Redknapp Vs AVB vs Jol

[scaramanga]

I don't care about points. I care about where we finish.

You do realise that points determine where we finish right?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

You do realise that points determine where we finish right?

Read the entire thread. I give my explanation to the logic there.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Jumpers, don't bother. I argued this logic at the end of last season about how I would much rather finish 3rd with less points than the season before. Do you think Man United will be happy if they set a record points total but lose the title to Emirates Marketing Project?

 

[Jordinho]

Jumpers, don't bother. I argued this logic at the end of last season about how I would much rather finish 3rd with less points than the season before. Do you think Man United will be happy if they set a record points total but lose the title to Emirates Marketing Project?

But if a record number of points only gets us 5th, even though we've been 4th with less points before, it doesn't make that season a failure. At least that's how I see it.

While history may only look at the finishing positions, I find the number of points we pick up a better indicator of progress.

 

[Jurgen the German]

But if a record number of points only gets us 5th, even though we've been 4th with less points before, it doesn't make that season a failure. At least that's how I see it.

While history may only look at the finishing positions, I find the number of points we pick up a better indicator of progress.

It's all relative to how good the other teams in the league are. Lets say the league is more competitive than it was last season, I couldn't care less if we finished 4th/3rd with say 69 points.

 

[thfcsteff]

Your perception I would guess. Redknapp is one of the more stable managers around when a club hires him. His longest managerial reign was Bournemouth if I remember correctly, and he left Portsmouth on political grounds but when you actually take how long he was there for he was there for a while. He was our longest serving Premiership Manager. You are alluding to the fact that because he only sticks around 3 or 4 seasons (which I believe to be factually incorrect anyway) that there is something wrong with him. But in reality, he tends to stay in his jobs longer than most managers and he has been a professional manager for 30 years so he must be doing something right.

Just to bring this into perspective from our Premiership era and the managers.

Redknapp : 6 clubs over 30 years
AVB : 4 clubs over 4 years
Ramos : 15 clubs over 23 years
Jol : 8 clubs over 22 years
Hoddle : 5 clubs over 15 years
Graham : 4 clubs over 19 years
Gross : 6 clubs over 25 years
Francis : 6 clubs over 18 years

It was a genuine question mate. I do try (believe it or not) to move on without agenda. Life's too short to bicker over stupid brick on the internet, though sadly I sometimes find that we all do it sometimes...

I wasn't alluding to that which you thought at all. I was interested in your opinion as I know you like his work. Frankly, if I were to take it anywhere, it would be that IMV he seems very happy to not stay anywhere much longer, and that it is usually HIS choice to leave in that time-frame. He'd have left us if they'd given him the England job. If your figures are correct, then it looks like I am, indeed, a year out on his average stay. EDIT: Just seen Spursalot's post which says 7 clubs...I'm going to look it up now...

There is actually a fascinating statistic which emerges. In the EARLY part of his managerial career, Harry was a 'stayer'...Bournmouth 9 years, West Ham 7...after this, it starts to get a little shorter and a little more erratic...I firmly believe that Harry was the master of maximizing his own talents and realizing when it might have been time to move on. In our case, I think we would agree that he and Levy were never on the same page from day 1, which made things a little edgier for sure.

I am hopeful this can remain a discussion. I find it perplexing that all too often it degenerates. Here's to hoping we can all share opinions without bitterness.

 

[Spursalot]

Your perception I would guess. Redknapp is one of the more stable managers around when a club hires him. His longest managerial reign was Bournemouth if I remember correctly, and he left Portsmouth on political grounds but when you actually take how long he was there for he was there for a while. He was our longest serving Premiership Manager. You are alluding to the fact that because he only sticks around 3 or 4 seasons (which I believe to be factually incorrect anyway) that there is something wrong with him. But in reality, he tends to stay in his jobs longer than most managers and he has been a professional manager for 30 years so he must be doing something right.

Just to bring this into perspective from our Premiership era and the managers.

