Fourth Fifth Fourth One of those is not an improvement on the previous number, is it? I didn't say failed, I said underachieved. With the squad we had in 2011, we should have finished higher than fifth. With the squad we had in 2012, we should have secured third. That's underachieving. Really? Because you should. Take the bottom three clubs. Name one team at any place in the table that should be waving away losing to teams in the bottom three? Teams in a relegation battle need to be beating them to distance themselves from the drop zone, whilst teams challenging for a CL place should be beating them in order to get as many points on the board - as points are what dictates the final placing. As for the Sky 4, a team challenging for a Top 4 place should be winning against them in order to narrow the gap and/or overtake them to secure their place in the following season's Champions League. Harry Redknapp: It could have been worse. That's what you're saying right here, as if I was in a coma during the Gross years. Gross, Santini and Ramos (among others) failed. Harry underachieved. Yes, I am going to keep repeating that fact until you stop misquoting me. Here's the fundamental difference in our arguments: I've been noting where Harry should have done better in his time in charge, whilst you're just listing managers that were worse. It doesn't matter who was worse than Harry, it matters that Harry didn't do better. How we failed to finish third: * Six points from nine games between February and April * 0 points from Man City * 0 points from Man Utd * 2 points from Chelsea True or false: Clinching third would have clinched Champions League football without hoping that Bayern Munich would do us a favour? We were in third place for a chunk of the season, and threw it away, and that was all Harry's doing due to him tinkering with formations and tactics. If a manager whose job it is to achieve Champions League football in 2011 and 2012 does not deliver, is that is classified as "best"? Martin Jol narrowly missed out on Champions League football for two seasons running as well, you know.
HBIC - so final positions in the table are less important than whether or not you beat the bottom three clubs?! If you "should" be beating them every time and you also "should" beat the other CL contenders to get Cl football how come we finished fourth twice? Yeah - the year we finished fifth we "should" have finished higher. Isn't that a mark of some progress over the course of Harry's time? That a position that was celebrated under Jol was bitterly regretted under Harry as being under-acheivement? Yes we threw away a massive lead in third last year. Hang on - what's that? We had a massive lead in third? Which idiot managed to achieve that then? Look - I know it wasn't clever last Spring and I was seriously starting to doubt that Harry, given the England speculation (which I do not blame him for at all), could sort it out. But overall Spurs had a good season. We had our joint highest finish in the EPL ever. Yes we had a bad run. But we also had an incredibly good one that led us to be in such a luxurious position. I dunno - I just don't know what/who you're comparing Harry to to come to the conclusion that he under-acheived. He regularly had us finishing higher than clubs with much greater resources. He often had us playing excellent football. He got us to the highest EPL positions we've ever had. And speculation as to where those teams in 10/11 or 11/12 should have finished is not exactly solid ground to argue from. And by the way - why should the squad we had have finished higher than they did? Were they that good? Which squad is that? Not the squad that was assembled and trained by Harry Redknapp, surely? He who brought in Friedel, Walker, Kaboul, Parker, Sandro, Adebayor, VDV, Defoe? Blimey - decent players that lot. Suppose you'll say that half of them were Levy signings (like any of us really know). Well so long as you gave Jol no credit for signing BAE or Modric or Berbatov and you'll give AVB no credit for signing Dembele (or criticism for letting VDV go so easily). Anyway - I take it that you would concede that Harry was our best manager since Venables. Only thing is that you think that means nothing cos the rest were so bad. OK. I just use different criteria. I can only compare like with like - his period of management coincided a period of results and performances far better than previous Spurs results and performances. For me that means he was a damn fine manager and I'm pleased he did what he did for Spurs. For you you wish to compare him not with actual, solid examples of other managers but with a spectral idea of what the squad "should" have done. If you had been living off of tinned ravioli and dog food for decades and then someone gives you a plate of fish and chips are you really going to moan cos you are (correctly, perhaps) aware that steak and chips* is a better meal? For me I'm happy to acknowledge that things could be better but that means zero when assessing how happy you are with what you have. Harry Redknapp was Spurs' best manager since Venables - can we agree on that? I think it's possible you might agree with that. But you think that that would be damning him with faint praise and I think it would not. Partly because he wasn't just a bit better than Gross - he was a LOT better. I assume you do not believe that Arsenal have progressed at all under Wenger, given your criteria? *Please do not split hairs over which meal you actually prefer more - you get the point.
i can see lenny and hbic debating this until they are walking dead as neither back down in a debate! However as a Arry fan and someone that knows his positives and negatives, rememeber arry increased our expectations. Any talk of failure is all down to what as fans we hoped to see, and what some demanded of arry so if arry took us to 1 point off 3rd, we also failed to get 2nd and failed to finish 1st but why isn't that mentioned? because as fans we don't expect or demand to finish 1st or 2nd. Yet as fans we expected to finish 3rd or in the top four and Arry took us to 4th, and in the last 20 years how often have we been in with a shout for 3rd? yet arry gets called a failure for not getting us there? So to finish 4h and for that to be classed as "failure" shows how far arry took us and how high he set the bar.
