ball-park.

That's not why most people are unsatisfied. Goes much, much deeper than that and I will not repeat issues which have been raised countless of times already in numerous threads.

Again you're assuming no one can do better than Arry or at least it would be nearly impossible. Why? What is your definition of better? Should it not be


- consistent Top 4 and the occassional 3rd - squad quality permitting - fudge all to do with wages and turnover.

- wining one of the 2 cups available.

- improved transfer dealings and better scouting network

- some form of censorship in his media interraction


Where we were back than has nothing to do with the fact that on paper those managers have nothing less going for them than Arry did at the time. Why is that so hard for many to understand / admit?


- when he took over I'm sure not even his biggest fans imagined he would achieve what he did. As far as I remember most were sceptical to say the least. There was nothing in his CV to suggest the promise of success

- yet he managed to pull of small miracles on a fraction of the Big 4's budgets

- so how can we say others couldn't match or better yet - improve that? Please explain.

 

[Lost Mango]

With a just bit more luck Redknapp's record could have been 7th, 4th, 4th, 3rd, two FA Cups and one League Cup. Who knows what could have been in the UEFA Cup had we beaten Shaktar that year.

Some improvements in the squad is more likely to help us achieve than a change of manager right now, unless it's a manager of undisputed world class.

With a little less luck where would he be? Luck works both ways and it seems a lot of luck comes down to how well you prepare.

 

[ArcspacE]

With a just bit more luck Redknapp's record could have been 7th, 4th, 4th, 3rd, two FA Cups and one League Cup. Who knows what could have been in the UEFA Cup had we beaten Shaktar that year.

With a bit less luck we could have been 9th, 5th, 6th, 6th and if we met at least one proper team in the FA Cup this season - would have never made the semis - easiest run in a decade.

Potato. Potatoe

 

[elltrev]

That's not why most people are unsatisfied. Goes much, much deeper than that and I will not repeat issues which have been raised countless of times already in numerous threads.

Again you're assuming no one can do better than Arry or at least it would be nearly impossible. Why? What is your definition of better? Should it not be


- consistent Top 4 and the occassional 3rd - squad quality permitting - fudge all to do with wages and turnover.

- wining one of the 2 cups available.

- improved transfer dealings and better scouting network

- some form of censorship in his media interraction


Where we were back than has nothing to do with the fact that on paper those managers have nothing less going for them than Arry did at the time. Why is that so hard for many to understand / admit?


- when he took over I'm sure not even his biggest fans imagined he would achieve what he did. As far as I remember most were sceptical to say the least. There was nothing in his CV to suggest the promise of success

- yet he managed to pull of small miracles on a fraction of the Big 4's budgets

- so how can we say others couldn't match or better yet - improve that? Please explain.

I feel like you guys are arguing past each other.

BrainOfLevy said "I'm sure Rodgers would do great with us. I hope he is our next manager to be honest." He's not explicitly disagreeing with your point that Rodgers and co have no less going for them than Harry did when we got him.

No-one can definitively say that Rodgers and co definitely wouldn't do better than Harry. Nor that they definitely would do better. The point is that we've just finished 4th, 5th and 4th - in absolute terms, a very good achievement. And so some peope don't want to risk sacking Harry and trying to bring in a new manager when we're in a very stable, successful position.

I guess it just comes down to how you rate our squad in comparison to the teams around us, and how risk averse you are or aren't.

 

[Spursalot]

I feel like you guys are arguing past each other.

BrainOfLevy said "I'm sure Rodgers would do great with us. I hope he is our next manager to be honest." He's not explicitly disagreeing with your point that Rodgers and co have no less going for them than Harry did when we got him.

No-one can definitively say that Rodgers and co definitely wouldn't do better than Harry. Nor that they definitely would do better. The point is that we've just finished 4th, 5th and 4th - in absolute terms, a very good achievement. And so some peope don't want to risk sacking Harry and trying to bring in a new manager when we're in a very stable, successful position.

I guess it just comes down to how you rate our squad in comparison to the teams around us, and how risk averse you are or aren't.

We have a winner.