Controversial poll

[Sheffield Spur]

AVB never got the chance to "hitch his skirt" because no one ever officially asked for permission to speak to him as far as I know. If Portugal wanted him do people really think he would have said no? Come off it. Redknapp is out for himself, even his biggest fan couldn't deny that, but show me someone in football who isn't.

But Redknapp takes/took it to a higher level. He went into overdrive, post-Capello as England manager, using his media mates as a mouthpiece to promote him by huge media coverage of him as 'the peoples choice'. It was choreographed to generate publicity to keep Redknapp in the public eye for the job. Spurs? They no longer mattered....

For once the FA got it right and didn't give him the job. We got it dead right to get rid, but dead wrong to give him the job in the first place.

 

[billyiddo]

But never an official approach. People never trusted Arry's word so you can't 100% trust AVB's either. Do you think he would have turned down his country?

idk - i do think he would probably have handled the whole situation better than Redknapp did under the same circumstances though

 

[braineclipse]

I can't dance with any of that. But people do exaggerate what kind of state the club was in when Arry left. Yes we needed to move some players on, but it was a squad good enough to finish 4th the previous campaign, people act like he left us in some midtable mess.

I think our current squad requires fewer changes than the squad AVB took over did fwiw. But I agree with you that it wasn't a bad squad.

 

[Jordinho]

I've jsut replied in another post. But the Parker sub thing is just embarrassing. Fans are so opinionated when it comes to tactics, then prove their total inability to understand even the most basic tactical changes with criticisms, such as the Parker one.

Also, as I pointed out above, we hadn't secured 4th by drawing at Villa, so it really is the craziest explanation yet.

Can't you see what you are doing and have been for the last 2 years concerning the whole Redknapp issue? You keep finding more and more ridiculous arguments to hide behind. How can anyone seriously believe he didn't want to win a game so he'd get a 4th place bonus, when we aren't assured of 4th place by not winning. It's mental!

Seems more like you're dismissing everything supporting his dismissal because it doesn't fit with how you want things to be.

The Villa game is just a minor stain, but there was a lot going on behind the scenes that wasn't right and ultimately made his sacking inevitable. During the whole England debacle he apparently disappeared from the training ground. One minute the uncertainty of his future won't affect the players, then suddenly it does. Refusing to sign the contract extension on the table because he thought he didn't need it, then demanding a new one after screwing up our season.

 

[billyiddo]

Just admit you didn't get the sub and now it's been explained to you, you don't want to back down. Sorry for sounding arrogant, but I'm can't believe some of the stuff I've read today. I really think the club is in a much worse state than most realize and I'm in a bad mood. But if you don't get that pushing your most creative player forward is an attacking move, then I don't know what to say. We'd been battering them for most of the match. We needed someone to open the door and push Walker and Gallas high and wide and get Kaboul in the box.

But your argument falls flat on its face anyway, as I've pointed out, we needed to win to secure 4th place. Also is there any evidence Harry's bonus was related to 4th and not CL qualification. I doubt there is and that this is just another total myth.

why do you think we're in such a bad state?

the guy responsible for the signings is still here and will be involved in the recruitment of the new head coach - i personally believe we have a good balanced squad of players which have currently been under performing, with the right appointment there's no reason why we can't still make a good effort for the champions league places

 

[braineclipse]

Seems more like you're dismissing everything supporting his dismissal because it doesn't fit with how you want things to be.

The Villa game is just a minor stain, but there was a lot going on behind the scenes that wasn't right and ultimately made his sacking inevitable. During the whole England debacle he apparently disappeared from the training ground. One minute the uncertainty of his future won't affect the players, then suddenly it does. Refusing to sign the contract extension on the table because he thought he didn't need it, then demanding a new one after screwing up our season.

The particular speculation about why he chose to do the tactical things he did can of course be discussed. I've on this forum a lot (arguably more than I should), I can't remember ever seeing Scara present idle gossip as a statement of fact. But of course it's still speculation.

The rest of it I think you've summed up well, in the end he had to go.

 

[joey55]

We hadn't secured 4th, but with Fulham at home in the final game that one point made it a lot more likely.

Not sure if "you" in this case is aimed at me personally or some "you" group you're generalizing all those who disagree with you into. I don't know which is worse either tbh.

Edit: And we already had Sando on the pitch to do the covering job. Why take off VdV to let Modric who scores fewer goals push forward? Why not keep Modric in the role he had played all ****ing season so brilliantly in and bring on a replacement for VdV like Defoe as has been mentioned. Was this really the time to partner Sandro and Parker in midfield, is this really the attacking move? I struggle to see it myself.