Redknapp : 6 clubs over 30 years
AVB : 4 clubs over 4 years
Ramos : 15 clubs over 23 years
Jol : 8 clubs over 22 years
Hoddle : 5 clubs over 15 years
Graham : 4 clubs over 19 years
Gross : 6 clubs over 25 years
Francis : 6 clubs over 18 years

if you are truly talking about stability than Redknapp would be 7 clubs. I highly doubt it could be considered managerial stability when he moved from Portsmouth to Southampton and then back to Portsmouth again.

 

[thfcsteff]

He didn't have a high turnover of players at Spurs after transfer window number one. As has been pointed elsewhere when he left, a lot of the players in our team were ones that had been there before he arrived. What Redknapp did (or tried to do with the limited funds available) was tweak the squad and first team where he could. AVB is performing a major overhaul. I am not surprised by this, simply because AVB is trying to implement a new system and style of play and a lot of the previous players don't fit into that system. My biggest fear is that I think I know what system AVB wants to play. And we are still 4 or 5 first team players off of playing it. He plays 442 this year and we have a great chance. He won't.

I think its been pretty clear for a while not that AVB wants a 25 man squad who all share the same mentality, all have a certain level of performance and can all adapt to whatever tactics he feels are necessary during the course of a game. Further, and I believe he said this, I think he's looking to have two high-calibre players per position.

 

[thfcsteff]

It's all relative to how good the other teams in the league are. Lets say the league is more competitive than it was last season, I couldn't care less if we finished 4th/3rd with say 69 points.

I absolutely understand your viewpoint, however you have to acknowledge there is equal understanding to be found in the viewpoint of those who feel that a record amount of points is to be considered an achievement.

 

[africanspurs]

well, this is his second season with one of the best squads i have ever seen , if we keep bale then there is no excuse for us not making CL qualification

even though i think we will finish top 6 again

 

[scaramanga]

Jumpers, don't bother. I argued this logic at the end of last season about how I would much rather finish 3rd with less points than the season before. Do you think Man United will be happy if they set a record points total but lose the title to Emirates Marketing Project?

I'd rather finish first every season and couldn't give a crap if we managed it with only 20 points. That's not an indicator of how good we were though, that's an indicator of how good we were combined with how bad other teams were.

I know I've asked this question 3 or 4 times now, but everyone keep evading it:

If the Utd, City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool squads were all in some terrible accident and couldn't play, we managed 55 points in the season but won the league due to the others not being there - does that make us better than a team with 70 points and 5th?

If you're happy winning a brick league rather than progressing in a good one, why don't we just shift the team to Scotland? We could sell half our squad and still win the league every season.

 

[thfcsteff]

well, this is his second season with one of the best squads i have ever seen , if we keep bale then there is no excuse for us not making CL qualification

even though i think we will finish top 6 again

I woud have to say that IF he keeps Bale (and if Bale doesn't spend 3 months getting his brick together) then I would absolutely expect not just top 4 but for us to aim for 1 or 2!!!!

 

[africanspurs]

I woud have to say that IF he keeps Bale (and if Bale doesn't spend 3 months getting his brick together) then I would absolutely expect not just top 4 but for us to aim for 1 or 2!!!!

if he keeps bale then there are no excuses. shouldnt take 3 months to get him being effective on the pitch. am not talking goals and assists, just playing well enough to command attention

 

[Baleforce]

if Bale stays anything less than a title challenge is a failure

 

[Gifter]

... In the same way I am unable to refute all of Gifter's claims in Random, because my shallow understanding of all the subjects just highlights my own ignorance and stupidity.

Fixed, my closed minded friend.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I'd rather finish first every season and couldn't give a crap if we managed it with only 20 points. That's not an indicator of how good we were though, that's an indicator of how good we were combined with how bad other teams were.

I know I've asked this question 3 or 4 times now, but everyone keep evading it:

If the Utd, City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool squads were all in some terrible accident and couldn't play, we managed 55 points in the season but won the league due to the others not being there - does that make us better than a team with 70 points and 5th?

