That would be ironic. My criticisms of Redknapp haven't changed from last season Lidls, apart from the understandable additions of his policy of playing people out of position and his head being turned by the FA. Doesn't rotate, doesn't manage squad players, can't keep his mouth shut to the media and is rather self-serving in his declarations. I think that they're justifiable criticisms. Do you disagree?
In the 49 games we've played this season, Walker has played 43 In the 55 games Chelsea have played this season, Ashley Cole has played 45 Walker has had six games off all season, Cole has had ten. But that doesn't prove anything, does it? And you keep skirting the issue of players being substituted - a luxury Walker hasn't been afforded, by and large, which Cole has.
Cole's been regularly protected recently by the use of Ramires on his side, shielding him as a main duty. We've left both of our full-backs totally exposed for most of the last couple of months, for some reason.
The same thing happened last season though, Lidls. How can players go from being first team certainties to not being good enough to warm the bench in the space of a summer? Redknapp just struggles to deal with a decent sized squad. If he wasn't happy with the strength of the squad, then why did he keep saying the exact opposite all of the time? Why did we ship out a bunch of players in January, whilst also keeping hold of several that he wouldn't touch with a bargepole, like Gomes, Dos Santos and Khumalo?
We could have easily loaned out Dos Santos and kept Townsend, for example, Lidls. Saha and Nelsen are still decent players, but the former doesn't complement either van der Vaart or Defoe, so he's an inappropriate signing and we've already got injury prone, aging centre-backs.
Now that was a stupid comment. Ten games off is more than six games off. Anyone trying to argue otherwise is nothing but an apologist for Harry'd shortcomings. Kyle Walker has played 3749 minutes this season Ashley Cole has played 2683 minutes this season Walker has played 1100 minutes more football this season! That's over 18 hours more football, or an extra twelve games.
Considering the numerous times you've kept reverting to the defence - including twice on this page of the thread - of saying that Ashley Cole has played more than any of our players have this season, it's worth already you've backed down in saying Walker has played too much, and now I'll just make it more obvious to you. Based on the number of minutes played, our outfield first team (and Ashley Cole) have played the equivalent number of games... Kyle Walker - 41 games Benoit Assou-Ekotto - 39 games Gareth Bale - 37 games Luka Modric - 36 games Younes Kaboul - 35 games Scott Parker - 33 games Emanuel Adebayor - 31 games Ashley Cole - 29 games Rafael van Der Vaart - 28 games Aaron Lennon - 20 games Ledley King - 20 games ...we have seven outfield players that have played more football than Ashley Cole this season. But I'm sure you;ll try some other BS way to say Harry has it right, despite the myriad of evidence to the contrary on just about every aspect of his team selection.
I think that might be wrong after all hbic, once again Coles figure is for PL minutes...add 900 CL minutes and then some! http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/basics/spielervergleich/basics_3182_95424.html scroll down to 'info for this season' I would assume the symbol of a clock would be the minutes played. and btw, your theory of using weak players is bullshit, end of, as is your Ashley Cole myriad of bullshit. Me try! ...check your facts, I'm fed up of putting you right.
I think we are all agreed on Harry's shortcomings. The issue is more whether they are balanced by his strengths. Luke is right that this is the best Spurs side in 50 years and I think we are back in the top ten club sides in the world, which is about where we should be given our resources, but its been a long time coming. But how much is that down to Harry and how much down to him having inherited a really good bunch of developing players. About 50:50 I would say: the three signings at the beginning of the season were just about the best possible within the budget and I think that if we get fourth. the team has done about as well as anyone can have expected. But we were very spoiled by the brilliant run at the beginning - which turned to crap pretty rapidly after the very unlucky loss at the Etihad. So I would say that Harry has done pretty well, all things considered, but he's not in the really top echelon of managers. i won't mourn too much if we qualify for the CL and Harry nips off to England. It would be interesting to see what another top coach could get out of this squad.
The problem with "operation plucky England" is that half the first 11 would collect too many bookings to advance through the competition. That and the fact we would surrender possession far too easily.
It still shows that Cole has been better rested - less minutes overall, plus less games in the Premier League and in the FA Cup, and it even shows he's been rested in the Champions League (11 games out of 12, plus the minutes played indicates he didn;t play 90 minutes in all of them) You have, repeatedly, shown that you do not understand squad rotation - and yet you say that rotating the squad is inherently wrong. Your ranting about "weak" players underlines this far more than the fact you think quoting data that still proves you wrong means you have a grasp of what's going on. All that shows is that you are at least a dozen years behind the times, and there's a name for people with that kind of outlook when it comes to football: Kenny Dalglish.
"Bale was a left back, known only as a curse- when he played Spurs didn't win." And if not for BAE getting injured and Harry being forced into a change he still would be
LDL, "I'm not a supporter of the club. But objectively, I can see that 'Arry is still doing a fantastic job". LDL I enjoy reading your posts very much, even though you are Red, but allow me to disagree with the above sentance. 'Fantastic' is over cooking it slightly. If you consider the run of results since January, even Harry himself would not agree with you (if he is honest with himself). Consider the following:- 1) Spurs were 13 points clear and 2 goals up on our nearest rivals/pursuers just 13 weeks ago. 2) Lack of team spirit at the most vital time in the season and 3) The nucleus of the squad has been put under too much pressure and have now clocked up too many pitch miles, therefor recent bad preformances by the team as a whole show no sign(s) of getting better. 1, 2 qnd 3 as above are basic errors really, but they do happen and are just three or the reasons why most of us here are of the opinion that Harry is no longer doing a 'fanastic job'. Its result that count. Liverpool shot themselves in their own foot. The least said about them the better. Bale, Modric, Lennon and Walker were always going to develop in to good players and needed the right system to adapt (their style of play) to. VDV and Parker, granted. Never the less, Harry HAS BEEN 'fanastic' for Spurs but is he 'still doing a fantastic job' ?...... Not really...and if we get 4th (which I believe we will), then he would have done his job.
Luke if it were not for the other factors that coincided with Spurs lack of form we might be able to be more philosophical. Harry's court case, Cappello resigns, Harry favourite to replace him all coincide with a dramatic change in Spurs from a team who we begin to feel confident and calm when watching to a team of headless chickens unable to beat either Norwich or QPR. Norwich particularly out fought and ultimately out played us, why, how? It is very hard not to see a link even if there is not one. Maybe the loss of form is just a timing coincidence but in trying to rationalise what is happening it's understandable that you might draw the conclusion that Harry is not focused. Especially when Harry has made it clear that 'you could not turn the chance to manage England down easily'. His lack of nous when dealing with the media which has annoyed many of us at the best of times becomes infuriating at the worst of times.
