Controversial poll

[braineclipse]

I think Baldini's job includes a lot of talking to players and agents, freeing up Levy to focus on other things.

Agreed.

Of course the coach has to approve of a target. The DoF deals with the scouts and negotiations. He's an administrator.

Agreed again. Although the DoF will also have a heavy voice in the transfer decisions. The coach has to approve, but so does the DoF.

Arsenal had Dein, United had Martin Edwards. They were responsible for getting deals done but I highly doubt they would have signed players that Wenger or Fergie didn't ok. I have no explanation for AVB not playing Lamela other than he wasn't an AVB signing, that is a worrying thought and I hope I'm wrong.

How do you explain Ferguson not playing Kagawa more then?

Perhaps AVB just though Lamela genuinely needed time to adapt and had high thoughts about his future, like he stated to the press?

 

[Jordinho]

United have signed a lot of fancy sounding foreign players under Ferguson who ended up barely playing, whether it was through agent friends or just a punt. I think we've had an above average success rate with our signings in recent years.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Agreed.



Agreed again. Although the DoF will also have a heavy voice in the transfer decisions. The coach has to approve, but so does the DoF.



How do you explain Ferguson not playing Kagawa more then?

Perhaps AVB just though Lamela genuinely needed time to adapt and had high thoughts about his future, like he stated to the press?

Something just doesn't seem right, comparing it to Kagawa is wrong IMO, I'm sure Kagawa got more games at the start of his United career than Lamela at Spurs. He gets his first chance against Emirates Marketing Project away, not exactly an easy first start is it? Could have easily started him against Hull, Saudi Sportswashing Machine or basically an easier game than Emirates Marketing Project away. He can he adapt if he's not given enough chances? I'm not saying he deserved to start every game.

 

[braineclipse]

Something just doesn't seem right, comparing it to Kagawa is wrong IMO, I'm sure Kagawa got more games at the start of his United career than Lamela at Spurs. He gets his first chance against Emirates Marketing Project away, not exactly an easy first start is it? Could have easily started him against Hull, Saudi Sportswashing Machine or basically an easier game than Emirates Marketing Project away. He can he adapt if he's not given enough chances? I'm not saying he deserved to start every game.

The City start seemed very strange to me too and I was one of those that wanted to see Lamela start more PL games. I just don't think you can conclude that "he wasn't an AVB signing" based on this. AVB made several decisions that were strange to people that weren't based on him not wanting the player originally.

And frankly, even if it was true that AVB didn't want Lamela. He's a £30m asset and obviously talented young footballer, an Argentinian international at 20-21 that will at the very least end up being a good footballer in his career. If AVB went out of his way to not play him because he thought we should have targeted someone else in the transfer window, if he was petty enough to purposeful harm the development of a young Spurs player out of spite towards another Spurs employee or whatever then AVB deserved to be sacked some time ago.

 

[Sheffield Spur]

The aim was never 4th, it was CL qualification.

Levy screwed up in basing Redknapp's bonuses on 4th, so when it came to the crunch, good old 'Arry took the bonus rather than risk it to guarantee CL qualification.

Yep. That's the one. Hence the disastrous final Villa game (against a shocking Villa side); there for the taking.... and we blew it. Drew back level and master tactician Redknapp puts Parker on instead of Defoe, to play for a draw rather than a win, thus ensuring 4th and his fat bonus rather than definate CL qualification. By then, Chelsea winning the CL was a real danger.

Master tactician? When it comes to his bank account, maybe. He is an actor and east end barrow boy IMHO.

Still, as he said, he doesn't know anything about computers or mobiles, and can't even do text messages. S'funny, as he sent Fabrice Muamba a get well text while he was in hospital, as he later admitted.

I wouldn't trust him further than I could spit. He should never have got the Spurs manager job in the first place, but then again neither should have Ramos, Hoddle or maybe even AVB, among others over the last 20 years. Martinez should have got it, but of course he was only at a hick-town small northern outfit so was never a contender. Advantage Everton, I think.

