Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

[Danishfurniturelover]

Saudi Sportswashing Machine vs Emirates Marketing Project

How was the game going = 0-0. City having lots of possession but not looking likely to score.

What does manager do = Take off attacking midfielder and replace him with a defensive midfielder.

what happens = City create more, look more threatening and eventually win

Result = 0-2 win and Mancini is a genius.

















imo you don't understand football if you don't get the logic for taking off vdv for Parker. I'm not saying you have to agree with it but if you don't understand what Redknapp was thinking then you don't understand football imho.

I understand what your saying kingdawson, about it opening up the game for us and giving us more attacking options. But our "attackers" do not score enough for us to have real confidence in them, also in the type of game it was becoming i really belived we needed a fox in the box type. Thing is im not even that big a fan of defoe it is just that he was the sort we needed on.

I often feel that we lack a cutting edge round the final third, we are a lovely attractive side to watch but sometimes you need someone to get their foot behind the ball and use some real aggression to put it in the back of the net.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I didn't see the game today so I can't comment on the game, but my biggest gripe with Redknapp is hoe negative we tend to be in certain away games. We don't quite go for it like we do when we play at home. Look at Sunderland away, we need a goal but in the last 5 minutes or so, Parker is on the halfway line, and he boots the ball back to Friedel!

 

[liquid_football]

Saudi Sportswashing Machine vs Emirates Marketing Project

How was the game going = 0-0. City having lots of possession but not looking likely to score.

What does manager do = Take off attacking midfielder and replace him with a defensive midfielder.

what happens = City create more, look more threatening and eventually win

Result = 0-2 win and Mancini is a genius.

















imo you don't understand football if you don't get the logic for taking off vdv for Parker. I'm not saying you have to agree with it but if you don't understand what Redknapp was thinking then you don't understand football imho.

a)Mancini put also Dzeko on who created space
b)Saudi Sportswashing Machine weren't parking the bus and wanted to win as much as City

2 totaly different games,2 totaly different situations.It just shows how much you dont understand football if you are seriously comparing these 2 games

 

[Robspur12]

Saudi Sportswashing Machine vs Emirates Marketing Project

How was the game going = 0-0. City having lots of possession but not looking likely to score.

What does manager do = Take off attacking midfielder and replace him with a defensive midfielder.

what happens = City create more, look more threatening and eventually win

Result = 0-2 win and Mancini is a genius.

Sorry completely disagree, I didn't see the city game but I'm assuming Bringing on De jong allowed Toure to go forward more. Toure is much more attacking than both Sandro and Parker and modric doen't score many anyway so I can't see how that would make any difference. In any case mostly when you are chasing points at that stage of the game surely it makes sense to put on strikers not defensive midfielders that's what happens in 99% of football games I've watched. If you're saying to me HR wanted to protect a point as it was important fair enough but I really don't think it was anything more complicated than thst. By the way the sarcasm and condescension in some of your posts is really unnecessary either you must be a football genius in which case no one should ever disagree with your words of wisdom or sitting behind a keyboard makes you feel like a tough guy.

















imo you don't understand football if you don't get the logic for taking off vdv for Parker. I'm not saying you have to agree with it but if you don't understand what Redknapp was thinking then you don't understand football imho.

 

[Kingdawson]

a)Mancini put also Dzeko on who created space
b)Saudi Sportswashing Machine weren't parking the bus and wanted to win as much as City

2 totaly different games,2 totaly different situations.It just shows how much you dont understand football if you are seriously comparing these 2 games

Ah you mean when he replaced a striker for a striker. That would be the equivalant of Redknapp subbing off Ade for Defoe as well as the dm for am sub so don't really see your point there.

 

[DHSF]

Look can we just agree that the thread title is absurd.

 

[Kingdawson]

So you're choosing to ignore the countless games this season where we started with a 4-5-1 and suddenly switched to a 4-4-2 and thrown on Defoe to salvage a result only to look even worse? we're choosing to ignore the way we dramitically lost shape when switching to a 4-4-2 and it's actually the opposition that look like they'll score. Sorry i choose not to ignore what i see with my eyes.



Directed at Robspur.

 

[Robspur12]

Look can we just agree that the thread title is absurd.

Problem is Villa was the game I thought we were most likely to win. Fulham are a form team and winning even at home is a tall ask. Still its been a strange old season.

 

[Modric THFC]

Saudi Sportswashing Machine vs Emirates Marketing Project

How was the game going = 0-0. City having lots of possession but not looking likely to score.

What does manager do = Take off attacking midfielder and replace him with a defensive midfielder.

what happens = City create more, look more threatening and eventually win

Result = 0-2 win and Mancini is a genius.

















imo you don't understand football if you don't get the logic for taking off vdv for Parker. I'm not saying you have to agree with it but if you don't understand what Redknapp was thinking then you don't understand football imho.

