Jol taking over from santini was an important development. As was frank Arsenen as even though Frank betrayed us, if it wasn't for his backing of Jol, Levy would never have given Jol the job. But yes Jol started a change for us. Yet look at Jol and look at Redknapp. One is viewed as a complete gentleman. One is viewed as a mouthy wide boy. This is why some fans prefer to try and guide praise towards Jol instead of Praising Redknapp, when both managers should be judged on their ability and I remember both as being important yet Redknapp didn't just finish the job, he helped set a new standard for what we should aim for in the premier league and fans shouldn't dismiss that based on his personality.
That bottom picture was taken outside his house on the morning after he had been sacked. Some bright spark reported him to Dorset Police for not wearing his seat belt !!!
Agree with this. The England thing is tricky. Whilst you can't argue with the way the results went I thought we had one or two really unlucky matches during that time. Also lets not forget that the FA could easily have sorted that one out by telling Harry he wasn't in the running. Remember after Roy was appointed they said they didn't approach him sooner as they didn't want to affect WBA's season (!!!) But the FA were prepared to let the story run with apparent major impact on ours. I am also not completely convinced of how much he was courting the job in the sense that during that time, every reporter asked the question so it could easily have given that impression whether he was "courting" the job or not. As for the different formations and tactics etc, there has been a lot of criticism on here about him being a one trick pony and that he should have mixed it up a bit. Of course that may not have been his strength, but he doesn't seem to be able to win on that one - criticised if he doesn't, criticised if he does. His main strength of course was his motivational ability, and ironically that would have made him a better England manager than Roy.
A football manager brings his knowledge of football to the job. The ability to manage depends on his personality it is therefore crucial to the success or otherwise of the project. The results acheived by Jol and Redknapp were not disimilar. Jol a 9th and two 5th's, Redknapp an 8th, two 4th's and a 5th. Bearing in mind the different circumstances that they operated under, Jol without control of transfers and a tech director in place, Redknapp having a bigger say in transfers. I don't think you can make a case for one being vastly better than the other. I don't remember Jol making any controversial statements to the media while Spurs manager. Redknapp on the other hand. Pavlyunchenko, Bent, Dos Santos, Bentley, were all criticised publicly by Redknapp. If you do not understand that as poor management then you do not understand mangement IMO. He then criticised the fans! Players now fans all we need is to add the club to his critiques and we have the complete set and he did not let us down. The club were too small and were performing above their station. He then capped it all by publicly touting himself for the England job. NOW! the point is not whether you agree or not with Redknapps various pronouncements it is the fact that they were all aired in public. That has nothing to do with being a 'wide boy' but everything to do with very poor management. Sooner or later with that kind of management something breaks and in Redknapp's case if you look at his job history he usually moves on. It's all a shame IMO because we have far too few of the old school managers like Redknapp in the pro game. I would much prefer his style at Spurs than the modern 'control' but it's very hard to sustain with his complete lack of diplomacy.
To say the results are similar IMO doesn't have any real substance as Jol wasn't capable enough to get a top four finish. Redknapp was and on paper 4th and 5th are separated by one place yet the difference in what each position brings shows you how far apart they are in a football sense. You can make excuses for Jol regarding the technical director yet Redknapp never had full control of transfers throughout his time and in his final season he had to practically beg Levy to sign Parker. Talking of managers publicly damming players. Have you got your rose tinted specs on Spurf as I remember Jol laying into kanoute after we messed up a game against arsenal kids at home in the cup. So yes I agree public shaming of players isn't clever but Jol let his guard slip and while Redknapp is at times too quick to open his mouth, he wasn't in anyway overly harsh like Di canio and in all honesty Redknapp could at least say he improved this club with his management, there was substance behind his methods. They worked.
Was a while ago but got the game wrong. But this is what Jol said in public. An angry Jol said: 'What Fredi did was unforgivable, but it seems every club has a player who is always the fall guy. I can't understand why he had to handball because he wasn't under any pressure at all. He's too disappointed to speak, but it was the turning point of the tie. I remember him on TV as he was angry and much like Redknapp who was angry with Bent for his miss. Both managers shouldn't have spoke out but personally could understand as managers let their guard slip and Redknapp never lost the dressing room so I think the effect of his loud mouth is often exaggerated.