 

[Sheffield Spur]

haven't read this thread through yet, but i will say that for the massive dereliction of duty the beloved 'arry 'performed' two seasons in a row, i am deighted we canned him. How soon people forget that this guy was ready to walk off happily until he found out he wouldn't get the job, whence he tried to get right back in there and 'demand' a contract. Ffs! You cannot trust that! Harry broke my heart because he could've been the man. He and he only elected against that.

One thing about avb. The guy tried his ****ing heart out and never hitched his skirt for a better option.

Spot on 'bro. The truth.

 

[braineclipse]

That is the craziest argument I've heard yet!

Do you have a better explanation for the Parker substitution?

 

[Jurgen the German]

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.

 

[joey55]

Yep. That's the one. Hence the disastrous final Villa game (against a shocking Villa side); there for the taking.... and we blew it. Drew back level and master tactician Redknapp puts Parker on instead of Defoe, to play for a draw rather than a win, thus ensuring 4th and his fat bonus rather than definate CL qualification. By then, Chelsea winning the CL was a real danger.

Master tactician? When it comes to his bank account, maybe. He is an actor and east end barrow boy IMHO.

Still, as he said, he doesn't know anything about computers or mobiles, and can't even do text messages. S'funny, as he sent Fabrice Muamba a get well text while he was in hospital, as he later admitted.

I wouldn't trust him further than I could spit. He should never have got the Spurs manager job in the first place, but then again neither should have Ramos, Hoddle or maybe even AVB, among others over the last 20 years. Martinez should have got it, but of course he was only at a hick-town small northern outfit so was never a contender. Advantage Everton, I think.

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.

 

[Jurgen the German]

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.

I'm what some might consider a Redknapp apologist, but that was a shocking sub. But I do wonder if people will still bring up some of AVB's numerous inept tactical substiutions in years to come. Taking Naughton off yesterday for example, what a waste of a sub. I realise he was playing awful but what we needed goals and a more offensive sub.

 

[braineclipse]

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.

You're not a fan yourself then?

 

[joey55]

Do you have a better explanation for the Parker substitution?

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!

 

[milo]

I voted yes.

I supported Harry right up until the end but I think that in the end his working relationship with Levy had deteriorated to the point where it would have been detrimental to the clubs interests if he had stayed on. I also do not think that the uncertainty of him going into the last season of his contract would have been good for us but the way he had behaved over the extension and the England job, especially after we supported him during his court case, made giving him an extension impossible.

 

[joey55]

I'm what some might consider a Redknapp apologist, but that was a shocking sub. But I do wonder if people will still bring up some of AVB's numerous inept tactical substiutions in years to come. Taking Naughton off yesterday for example, what a waste of a sub. I realise he was playing awful but what we needed goals and a more offensive sub.

It was not. It was a basic sub, when Parker was put into cover so Modric would push forward.

 

[billyiddo]

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.

was offered the PSG job by all accounts - think there's even quotes from the man himself saying he turned them down?


agree with joey re the Parker sub to an extent, can see the logic in a defensive player coming on to allow the forward players more freedom.

but i seem to remember there being a lot of confusion at the time of the sub as players were warming up prior to the penalty and then he held back for a further 10 minutes seemingly unaware as to how to play it

 

[Sheffield Spur]

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.

No it doesn't.

We had to win and Redknapp went defensive instead. We had to put Defoe on and he did the opposite. You don't need to be a tactical genius to see that.

 

[joey55]

No it doesn't.

We had to win and Redknapp went defensive instead. We had to put Defoe on and he did the opposite. You don't need to be a tactical genius to see that.

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.

 

[Jurgen the German]

was offered the PSG job by all accounts - think there's even quotes from the man himself saying he turned them down?


agree with joey re the Parker sub to an extent, can see the logic in a defensive player coming on to allow the forward players more freedom.

but i seem to remember there being a lot of confusion at the time of the sub as players were warming up prior to the penalty and then he held back for a further 10 minutes seemingly unaware as to how to play it

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?

 

[braineclipse]

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!

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.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I voted yes.

I supported Harry right up until the end but I think that in the end his working relationship with Levy had deteriorated to the point where it would have been detrimental to the clubs interests if he had stayed on. I also do not think that the uncertainty of him going into the last season of his contract would have been good for us but the way he had behaved over the extension and the England job, especially after we supported him during his court case, made giving him an extension impossible.

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.