Some on here really don't like Redknapp, do they? It's been said before, but I find it quite astonishing that people want him gone after he's won promotion at a first attempt and we've yet to see how his PL team will perform this coming season, nor what the final squad will look like. I suspect he could win a place in Europe, plus preside over the best cup run we've had in years and one or two will say it happened in spite of his management.
He didn't win us promotion. He very nearly blew it. Other than his first month when he did sort us out the back, and played a smart tactical game to get the nevertheless lucky win at Chelsea, he has been poor. Relegation, then last season where we could hardly pass , cross or create a thing. He can't get us playing football. TF has hopefull recognised this now and brought in Hoddle. Hope he takes over soon. I like Arry, his humour, but not his lying about Adel and his stubbornness and laziness in apparently again not Trying to get the best out of our one No 10. His pantomime performance is also likely to reduce the fee the Club could get for Adel. We are liable to start this season with no No 10, insufficient strikers and a new very untried 3 5 2. Why should we want Arry to stay? I wanted him to go last winter as 40% of other posters on here then as I recall. He's done nothing better since then unless you rated playing Traore on the right of midfield!
What are the stats for relegated teams getting back up at their first attempt? I don't care that QPR did it the hard way, nor that errors were made along the way, nor that many of the performances were dire, nor that we had our share of both good luck and bad during the season. The history books will show that Harry Redknapp won QPR promotion back to the PL at their first attempt following a dramatic play-off final at Wembley that gave thousands of long-suffering Rs fans a day to remember for a long time. What matters to me now is how the team performs between now and late October/early November, plus what the final squad looks like. I have no criticism of the players bought or sold, nor his handling of certain players that obviously don't want to be here, nor those he's reputedly still trying to recruit, such as Sigthorsson. As John Maynard Keynes said,"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Ah ha..another Adel thread...... Just take a step back and have a think about this question....What league are we in now WITHOUT THE HELP OF ADEL....? Makes you think that Warnock was the fool for recruiting him...we've just proved we obviously didnt need him to get promoted...... Im only stating facts and not opinions..
To get this off topic back on topic... There was always a chance this would happen. Pullis never really seemed that keen - it took him weeks to say yes to the job, and while he did a great job in keeping them up I always got the feeling he was waiting for something else...maybe he fancies the West Ham job? Or he's always wanted to work in Huddersfield... Parish looks a nightmare...think it will be at least a month before they have a proper replacement.
I think it's less around the 23% mark that clubs bounce backup or was it only 23 club have done it...hmm Ok fuzz information, however it is no mean feat. love him or hate him, Arry you have to admit he had a part in it. Not sure what happen to Pulis but it sounds like he wanted more money than the Board were willing to give him. From the comments I've seen, the board are saying the long term finance of the Club comes first while Pulis is saying they promised to back him financially and they are not.
Yep. I believe Redknapp signed Austin, Dunne, Simpson and Phillips, as well as the likes of Carroll and Kranjcar on loan. Yes, he brought in some crap too, but then Ferguson signed Djemba-Djemba, didn't he? I also believe Redknapp brought Barton and Faurlin successfully back into the fold, cut costs by loaning out Mbia, Cesar, Taarabt, Granero, Park and Diakite. He also got good performances from Hoilett (improving), Green (rejuvenated) and Hill (dependable spirit). Not bad in my ignorant opinion.
Didn't he discover penicillin, decorate the Sistine Chapel and invent the internet as well? I am of course irredeemably biased/prejudiced in the opposite direction. Truth is probably in the middle, he didn't do bad, could have done better. While I think his managerial reputation is over inflated, I never thought he was a bad manager and have therefore been disappointed with what I have seen over the last 18 months - I associated him with decent football at least. My dislike is a much more personal, visceral thing. Pulis on the other hand has significantly enhanced his reputation and will doubtless come out of this with it undented if not improved, though walking out at this stage is a pretty crappy thing to do. Perhaps he has the next job lined up already.
Oh Dear Uber, don't get me started on the over promoted Keynes - He's already been proved to have been way too one dimensional - this is about Football so we'll save Keynes' inadequacies for another day. If you only want to deal in facts - Redknapp had almost the same amount of time to get QPR out of the mire when he first came in as Pulis had at Crystal Palace. Redknapp did not move us one iota in the League and had us further away from 17th. Pulis took Palace to comfortable 11th. Redknapp had plenty of money to throw at the "Project - Pulis did not. Redknapp got us playing the most defensive style of football ever seen in the Premiership - Pulis actually got Palce playing well. Redknapp had us under prepared for the Championship, he and his abundant cronies couldn't create a side that could score even regularly. You mention bad luck - What bad luck? - Austin being injured? - Well if you know what you're doing you'll have replacements .-surely? What is not fact - Redknapp couldn't give a **** about us - Doesn't really like us, and he and his entourage haven't a f...king clue about player recruitment - It's either the blatantly obvious or has beens he knows. To be fair to Redknapp on that, that trait can be seen in majority of English managers. Not a fan of Redknapp?- You betcha Has he been a worthwhile appointment for us? - With all the facts of how underprepared we are this year -his words, With all the facts of how we have played under his tenure, with all the facts that he is a snidey character, constantly referring to us as them - I'd say no, but hey, as that other reknowned saying states: "opinions are like arseholes - just that some arseholes are more beautiful and smell nicer than others" Sorry - I have my values - Redknapp will always be a c... to me in the same way that Barton will.
