Redknapp Vs AVB vs Jol

[onlyme]

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.

OK. I will let you guys get on with it.

I naively believe if we play better we get more points but if other teams play more betterer there ain't nuffink we can do about it.

 

[scaramanga]

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.

It's not about what makes us happy, it's about measuring how well we've done.

Yes, finishing higher/winning stuff makes me happier. But if you want the most accurate measure of how good we are/how well we've done then you have to take out as many external influences as possible.

 

[scaramanga]

OK. I will let you guys get on with it.

I naively believe if we play better we get more points but if other teams play more betterer there ain't nuffink we can do about it.

That's pretty much what I'm trying to say.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

It's not about what makes us happy, it's about measuring how well we've done.

Yes, finishing higher/winning stuff makes me happier. But if you want the most accurate measure of how good we are/how well we've done then you have to take out as many external influences as possible.

I do agree with you but as they say you can only beat what is put in front of you. Therefore the only gauge that really matters is how well you have done against your peers that specific season. And to use another cliche, that's why the league table doesn't lie. Regardless of how many points we accrued last season we were the 5th best team in the league and at the end of the day that's all that matters.

How well the team compares to teams from the past is a nice pub discussion, but ultimately irrelevant for the reasons you've already listed. External factors.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

That's pretty much what I'm trying to say.

But then you are disregarding the quality of the opposition. I am saying if the opposition is poorer we'll accrue more points. Or to put it another way, if you have a league with poor mid-table teams in it then the top five or six clubs will accrue more points than usual even if their actual on the pitch performances are weaker than usual (hence why Utd won the title so comfortably last year with arguably their weakest ever Premiership side, better Utd sides than that one have failed to win the title).

 

[THFC6061]

Let's just remind ourselves of what AVB had to contend with last season:

Losing 3 of Tottenham's 4 best players (King, Modric & Van der Vaart).

It was his first season in charge of Spurs.

Despite this, he managed to set a new club Premier League points record of 72, including 39 points in the second half of the season.

 

[braineclipse]

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 agree with what Scara said above about what makes us happy obviously. And if that's the yardstick then obviously finishing position is the most important.

Finishing position is also influenced by how strong the other teams are. Last season Chelsea picked up 75 points, the season before they only picked up 64. And I don't think that was just due to the league being weaker overall seeing as they leapfrogged both ourselves and Arsenal in their points total. Chelsea were significantly better imo. That hugely influenced our league position since a difference of just one place is so significant.

But then you are disregarding the quality of the opposition. I am saying if the opposition is poorer we'll accrue more points. Or to put it another way, if you have a league with poor mid-table teams in it then the top five or six clubs will accrue more points than usual even if their actual on the pitch performances are weaker than usual (hence why Utd won the title so comfortably last year with arguably their weakest ever Premiership side, better Utd sides than that one have failed to win the title).

No we're not.

First of all please see my reply right above this first of all where I point out why how strong other teams are is just as much of an influence on league position and something I haven't seen brought up by yourself or those arguing your side in these recent pages.

Second, your argument doesn't seem to hold up to me. In the 2012/13 season Manchester United picked up 89 points, they won the league very comfortably with Emirates Marketing Project only picking up 78 points. You use this difference to argue that the league overall was weaker. However, the facts are that Manchester United picked up 89 points in the 2011/12 season too! It's just that in that season City picked up as many points. How do you explain Manu picking up the same number of points when the league overall according to you got weaker? Remember that Manu significantly improved by signing the best striker in the league before the 2012/13 season, without selling any key players and they had also sorted out their goalkeeper situation that gave them trouble in the first of those two seasons due to De Gea being new to the league.

I see no compelling argument from your side to support the notion that the league was significantly weaker.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Let's just remind ourselves of what AVB had to contend with last season:

Losing 3 of Tottenham's 4 best players (King, Modric & Van der Vaart).

It was his first season in charge of Spurs.

Despite this, he managed to set a new club Premier League points record of 72, including 39 points in the second half of the season.

No one is belittling his achievements. He had an excellent first season with us.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I agree with what Scara said above about what makes us happy obviously. And if that's the yardstick then obviously finishing position is the most important.

Finishing position is also influenced by how strong the other teams are. Last season Chelsea picked up 75 points, the season before they only picked up 64. And I don't think that was just due to the league being weaker overall seeing as they leapfrogged both ourselves and Arsenal in their points total. Chelsea were significantly better imo. That hugely influenced our league position since a difference of just one place is so significant.



No we're not.

First of all please see my reply right above this first of all where I point out why how strong other teams are is just as much of an influence on league position and something I haven't seen brought up by yourself or those arguing your side in these recent pages.