What Mancini did was put one of his most dangerous players in a more attacking position.
What Redknapp did was move Lennon to the wrong flank, move Modric from were he is effective in the middle out to the right where he can't influence the game and replaced him with Scott Parker!

 

[DHSF]

Problem is Villa was the game I thought we were most likely to win. Fulham are a form team and winning even at home is a tall ask. Still its been a strange old season.

Fulham will come out and play. We may concede but we will also be able to hit on the counter (which we are most dangerous at) and actually create a bit more.

Villa are horrible and on par with Stoke. Dont forget we had ten men for 45 minutes.

 

[Modric THFC]

Look can we just agree that the thread title is absurd.

Indeed completely knee-jerkingly ridiculous.

 

[Golfball]

I dont buy that. Harry takes VdV off a ridiculous amount. Modric on the other hand has played every minute of our last 26 league games - that tells you that substitutions are more or less pre-meditated

VDV is not the player you seem to have built him up to be in your mind, he isnt an untouchable in the way Modric or Bale might be. He deserves to get subbed a lot. It happens to him wherever he plays. There are many reasons - one being he burns himself out, runs a lot in the first half and fades. But the other reason is that he is a player who suits a certain system, and when that doesnt work you look to change the system and try something else, you look to do it without hurting the team. Taking Modric off for Defoe wouldnt make sense.

 

[southstand1882]

It's like Mancini bringing on Nigel de Jong

To settle for draws

 

[Kingdawson]

What Mancini did was put one of his most dangerous players in a more attacking position.
What Redknapp did was move Lennon to the wrong flank, move Modric from were he is effective in the middle out to the right where he can't influence the game and replaced him with Scott Parker!

Well now you're talking about Redknapp's decision making AFTER the substitution and not the actual sub itself.

 

[Modric THFC]

Well now you're talking about Redknapp's decision making AFTER the substitution and not the actual sub itself.

Well that's the way Redknapp rejigged the team with the Parker sub. He didn't sent parker on to play Vdv's position on the left. He sent parker on to take modric's position and moved lennon over to replace vdv and modric to were lennon was. That's the actual substitution, what else is there to talk about with it?

 

[DMac]

macaronic doesn't even begin to describe some people. Bringing on a striker doesn't mean an automatic goal ffs. How many times have we brought on Defoe and switched to a 4-4-2 when things were not going to plan, only to look and play even more brick and not even create any decent chance? it's happened so often this season but people still don't want to register it in their thick heads and continue this flimflam.

He put on Parker so we can get hold of the ball more, to keep possesion, and to hopefully create chances from it. "Put on Defoe, put on Defoe" oh shut up with that flimflam.

Yet when we needed a goal against Chelsea at Wembley he put Defoe on.

Also he chose not to bring Defoe on after we got the penalty (he was going to).

Personally I think you're ascribing too much logic to Harry's though process, usually when we are behind and want a goal, his only play is to bring on Defoe. In the past it has seemed like Harry thinks more strikers = more goals.

 

[Kingdawson]

Yet when we needed a goal against Chelsea at Wembley he put Defoe on.

Also he chose not to bring Defoe on after we got the penalty (he was going to).

Personally I think you're ascribing too much logic to Harry's though process, usually when we are behind and want a goal, his only play is to bring on Defoe. In the past it has seemed like Harry thinks more strikers = more goals.

Very very very true, good post.

 

[metalgear]

harry got it wrong all right, but it was for the first 60 minutes of play when we we not able to dominate the midfield, and bale keeps going missing.

 

[Pirate55]

Oh my GHod

Ok I am going to say this once and once only because it seems that some people on here are utterly fudgein clueless.

By bringing on Parker you allowed Modric, Lennon AND BALE further upfield to support Ade. You also allowed one of Kaboul and Gallas more upfield. Not to mention walker.

So HE DID NOT SETTLE FOR A fudgeIN DRAW. He changed a formation to be more attacking WITH ONLY TEN MEN

Just seen what Harry said after the match. " 0-1 down and down to 10 men, i'd settle for a draw any day of the week." Absolute joker. Third was there for the taking and he blew it for us. Which other top team manager would "settle for a draw" when a win was needed. Negative - Just like he was against Sunderland, Liverpool and Everton.

Must go at end of season if we are to progress

 

[Robspur12]

Yet when we needed a goal against Chelsea at Wembley he put Defoe on.

Also he chose not to bring Defoe on after we got the penalty (he was going to).

Personally I think you're ascribing too much logic to Harry's though process, usually when we are behind and want a goal, his only play is to bring on Defoe. In the past it has seemed like Harry thinks more strikers = more goals.

This! Harry is the man whose tactical acumen consists of " go on and run around a bit"