Corluka has a point if not slightly bitter, but can you blame him. Rotation was not the main problem but would have helped. The quality gulf between first 11 and squad players is vast. Really the squad players are never going to cut it no matter how much we dream. There is a couple of exceptions but are Rose etc ever going to be good enough ?
It's true to say that when we earned the champions league place, we did it as a squad. All key players spend long runs off of the pitch. King, Modric, Lennon, Bale, Palacios etc. Difference was we had cover. Jenas, Bentely, Corluka, Krancar, Dawson, Bassong etc. all came in and did a job. If I remember, Bassong and Dawson were a pretty solid pairing for big chunks of the season. Harry even talked then about how it was a squad game. Since then, our first eleven has improved. Parker for Palacios, Ade for Crouch, VDV for Keane etc. BUT our squad hasn't really. Livermore had come in to pretty much replace Jenas. Other than that. No cover for Lennon. No cover for Bale (Krancar and Modric on wings just isn't done much anymore, partly I think because Hudd has been out to further anchor the middle. No cover for Walker with Corluka frozen out. Disco benny's cover, Rose, hardly get's a look in. Sandro also doesn't seem to have earned the trust for him to cover for Parker successfully. Kaboul and King have been the CB pairing of choice, but who is the in second pair? To be honest, as well as it works when the first eleven are fit, without them we begin to resemble the rag tag squad that Harry described when he first arrived. No shape. Corluka does have a point, especially when you compare us to Man U or Man City for example. Should he be airing this rant publicly though? I don't think so. Not cool.
Bassong played 38 times for us in the 09/10 season, when we finished 4th, LockStock. It included one game at home against Villa when he was paired with Huddlestone and we still won 2-1. Redknapp's comments today about not rotating the squad are just naive and outdated. The fact that he harks back to Bobby Moore just shows it's not an area of the game that he understands. No offence to Moore, but I think that there might have been a few changes since he last pulled on a pair of boots in 1978. Look at how Newcastle have freshened up their side with the introduction of Cisse and Ben Arfa's sparse use during the first half of the season. They've rotated more successfully than we have and they look far fresher as a result. The fact that Redknapp didn't learn from our total burnout last season is astounding, frankly.
What gets me the most is that Harry himself did a good job of rotating, or at least better, when he first came in and in his second season, as you have pointed out. Now he talks as if it makes no difference. I actually think that Bassong would have been good cover for King, especially as we have Parker in the team and Friedal in goal. I also think that in the same way that Bale who was intended as a left back, was played on the wing, Walker should be played there with Corluka behind sometimes, if Lennon is injured. We saw how that turned out for Bale.
I agree with the majority of your post, with the exception of the part about improving the reserves. Players who can rotate in for a few games don't need to be the equal of the player they're replacing, they need the quality and/or the professionalism to do the job that's required of them when asked. For example, nobody on earth would say Wes Brown and John O'Shea should have been first teamers at MUPLC, but when they were required they came into the side for a few games, did the job, then went back to the bench when the player they came in for was ready. They were never First XI players there, but they were reliable deputies. This is where we've gone wrong with the squad. Whilst we do have reliable deputies in some areas - Kranjcar, Cudicini, Dawson, Rose and Livermore all spring to mind - we don't have them across the pitch. At the start of the season we could say that Pav didn't offer much as a starter but could come off the bench and bang one in, but he left in January and instead our deputy is Defoe - who isn't as reliable at banging in an opportunity when it comes his way as he is either offside or toe pokes it straight at the keeper. As for at the back, on paper it works - King as the experienced head alongside Kaboul, with Gallas and Dawson as the respective deputies, until you see that Bassong doesn't fit in as deputy to anyone in that system, as well as injuries potentiall playing hell with that approach (as has happened throughout the season with injuries to Gallas in the early stages and Dawson ruled out for the season) which has been made ten times worse with the decision to loan out Bassong in January. It's also odd that some players are given the square peg in round hole treatment - especially in midfield - whilst other players who could be deployed in other positions remained nailed to the bench. For example, Bassong has experience of playing at left back prior to joining Spurs so there is no reason to think he couldn't have been brought on with 15 minutes to go to give Benny a rest or as a replacement in case of injury/suspension/loss of form, but instead he was only deployed as a centre back this season - in games where King and Kaboul were rested.