Second, your argument doesn't seem to hold up to me. In the 2012/13 season Manchester United picked up 89 points, they won the league very comfortably with Emirates Marketing Project only picking up 78 points. You use this difference to argue that the league overall was weaker. However, the facts are that Manchester United picked up 89 points in the 2011/12 season too! It's just that in that season City picked up as many points. How do you explain Manu picking up the same number of points when the league overall according to you got weaker? Remember that Manu significantly improved by signing the best striker in the league before the 2012/13 season, without selling any key players and they had also sorted out their goalkeeper situation that gave them trouble in the first of those two seasons due to De Gea being new to the league.

I see no compelling argument from your side to support the notion that the league was significantly weaker.

Emirates Marketing Project last season were weaker than the season before. Significantly so, but that seems to fall squarely on Mancini's shoulders.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

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.

What I am stating is that Redknapp is no different to most other managers, and if anything tends to stay at clubs longer than most managers. I don't think there is any great mystery to this.

Redknapp has ambition I am sure. So do all Managers. Bournemouth he earned his reputation but actually left there to be an assistant manager at the club he loves. He then got the job at West Ham and IMO would still be their manager now had he not fallen out with the board. I think he would have been a lifer there, but even then if England or Man Utd came calling he would have left. He left Portsmouth because he saw us a bigger step up in his career. The Southampton debacle was ridiculous but he wasn't really a Pompey man and again would never have left Pompey had he not fallen out with Board.

West Ham is Redknapp's club. He has no emotional loyalty to any other club. That tends to be the case for most Managers. And even then they'll only stay loyal to their emotional club if that emotional club can be competitive. The moment a "giant" comes along or the national job comes along (if it's a national giant) then most people will also leave their emotional club for the opportunity. You only live once.

As for Redknapp? Once the England job passed him by I have little doubt he'd have stayed with us for the rest of his career if he had the choice. We are the biggest club he has ever managed, and we were the biggest club he were ever going to manage. The only possible bigger job than us he was ever going to get a stab at was the England role, so I didn't begrudge him wanting that. Especially at his age.

 

[braineclipse]

Emirates Marketing Project last season were weaker than the season before. Significantly so, but that seems to fall squarely on Mancini's shoulders.

Right...

That doesn't address any of the points I brought up and it doesn't do anything to support your claim that the league was weaker.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Right...

That doesn't address any of the points I brought up and it doesn't do anything to support your claim that the league was weaker.

I've already made my points elsewhere and we disagree.

I don't just think it's the Premiership either. At the moment there seems to be a real lack of quality players. But in the Premiership specifically I think it's so weak. I like Rodgers, and I was impressed with Liverpool last season but that Liverpool team 5 seasons ago would have been in a relegation dogfight.

 

[thfcsteff]

What I am stating is that Redknapp is no different to most other managers, and if anything tends to stay at clubs longer than most managers. I don't think there is any great mystery to this.

Redknapp has ambition I am sure. So do all Managers. Bournemouth he earned his reputation but actually left there to be an assistant manager at the club he loves. He then got the job at West Ham and IMO would still be their manager now had he not fallen out with the board. I think he would have been a lifer there, but even then if England or Man Utd came calling he would have left. He left Portsmouth because he saw us a bigger step up in his career. The Southampton debacle was ridiculous but he wasn't really a Pompey man and again would never have left Pompey had he not fallen out with Board.

West Ham is Redknapp's club. He has no emotional loyalty to any other club. That tends to be the case for most Managers. And even then they'll only stay loyal to their emotional club if that emotional club can be competitive. The moment a "giant" comes along or the national job comes along (if it's a national giant) then most people will also leave their emotional club for the opportunity. You only live once.

As for Redknapp? Once the England job passed him by I have little doubt he'd have stayed with us for the rest of his career if he had the choice. We are the biggest club he has ever managed, and we were the biggest club he were ever going to manage. The only possible bigger job than us he was ever going to get a stab at was the England role, so I didn't begrudge him wanting that. Especially at his age.

Agree re: West Ham, but it's really something to hear what Hammers have to say about him (much of it dating to the Billy Bonds stuff)...and of course, who would begrudge anyone the national team job? My only complaint about that whole scenario was that he took his eyes squarely off the ball when I genuinely, genuinely felt with a bit more attention to detail he could've won the league/had a statue, etc...

On a philosophical basis, I must say that the following sentence was interesting;

<<The moment a "giant" comes along or the national job comes along (if it's a national giant) then most people will also leave their emotional club for the opportunity. You only live once.>>

You do only live once, which dictates your priorities. And the grass is not always greener on the other side IMO. But yes, I understand what you're saying, that 'most' people would jump at the 'dream' job regardless of the consequences.