I can understand why people are dubious about Levy's decision-making, replacing Harry and all that. But excepting quibbles about selection and tactics, I can't see what people have against AVB. He's not yet got the squad he wants (indeed it's arguably weaker than last year's) and we've been without Kaboul, BAE and Parker for most of the season - surely that has a pretty significant bearing on our ability to see out games? If anyone should be criticised, it's Levy
The Champions League run was twelve games. We also had 38 Premier League games that season, one Carling Cup game, and two FA Cup games. The fact two of those were sacrificed, and one of those suffered, all for the CL run is my main problem with that season. Winning at the San Siro was a great night, but losing the next game at Bloomfield Road was an appalling one.
Stretched over 3/4 of a season. Oh I see, we're supposed to win every game. None of this is relevant, as all I meant was there was a period in his tenure when all was good and he wasn't doing much wrong. Of course there are bad decisons made at times during a season, show me a manager who doesn't. Harry got 'give us a wave' all the time rather contradicting your initial comment. I've no problem with your Harry hatred, its just misplaced on this occasion. I'm not responding to anymore nonsense so don't bother!
I think he still needs time,and Levy to get him the players he wants,so he can play the system he wants to,then i think Hudd, gallas etc will be gone.
It isn't misplaced at all - our record was appalling against the bottom five clubs that season (0 points against West Ham and Blackpool, 1 from Wigan, 4 from Wolves and Birmingham), and in direct response to your "we're supposed to win every game" we're supposed to win more than two from ten against those teams, especially when you consider winning just seven more points would have put us into fourth. And, yes, there is valid comparison - we lost to Wigan after the win against Young Boys, we lost to Bolton after the win against Inter, and we lost to Blackpool after the win against Milan.
From where we were last season we have started the season without Modric, VDV, Parker, Kaboul and Benny. That is effectively half of our starting 11. The replacements are are just not up to the mark, or at least are taking time to bed in. It's like comparing apples with oranges right now, but I would say that as far as tactics and substitutions were concerned Harry had some major shortcomings too. I say he needs more time.
I really have time for some things you say on this forum, HBIC. But I'm really left scratching my head regarding your animosity towards Harry. I mean, you may have a problem with him as a man or a personality or whatever but surely the only comparison that is relevant when assessing his success as a Spurs boss is to compare him with all our previous managers in the last couple of decades or so. Was he better than Ramos, Jol, Santini, Pleat, Hoddle, Graham, Gross, Francis, Ardiles, Shreeves...? I mean - he just was better than all of that lot wasn't he? OK - maybe you could argue the case for Jol (maaaybe) or maybe one or two others (not sure which) but surely Harry did a better job than all the rest of them, didn't he? Yeah we lost stupid games - have you noticed what Spurs are like and what they've been like for at least all 36 years of my life? Only difference is that with Harry we lost stupid games and finished 4th, 5th (with an awesome CL run), 4th. Back in the good old days when we had managers who weren't as awful as Harry we would lose stupid games and finish 10th whilst also not winning a cup. So I just think Harry did really well for Spurs. It's really a very simple equation for me.
He must have been good because here we are discussing him on a thread devoted solely to our opinions of our current manager AVB. I do appreciate however that one of the ways to evaluate any manager is to compare him to his predecessors. The trouble with that is that they all for the most part had different teams. In the case of Harry he was lucky to inherit a good squad that had been gifted to him by Jol and Ramos. What for example would Venables have done with it or Burkinshaw? We don't know. In the end we have to judge each manager by their results but it doesn't necessarily make them better or worse than their forbears. AVB has also inherited a very good squad which gives him a golden opportunity to make a mark in the History of Spurs, let's hope he does.
Gifted by Jol/Ramos or gifted by Comolli? During Harry's time Walker, Gallas, Friedel, VDV, Sandro, Parker, Kaboul, Adebayor (sort of), Defoe all signed. And all integral parts of the team that has been inherited by AVB (apart from VDV). Three transfer windows into Harry's reign I remember going through his signings and the previous five years' signings. And Harry, in my opinion, had a much higher hit-rate than what we had before.