Well that started a decent enough discussion. Polarizing views, pretty much what I expected. I agree that Harry was the type of manager who could rub people the wrong way but I remember thinking during the whole Roy Hodgson fiasco that I'd have loved to have him at Liverpool. Don't give him control of the finances (Though one could argue that it's the chairman's job to keep reign over management spending) and he's got a lot of positives to bring to the role. I enjoyed watching his style of football. That Tottenham team with Modric, VDV, Bale and Lennon was exciting to watch. Especially the Champions League effort, surprised a lot of teams.
I don't think one comment by Jol is the same as Redknapp's sustained way of doing business at all Boss. I have made my points on Redknapp and I think they are quite clear. I don't see the point of repeating myself, I'm sure everyone has heard quite enough from me on this subject. Anyway I thought you were tired of this subject. I'm all for concentrating on the now, I'm sure AVB will soon be giving us a whole raft of new reasons to be critical. If he continues the control freakery for starters.
I was only making the point Jol let his guard slip and was capable of doing what Redknapp is critised for. Not wanting to go on either but it's too late Lol we both get dragged into these type of debates but isn't that what forum's are for. To debate. Rant. Talk crap and speak up about topics you're interested in. Must have something in common with Redknapp. Can't help but open our mouths Lol
There's the rub, did the FA even mention his name, give any hint??, I thought they were very guarded this time, it was all paper/media hyperbole. Not so much as an interview.
The FA allowed the speculation to run yet that was their entitlement as clubs or national teams won't usually release statements ruling out a manager to stop speculation in the press. Yet there is no chance Redknapp wasn't discussed, even if they were all sat around the table with slideshots of potential managers and it was a simple no with 'too much hassle'. That's how these men in suits view Redknapp. Even if he was the best choice, he's too opinionated and too much of a character for people who want an easy life and not wanting to take risks.
But the FA and loads of clubs, always say "he was always our first choice", as they did when appointing Hodgson. I would be amazed if Harry was not a contender for the position, his stock was so high at the time. I recommend you read his latest book, as he is of the view the FA were put off by the compensation Levy would have demanded. At the time the FA were under some criticism for paying Capello a reported £6m per year, so were reluctant to pay far more than that to release Harry from Spurs.
With all due respect SC I wouldn't expect anything less from Harry's side re. the compensation angle, deflecting what turned out really to be an embarrassing episode for the bloke, ending up with no job at all for a bit. And far as suitablility for a few years with England, at the time he'd not long had his heart condition, hindsight has proved so far no ill effects, but at the time thinking ahead, his health would have been a question mark. I'm not sure where the tax evasion case was at the time either, but looking at that purely from an employer angle, its not the publicity you would want surrounding an appointment tbf either. It came out from the FA later about their wish for the new manager to have more involvement in coaching at Burton etc. As we can see Roy is hands on in that respect, and Harry not so much, mainly leaving all that to Team Harry. There was also the small matter of Trevor Brooking, despite his saying he had no sway in the decision, I think it would be fairly naive to believe he wouldn't have had some off the record input. Like many, I thought Harry's dressing room influence was just what the national side needed, but unfortunately the job involves a bit more than that, with Harry's CV not able to match other criteria the FA were looking for this time. Maybe if the FA had issued a bit more of the job description, I think Harry may have not been propelled to the job as he was by nearly all. I also think Harry would have pressed on with an 'old guard' approach to 2014 had he been given it, with all usual media hysteria that goes with it, not something the FA were wanting. I said quite openly at the time I didn't think Harry and his predicament fitted the bill at the time. Just a sidenote, I've not studied Roys CV before, as a player, most of his career is spent in Kent non-league...how could I not know that!...you learn something new everyday!
Sorry, but for Harry to say compensation might have been an issue, is not "deflecting" because Spurs themselves revealed there was a compensation clause if England or anyone else came knocking at he door. The clause was real and he is well justified in believing it could have put the FA off. Regarding the court case, Capello resigned the day after Redknapp was cleared of the charges. I don't necessarily agree that his case would put off employers as the allegations and his subsequent arrest, had been made before Levy brought him to our club. Anyway, he didn't get it, he has said his side of the story and he is sticking to that, so there's not really much more to add.
Fair enough on the compo, I wasn't really saying it didn't exist, but I'd be surprised if H believed that was the only reason he didn't get it, and i agree the FA would've preferred not to get into negotiations with Levy...not many people do! Do you think he might admit one day to perhaps regretting the way things went? or has he said as much in the book?