Shall I'll put you down as a "don't know" then, Danish? By the way, if I quote Keynes it doesn't mean I'm extolling his virtues - I might want to quote Stalin one day (although I can't think why right now). Underprepared for the Championship? I'm not so sure, but shall bow to your greater knowledge on the subject. All I know is that I will happily take the outcome of Redknapp's unpreparedness last season for whatever state of readiness Reading and Wigan believed themselves to be in. It's a funny old game, innit? If you cast your mind back over the past 10-15 years, only Ollie, Warnock and Redknapp have delivered anything remotely worth cheering about, yet all three are regularly criticised on this board. I'm going to keep my blinkers on and blindly support our manager, his team and the squad until at least mid-November, after which I'll have formed an opinion as to whether a change is sensible or not. Are you clear that Pulis could have produced better results than Redknapp given exactly the same team, position and other circumstances and, if so, are you satisfied that this certainty has been arrived at without the benefit of the hindsight of Pulis' achievement at Palace? If this is the case, please could you PM tomorrow's winning lottery numbers to me, as I was unaware that anybody on 'ere found Pulis or his reputation appealing when he was still at the helm at Stoke. P.S. For the record, my arsehole is rank 'cos I seldom wipe properly.
No, that was in turn Madame Cholet of the Wombles, one of the Ninja Turtles and Richard Desmond, Stan. A well balanced response, thank you. I'm sure we'd all have preferred a barnstorming title-winning season last time around, but perhaps he decided on what he believed to be the best approach with what he had at his disposal, a view which many will deplore, but it worked somehow. Pulis, on the other hand, had a much different reputation at Stoke to the one he now has from his Palace sojourn in terms of style.
Just a couple of things in the Pulis/Redknapp comparison. Pulis didn't inherit a 'toxic' dressing room full of Prima Donnas that hadn't won a single game and didn't have players who made it clear they didn't give a toss about their club. From a starting point he had an advantage. He did a great job and deserves the praise but it's unfair to hang Harry out to dry by comparison and I'm not one of Harry's cheerleaders, we'll be able to judge Harry far better from this season's performances...
danish, i understand and respect your view on redknapp and thats up to you. im not impressed with he football we played , formations or tactics BUT facts are...HE HAD ONE JOB. get QPR PROMOTED now, like him or loathe him, the job was done...regardless of how fortunately. How many on here were slating him for picking Zamora then>? I know i was..guess what, he proved that most of us here know sweet FA about pro football. Credit where it is due, we are in the Prem by hook or by crook (litealy) So, let give the bloke a chance. plenty on here wanted to give COLIN a decent go when he got us up with a 1 man and 10 helpers group. Why not give harry a chance with a TEAM? If COLIN deseved it then so does Harry! i personally dont give a flying f**k what he says or does on the TV, but as long as we stay up then he's the man Im just happy that Hoddle will be our manager soon
There's a very clear dividing line between two sections of QPR fans IMO. There's the old romantics that want to see fluffy pretty football and aren't really too bothered whether we win or lose. They'd be just as happy playing in the Championsh*t as long as we have the odd player that might, once every ten games, throw a shimmy and score a lovely goal. As long as we look attractive, they're happy. They believe this is the "soul" of QPR and they'll always back players, no matter how badly behaved and disrespectful to the Club they are, who have some talent and might display a bit of it now and again when the mood takes them. Names for these types of supporters would be "purists" or "idealists" - in the footballing sense. (Another might be "losers" which brings me onto the other group......) This group is all about the Club. The Club comes first, each and every time. Winning and being successful is paramount and everything else comes later. These fans want the players to have respect for the QPR crest over their hearts and want them to give every last drop of sweat and blood for the cause. When they see a player disrespecting the Club in any way, no matter how talented they may be, they won't stand for it. They believe in having a team that works for each other and grinds out results in whatever way is best at that particular moment and ultimately brings the Club success. They want a Manager that gets results and who doesn't suffer muppets and show-ponies gladly. Names for these types of supporters would be "pragmatists" or "winners". Not606 examples of the first group of supporters would be Stroller, Oslo, Damage, DT and Yorkshire. Not606 examples of the second group of supporters would be Queens, Grifter, Judo, Eamon and KPD. (There are of course some who are in neither group and are to be found somewhere in between. People like SB, Sooper, COL, Uber etc would be straddling the fence in this regard and often find themselves conflicted in the arguments that inevitably arise between the two contrasting philosophies.) The result of this divide is that you can trace almost every footballing argument on the Board back to the core ideologies of the two protagonist factions. Keep an eye out for the next big argument and I guarantee the debate will be split along those lines. At a wider level, it can be an interesting take on social conflict in general if you look at it from that angle. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it...
I'm keeping both barrels primed for you if you don't fix us up with one of your decent streams tomorrow
I think there is perhaps some truth in this, Swords, certainly in terms of where you've placed me. Like many of your 'purists' group (perhaps 'romantics' is more appropriate?) I was weaned on the team of the mid-70s onwards and the romanticism of its football, then the second generation under Venables. I think the pragmatism comes in as a necessity in response to the footballing New World Order that has emerged from the Premier League years. Now more than at any time in the past the game at the highest level is about the questionably (un)virtuous circle of money being necessary for survival, and survival being necessary to bring in the money. The 'successful' teams outside of the Manchesters, Liverpools, North Londons and Rosnefts realise this; that's why teams like Stoke survive playing ****e football for a handful of seasons before they have the bank balance and PL reputation to attempt something more glamorous. Sure it's pragmatic and unnattractive, but the world's changed and they know it. If you want to win friends then play like Blackpool (relegated), Swansea (some success, but I suspect they'll struggle this time) or Southampton (asset stripped by the big buggers). I'd love to see us play like we did under Sexton or El Tel, but I'd also like to see us re-established at a PL outfit. If we can have both then I'd take them, but if it's a straight choice between one or t'other then I'd have being established over style every time, I'm afraid. Yep, it's pragmatic and will win few friends, but we're each entitled to our own opinions.