If you're happy winning a brick league rather than progressing in a good one, why don't we just shift the team to Scotland? We could sell half our squad and still win the league every season.

That is such a preposterous scenario but ill do my best to respond. Well 55 points would be a low total but it means we would have done as much as we had to to win the league. Using your analogy, you would be happier finishing 8th with 68 points rather than 3rd with 67?

Once again, it's all relative to how strong the league is. I see some value in being happy with setting a points total, but to me, the league position is the more important of the two, and yes I know the two are linked.

 

[onlyme]

I'd rather finish first every season and couldn't give a crap if we managed it with only 20 points.
If you're happy winning a brick league rather than progressing in a good one, why don't we just shift the team to Scotland?

Those 2 lines shoot their pedantic argument down in flames.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I'd rather finish first every season and couldn't give a crap if we managed it with only 20 points. That's not an indicator of how good we were though, that's an indicator of how good we were combined with how bad other teams were.

I know I've asked this question 3 or 4 times now, but everyone keep evading it:

If the Utd, City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool squads were all in some terrible accident and couldn't play, we managed 55 points in the season but won the league due to the others not being there - does that make us better than a team with 70 points and 5th?

If you're happy winning a brick league rather than progressing in a good one, why don't we just shift the team to Scotland? We could sell half our squad and still win the league every season.

If it takes 90pts to win a 20 team league then it's actually a lower quality league than if it takes 70pts. That's why in Scottish football the first couple of teams are usually way ahead of the rest. If it was a competitive league, then the gap between the winners, top four etc. to the lower mid-table teams is much smaller. It's only in weak leagues where the first four of five teams are comfortably clear of the rest, because in that scenario the rest usually turns out to be nothing but cannon fodder for the big guns.

So the conclusion? If you finish 5th on 72pts, then the league is weaker. If you finish 4th on 60pts, then the league is stronger.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

That is such a preposterous scenario but ill do my best to respond. Well 55 points would be a low total but it means we would have done as much as we had to to win the league. Using your analogy, you would be happier finishing 8th with 68 points rather than 3rd with 67?

Once again, it's all relative to how strong the league is. I see some value in being happy with setting a points total, but to me, the league position is the more important of the two, and yes I know the two are linked.

I am going to speculate here that those really pushing this point are AVB fans and probably weren't Redknapp fans. We finished 5th, but somehow that needs to be spun so it's a bigger achievement than anything Redknapp did at Spurs and that is why this silly debate is even taken place. I don't believe for one moment that they genuinely believe their own argument here. If we had finished 3rd last season with less points than we finished 4th season before they'd be arguing our viewpoint if someone countered them with "But we scored more points under Redknapp". Then position would trump points.

You are completely correct of course. It's comparison to your rivals that judge how good a team is, not the amount of points accrued in total. Simply because there can be wild fluctuations between the quality of the lower teams season upon season. Using the logic that opposition strength doesn't matter and points are everything, then you can compare teams from different leagues as well. If a team from the Championship earns the highest points per game ratio from the English season does that mean they are better than a team that finished 10th in the Premiership? Of course not. Because although purely mathematically points are the same (3 points for a win in both leagues), in reality the points aren't worth the same because earning the points is easier in the Championship than the Premiership due to lower quality opposition. The same principle applies season to season in the Premiership.

Perhaps the biggest indicator of all is actually the winners. Man Utd won it last season with 89pts. Even among Utd fans there is consensus that last years Man Utd team was the weakest Utd team to win the Premiership title and yet they won it by a margin and points total that exceeds those of far superior Utd teams in the past. So the conclusion is, if a weaker Utd team can amass more points during the course of a specific season doesn't that indicate that the entire quality of the league that year was weaker and therefore earning points was an easier feat than in seasons past?

 

[scaramanga]

Those 2 lines shoot their pedantic argument down in flames.

Reading fail.

Try again - I'm separating what we want (winning the league) from signs of how good we are (points gained).

The two are entirely different. Points are irrelevant to what we want, final position (in all but how it is tied to points gained) is irrelevant to how well we've done.