Corluka talks ****, in these links, GS is the column you want (games started, one or two are 1 app out, but it gives the general idea).....I don't want to hear another word about rotation! unless its about our FB's. As for the rest, no more usage than United and City...just how few games do you want our key players to play? http://soccernet.espn.go.com/team/squad/_/id/367/league/all/tottenham-hotspur?cc=5739 http://soccernet.espn.go.com/team/squad/_/id/360/league/all/manchester-united?cc=5739 http://soccernet.espn.go.com/team/squad/_/id/382/league/all/manchester-city?cc=5739
Things those links do not indicate: 1.) How often first team players were substituted during games in order for their understudies to play out the last 10-15 minutes, or even a tactical switch for the last 20-30 minutes 2.) The competitions in which the reserves started - we known that the likes of Carroll and Dos Santos only started in the FA Cup and Europa League, not in the Premier League 3.) The real column to look at is the SB column, indicating how often players have come on as subs - we've had six players to come on half a dozen times or more in all competitions (Defoe, Livermore, Rose, Sandro, Pav, GDS) compared to ten at MUPLC and eleven at City (possible more, as the site says they have three Edin Dzekos and two Nigel De Jongs, among others) 4.) How about listing the stats for Arsenal, Chelsea and Newcastle? They're the teams on form right now and, notably, their key players have all played less games than our key players.
LockStock - when we qualified for the CL, Charlie didn't "come in" and do a job, he played most of the matches! I for one thought/think he was/he is a very accomplished "proper" defender, as opposed to a winger/full back hybrid. I didn't know he had problems earlier in the season, but was surprised Walker took over from him at #1 so early, I thought Charlie would still be #1 this season. Walker has certainly been good, don't get me wrong, but of course it's more than just a game of individuals. I happen to think that Charlie and Lennon together on that wing form a far better "team" than Walker and Lennon, so that the product of them both combined is greater than their products individually. Basically I think we have a more balanced team with Charlie in it! I think his lack of pace is overdone. If you are tactically aware you negate most of that. He's often come up against fast wingers and its unfair to limit analysis purely to the odd occasion people get past him for pace. His positioning and defending is far better than Walker (at the moment, I am sure Walker will improve that part of his game). So I'm not happy he has spoken out this way, but I'm sure he also thinks he hasn't got anything to lose.
vimhawk - I agree. I've said it often. Before the Bale hype, Lennon was the danger man that the opposition feared. Corluka was mainly solid behind him and worked well and intelligently when going forwards to assist Lennon's attacks. Very much allowed Lennon to do his thing and dangerous when taking initiative himself. Much more astute than Walker in judging what to do when, and most importantly, where to position himself defensively. What I should have said is that Hutton came in and did a job in Corluka's absence in that position when he was needed. The right side was the solid side. I too wanted there to be Corluka / Walker sharing of the position. Especially when we don't have cover for Lennon. Push Walker forwards, put Corluka at the back. Walker is an improvement on Hutton and should be used as an attacking alternative imho.
LockStock - agreed we should see what Walker can do as an actual winger. Certainly getting forward less that he did earlier in the season... he couldn't be tired could he? Also agreed Walker is the upgraded much superior version of Hutton, not a like for like Corluka.
I agree, we don't have backup across the pitch. That is my point. Hence the squad hasn't been improved. One of the remarkable things of the past couple of seasons was our strength in depth. Commentators mentioned it. We were appeared to be building a fearsome squad. Something changed. Corluka, Pienaar, Bassong, all gone? replaced by who? Also, Gallas, Dawson and Kaboul all play on the right side of a CB pair naturally. Bassong plays on the left side naturally as does King.
I have seen this idea mentioned before and the reservation I have is that when you get into that final third of the pitch, a player needs a certain amount of "savvy" and a certain amount of composure, and at the moment Kyle Walker does not have that consistently enough. When he arrives in that area of the pitch after one of his runs, he always seems to still be at full throttle if you know what I mean. We saw this with Alan Hutton, because if he'd had even half a football brain, then he would have been a lot more effective in that final third than he was. In Walker's case it will improve with experience and games, and as others have said, he is certainly a far bigger asset to us than Hutton was. So for the moment at least, I think this idea should be put away for another day in another season.