Because we were down to 10 men, which seems to be universally forgotten. VDV was knackered. Modric wasn't pushed forward to score per se, but break down their defense. It's as if people have forgotten the actual game. Rose got sent off so we played the second half a man down. However we still totally dominated them and had them pinned back. We had 63% of possession and 22 shots, despite being a man down. VDV was regularly subbed when we had 11 men. When he had to go off we had a choice of going 2 upfront or pushing Modric forward. Either option was an attacking decision. Our fans forget that had we not drawn the game, we'd have been level on points with Saudi Sportswashing Machine. We can't push 11 players forward. You need cover, but also want your big men, like Kaboul in the box. Hence you bring on Parker. It was an attacking sub. Watch the game, we went all out in those last 5 mins. Taking as if bringing Parker on was a defensive move is not just theoretically incorrect, but it's actually factually incorrect as we went all out for the win after he came on! If Harry wanted to be defensive he'd have asked Parker to play a totally different role and got the team to drop back. Again this shows how crazy people get over Harry. None of these conspiracy theories make any sense, yet people go to great lengths to believe them.

 

[Baleforce]

The two sackings are totally separate for me. Even if AVB had been sacked in this position a year ago I'd still stand by the sacking of Redknapp as the right decision.

 

[joey55]

why do you think we're in such a bad state?

the guy responsible for the signings is still here and will be involved in the recruitment of the new head coach - i personally believe we have a good balanced squad of players which have currently been under performing, with the right appointment there's no reason why we can't still make a good effort for the champions league places

I' not mad keen on the signings. Not as individual players, but in terms of squad balance. I'm also worried about the track record of those who will appoint our next manager. Levy seems to have a 1 in 5 success rate and Baldidni 0 out of 1. Basically between them they've made 5 managerial appointments and just one has been a success.

Even though I never had high hopes of AVB, I'm not sure firing him solves our problems. For the first time in a few years I think those making the decisions at our main rivals to be more likely to get things right than those making the decisions for us. I never understood the Baldini appointment, anymore than AVB. It's not that I think Baldini is rubbish, but it's just very hard for me to look at his career to date and think he's going to be an asset to us. Combined with the fact I've always thought Levy is terrible with football related decisions, it really worries me.

 

[braineclipse]

Because we were down to 10 men, which seems to be universally forgotten. VDV was knackered. Modric wasn't pushed forward to score per se, but break down their defense. It's as if people have forgotten the actual game. Rose got sent off so we played the second half a man down. However we still totally dominated them and had them pinned back. We had 63% of possession and 22 shots, despite being a man down. VDV was regularly subbed when we had 11 men. When he had to go off we had a choice of going 2 upfront or pushing Modric forward. Either option was an attacking decision. Our fans forget that had we not drawn the game, we'd have been level on points with Saudi Sportswashing Machine. We can't push 11 players forward. You need cover, but also want your big men, like Kaboul in the box. Hence you bring on Parker. It was an attacking sub. Watch the game, we went all out in those last 5 mins. Taking as if bringing Parker on was a defensive move is not just theoretically incorrect, but it's actually factually incorrect as we went all out for the win after he came on! If Harry wanted to be defensive he'd have asked Parker to play a totally different role and got the team to drop back. Again this shows how crazy people get over Harry. None of these conspiracy theories make any sense, yet people go to great lengths to believe them.

Please read your own posts in this thread, then re-read your statement about people going crazy over Harry.

Please understand that just because someone disagrees with you on something tactical that doesn't necessarily mean that they're more biased than you, crazy or conspiratorial. The decision was criticized long before any conspiracy theories.

First you argue that the point wasn't enough to secure 4th so it's silly to think Redknapp would have wanted to defend the lead over attacking for the win, then you argue that losing would hurt our chances to get 4th... Feel free to make up your mind.

 

[billyiddo]

I' not mad keen on the signings. Not as individual players, but in terms of squad balance. I'm also worried about the track record of those who will appoint our next manager. Levy seems to have a 1 in 5 success rate and Baldidni 0 out of 1. Basically between them they've made 5 managerial appointments and just one has been a success.

Even though I never had high hopes of AVB, I'm not sure firing him solves our problems. For the first time in a few years I think those making the decisions at our main rivals to be more likely to get things right than those making the decisions for us. I never understood the Baldini appointment, anymore than AVB. It's not that I think Baldini is rubbish, but it's just very hard for me to look at his career to date and think he's going to be an asset to us. Combined with the fact I've always thought Levy is terrible with football related decisions, it really worries me.

i disagree mostly with that but if those are your opinions then i can see why you would be worried tbf

 

[braineclipse]

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in a Redknapp discussion. I will try to not make the same mistake again.

I realize that the mods were right when they tried to keep Redknapp discussions off this forum.

I will respectfully bow out!

 

[africanspurs]

The particular speculation about why he chose to do the tactical things he did can of course be discussed. I've on this forum a lot (arguably more than I should), I can't remember ever seeing Scara present idle gossip as a statement of fact. But of course it's still speculation.

The rest of it I think you've summed up well, in the end he had to go.

well in the last 3 hours i think scara has said something along the lines that

harry played for 4th so that he would get his bonus rather than go for 3rd and a CL place
and that Ade was faking injury and going all over the world at the expense of his club

do any of these count as idle gossip being put forward in the form of facts? or will there me some kind of technicality that allows room to manouver ...cause if there is tell me , i would love to incorporate that into my style

just to say , i personally dont mind what scara says. just that what you said i personally think is incorrect

 

[thfcsteff]

this was reason enough to get rid imho said it at the time and have said it since - total lack of respect for Levy and the Club - prior to this point i very much believe that there may have been a way back for him but he vastly overestimated his position when he came out with this tactic when he'd have been better served rolling up his sleeves saying right Ive a year left to prove my commitment to the cause and getting on with his job.

he put all his eggs in the England basket and when the job offer never came he panicked big time, knowing he'd ****ed himself right up

He said during the love-fest with the press over his England position that it had 'nothing to do' with the dip in form we were suffering (read-collapse)…players, he said, didn't care who was in charge they just wanted to play, or words to that effect…then, in June, when his basket was empty and the eggs all gone, he waged a media campaign for a contract extension based on the fact that 'the squad needs to know who the manager is going to be'…sorry, you live by the sword and you die by it.