"Three transfer windows into Harry's reign I remember going through his signings and the previous five years' signings. And Harry, in my opinion, had a much higher hit-rate than what we had before." And I just want to emphasise - This exercise was not to prove to people how amazing Harry was. I didn't start with the conclusion "Harry is awesome" and then go looking for evidence. But this was part of the evidence that created my opinion that Harry was doing a very good job at Spurs. I had no great love for Harry til he turned Spurs into a very, very good side again after the last two/three decades of mostly abject ****e. (Sorry - don't mean to derail this thread too much into yet another Harry debate). If AVB does as well as Harry then I'll be singing his praises too, don't you worry about that. Plus the man can operate a computer and mobile phone which has to be a good thing, doesn't it?
No Kaboul, BAE or Parker for most of the season due to injury. King had to retire. Sold VdV and Modric and failed to get in our number transfer target (Joao Moutinho). He does make some questionable decisions and like most of you i'm also yet to be properly convinced by the him but we surely have to wait until the end of the season before we write him off. Yet despite all this we are 3 points off 3rd spot.
Redknapp did very well at Spurs. I don't think that anyone would argue with that. He did tend to burn out at the end of every season though, at least in those when we were participating in a European competition. Remains to be seen whether Villas-Boas will suffer the same fate.
...then I don't think you've read hbic's comments, who continually dismisses 3 and a 1/2 years of improvement under Harry, preferring to judge the last 6 months.
How is league finishes of 4th, 5th, 4th an improvement? For one, going from 4th to 5th is the exact opposite of an improvement - and, as I stated, in that season we dropped 15 points to the teams in the bottom three, which isn't acceptible no matter which excuse you trot out - and our record against members of the Sky 4 under Harry was hardly impressive. Harry didn't underachieve on a Ramosian scale, but that doesn't mean he underachieved. We failed to secure fourth in 2010-11, and we failed to tie up third in 2011-12 - notice the word "failed", which implies he didn't achieve all he could have.
A 'Ramocian Scale ?'. Thats actually very good Croydon :laugh I've got one., try this.., How about a 'Harryesque Scale'.
As a neutral I'm of the opinion he's doing alright: Positives - Vastly improved away record - Got Spurs winning games when not playing well - Instilled a winning belief in all games i.e Redknapp would have virtually written off United away, AVB targeted it as a game Spurs could go and win - It's not his squad. He's identified targets, needs more time to implement them - Only 3 points off 3rd Negatives - Lack of fitness of players hence late goals, something that was apparent at Chelsea - Average but improving home record. - Nonsensical subs/tactical switches - Capitulations at Everton and Arsenal
Er - I'm not sure where to start here. How is 4th, 5th, 4th an improvement? Um - well the smaller the number the better the finish, see? So Harry's two fourth-placed finishes are actually better than our previous managers' finishes of 11th or 8th or whatever even if their name was Hoddle. It's kind of like golf - low numbers are good. Though I can see how that could be confusing. Seriously though, Harry FAILED because he got our highest EPL finish ever twice?! Because in between he ONLY got 5th? When people still sing Jol's praises for getting fifth? I couldn't give a single monkey's who we get the points off, who we drop points to. We had our best league finishes under Harry for 25 years. I just do not understand your points. No - we were not undefeated. According to you we dropped points against the lower teams AND the Sky 4. Yet still we had the best league results (and performances) in the EPL era. Sorry it wasn't perfect for you. How any Spurs fan can say they did not have a bloody good time for much of Harry's reign is utterly beyond me. Yes there were bad results and runs. But not nearly as bad as EVERYTHING else that we've seen for decades. I guess us Spurs fans have been spoiled with the dazzling results of all Harry's predecessors. How he failed to get third when we're so used to finishing third is beyond me. Every other Spurs manager used to regularly be third around February with a massive lead didn't they? You call not clinching third last year as failure? Well if it is then it's the best failure I've ever seen as a Spurs fan. Cos normally "failure" means looking at the table in February and hoping we can put a run together and maybe pip Bolton for a UEFA Cup place but not being able to pull it together so finishing 9th. I REALLY don't know what you're on about with all this talk of failure. And if you look back with regret on the last few years I can only presume that you were in a much higher constant state of hatred and anger for the previous 25 years. Seriously - who's been Spurs' best three manager since Venables?
Lenny...eloquent, unblinkered and a more than suitable end to that debate! hbic - learn to give up when you've had a mare.