Not really interested in all the nit picking here hbic, the general points remain the same. 1. Our key players have done no more, give or take a game, than other teams around us. 2. Our 'plan B' players who I'd happily rotate with, have generally been injured when needed. Daws, Hudd, Sandro, and Niko to an extent. 3. Squad players after the above list are 'plan C' or emergency, and not good enough. Btw, I take no pleasure in being right and ramming this back down yer 'gregory'! and just for the hell of it I did look at Chelsea...old man Ashley Cole, 45 ****in games and still going strong! ....aaah! poor Benny and Kyle! Nothing more from me now on this subject...JD!...no not him...job done! And just for good measure... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17873101 Nonsense!
Who are you to decide who's smart and who isn't?...not sure you've displayed the right qualifications for that! Anyway! before this gets out of hand...
Let's start with the raw data - the three outfield players of the top six with the most starts. Manchester United: Evra (44), Rooney (39), Carrick/Ferdinand (35) Manchester City: Silva (43), Yaya Toure (38), Lescott (37) Arsenal: Van Persie (34), Walcott (32), Song (31) Newcastle: Simpson (34), Jonas (33), Coloccini (31) Spurs: Walker (42), Benny (40), Bale (38) Chelsea: Cole (30), Mata (28), Terry (27) Gareth Bale, our third most regular starter, has started more games than 11 of the 15 rival players on that list. Then there's the fact no Arsenal, Newcastle or Chelsea player has come close to starting 40 games this season, and these are the teams currently on form. You may want to read this: http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Tottenham_Hotspur_Minutes_2011-12.html This underlines how badly Harry has rotated the squad. When available, the following occurred: Bassong: Featured in 13 games, didn't get off the bench for 18, dropped from the squad for 2 Kranjcar: Played 18, benched 13, dropped 3 Dawson: Played 13, benched 4, dropped 0 Rose: Played 17, benched 14, dropped 6 Dos Santos: Played 12, benched 9, dropped 24 Corluka: Played 8, benched 5, dropped 13 Townsend: Played 7, benched 7, dropped 13 Pavlyuchenko: Played 14, benched 11, dropped 2 Pienaar: Played 7, benched 9, dropped 3 Three things stick out: 1.) Just looking at the total number of minutes played underlines the alarming discrepancy between the amount of football played by Walker, Benny, Parker et al and their replacements 2.) For the games where Lennon and Kranjcar were both injured, the obvious like-for-like replacements in Townsend or Dos Santos weren't played 3.) Some of the "appearances" for the reserves total less than ten minutes at random intervals, which is hardly likely to increase match fitness or sharpness 30 games. I don't know where you got 45 from, as it's right there for you (and the rest of the forum) to read that he's played 33.333% less games than you say he has. As I said, there's a difference between not being good enough to play a full season, not being good enough to play 90 minutes, and not being good enough to play for the team in the first place. For the first, any youngster breaking into the team (Livermore or Townsend) or players whose years are catching up with them (King or Gallas) can come in and do a good job for a run of games. For the second, a player who might not be good for 90 minutes but can be an effective impact sub (Pavlyuchenko) can win a game. For the third, there's the collective cry of despair when people hear Alnwick is in goal, or Obika is playing as the lone striker. Instead we have... Youngster being loaned out to Championship clubs for the business end of the season, as the aging players have to play every game Pavlyuchenko gets sold off Well, could be worse... Probably for the best, as you're doing a pretty bad job of it. Harry Redknapp dismisses claims that he'd burned out players two seasons in a row, after two seasons where Spurs' league form petered out after March due to the players...well, if they hadn't played too many games, why did their form tail off both times? The FA weren't tapping up 'Arry this time last year leading to unrest in the squad, were they?
Just to echo Notso's comment here, there hasn't been anything particularly uncivilised said yet, but I'd like it if we could keep it that way.