 

[thfcsteff]

Ironically I think Levy and HR were a good pair. Levy wouldn't let HR spend excessively on any old tat (see Portsmouth). As we are lamenting - a great shame HR didn't take Suarez - HR said he'd been advised that he was too similar to what we had, in other words he was under the impression he was a winger. I think Suarez wouldn't have been the cun1 he's turned into, playing under HR (he liked players to have dignity).

HRs biggest weakness was his mouth. His undoing. Made himself look more stupid that he was and laid himself bare to be pulled apart. Those who keep their cards closer to their chest - are often greater cun1s - but you believe what you want to believe about them. HR wore it on his sleeve at all times, and it cost him. Had he kept shtum, said a few insightful words here and there, he'd be lauded as one of the best managers around.

My suggestion to Harry would've been to look for himself. He was in charge. No DoF. Full control. Personally I wouldn't have signed him either, for personal reasons i.e.I think he's a dingdong, but I am not a professional manager.

 

[africanspurs]

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in a Redknapp discussion. I will try to not make the same mistake again.

I realize that the mods were right when they tried to keep Redknapp discussions off this forum.

I will respectfully bow out!

hmmmm

 

[billyiddo]

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in a Redknapp discussion. I will try to not make the same mistake again.

I realize that the mods were right when they tried to keep Redknapp discussions off this forum.

I will respectfully bow out!

inevitably with AVB going a Redknapp discussion was always on the cards. hopefully some people can use this as an opportunity to exorcise the demons which have plagued their thoughts for the past year and a half

 

[thfcsteff]

He bought Parker on to cover as last man, so the rest could push forward. The fact some fans still, to this day, don't understand that is truly shocking and a reason why fans shouldn't even bother talking about tactics. It was such a basic and easy to see tactical move, yet some fans just couldn't see past the fact Parker was a DM. It didn't even cross their mind how this move might effect our attack.

Also we hadn't even secured 4th at the point. If we'd won we'd have been in 4th for sure. So bang goes your theory.

Seing as we're back at THAT game again…Scott Parker held the ball deep for vast tracts of his time on the pitch waiting for movement ahead. Villa had played with 11 men in their own half the entire second-half. Holding the ball and waiting wasn't what we needed with 15 minutes to go. We needed to overload, drive forward and create our own luck. In many ways it was an AVB move in hindsight! Oh the irony...

As for the second point, he got given BACK our destiny for third. having blown it, he got it handed BACK to him with two matches left. We simply needed to win them both. I will never forget landing the day before and driving to my Mum's place from the airport hearing that the Goons had ****ted it at home to Norwich. I was utterly convinced that we would murder Villa the next day. We played the first-half at old man's pace. It was tired, the sort of performance that AVB has been blasted for (not unreasonably at times)…

Harry gave me some wonderful times, but the revisionism of his era and behaviour is hard to take sometimes…all IMV and in the spirit of debate Joey.

 

[thfcsteff]

inevitably with AVB going a Redknapp discussion was always on the cards. hopefully some people can use this as an opportunity to exorcise the demons which have plagued their thoughts for the past year and a half

Here here. I think it's a good thing to let it run for a bit and let everyone blow their cobwebs out.

 

[thfcsteff]

Because we were down to 10 men, which seems to be universally forgotten. VDV was knackered. Modric wasn't pushed forward to score per se, but break down their defense. It's as if people have forgotten the actual game. Rose got sent off so we played the second half a man down. However we still totally dominated them and had them pinned back. We had 63% of possession and 22 shots, despite being a man down. VDV was regularly subbed when we had 11 men. When he had to go off we had a choice of going 2 upfront or pushing Modric forward. Either option was an attacking decision. Our fans forget that had we not drawn the game, we'd have been level on points with Saudi Sportswashing Machine. We can't push 11 players forward. You need cover, but also want your big men, like Kaboul in the box. Hence you bring on Parker. It was an attacking sub. Watch the game, we went all out in those last 5 mins. Taking as if bringing Parker on was a defensive move is not just theoretically incorrect, but it's actually factually incorrect as we went all out for the win after he came on! If Harry wanted to be defensive he'd have asked Parker to play a totally different role and got the team to drop back. Again this shows how crazy people get over Harry. None of these conspiracy theories make any sense, yet people go to great lengths to believe them.

Truth be told, he could've gone a man LESS at the back and really gambled. Villa had absolutely NO attacking intent whatsoever. There were five minutes left. Fortune favors the brave. IMO mate, again, all discussion and nothing more.