In my view, overall, Harry did a good job for us. I just felt that he had taken things as far as he was able. He had his favourites, who always played, even if hopelessly out of position. Plus other foibles that it's pointless to go into again now. Yes, he raised all our expectations by giving us CL football for the first time, and elevating our league position. Credit to him for that. I think that whoever you want to give he credit to, we all one day woke up and realised that we actually had a bloody good team - one that was capable of challenging for major honours. Unfortunately, for us, and ultimately for Harry, he started to believe all his own press. " Harry for England" " it has to be Harry" etc. No doubt in my mind that he took his eye off the ball, and that almost certainly cost us third spot. A lot of us can't forgive him for that. There were rumours of conflict between Harry & Levy anyway. With our disastrous finish to the season, it would seem that gave Levy the leverage he needed to sack him.
Lenny has a point though. 4th wouldn't be an improvement, especially as the league is far weaker this year.
45 votes in and 36 are positive for AVB. I'm quite surprised especially as this poll started on the back of the defeat of Everton. I hope the minority (on here, at least) will keep voicing their opinions as debate is what it is all about, and, when have the majority (in any poll) ever been right anyway. I think I have noticed a growing reluctance to criticise AVB so don't be put off by the numbers keep the debate honest.
I think he's done a great job considering the upheaval over the summer. I also like the fact he WUMs chelsea a lot too.
Re: Harry 1. If we didn't do well against the Sky4, and didn't do well against the bottom clubs, we must have given those mid-table teams a hell of a pasting! 2. In order to lose 3rd place we must have been in 3rd place. Funny how there's no credit for getting us into that position, only for losing it. 3. We also lost 3rd because of some dreadful decisions against us - Balotelli not being sent off for assaulting Parker, the Stoke away match in general, the hatfull of goals Ade actually scored but were disallowed.... 4. We also lost 3rd because a certain player managed a whole season for our closest rivals for the first time ever and virtually carried the whole team on his back - and then in the last game they benefited from a horrendous keeper display. 5. In any other season, 4th place would have got us CL anyway - that is underachieving? 6. Underachieving compared to what - how much salary we pay? our ground size? the mega million, no need to account for budgets of certain other teams? 7. Harry talks to the media a lot. I don't care! If the team delivers on the pitch he can say anything he wants. Compared to the performance of recent years he was delivering. 8. Apparently the squad was good enough to be higher, hence underachievement, yet a previous manager failed to deliver anything with more or less the same players. No point having a squad if you can't get them to play. 9. Harry may well have been distracted by the England job - and yet the FA were never going to appoint him, but neglected to mention it. Apparently they didn't want to distract Hodgson but it was ok to damage our season. I could go on... but I'm trying to move on. I didn't want AVB but I'm giving him the benefit and it's OK so far. Yet we keep coming back (unfairly I believe) to Harry. I doubt there are many other clubs who are so down on a previous manager that got 4th, 5th and 4th finishes!
I agree with most of that Vimhawk - Harry had us punching above our weight. But I still think that he wasn't going to get us any further and it was worth giving AVB a try. Your point 8) is the difficult one for me. I think we have the strength in depth to do a bit better than where we finished last year but only with a different style of manager.
This is going to be an eternal disagreement Notso All I'll say is Norwich 8th.... with a -6 goal difference
One thing that's notable in recent weeks is AVB seems to be more settled in the job. In the early weeks he did seem to be overcompensation, both in the way he overcelebrated goals as well as his post-victory celebrations. Now when we score and win games his response is a lot more natural, which looks (to me, anyway...) that he isn't trying to court the fans' approval by showing "passion" at every opportunity, and instead just wants the results to do the talking.
yes now instead he sits there like Forrest Gump waiting for a pee...i agree with what your saying HBIC...seems a bit more relaxed. can only be a good thing...Chelsea was just a mistake which he opted for due to his inexperience in life.
Hopefully he'll have a word in Freund's ear and get him to do the same instead of acting like a demented chicken all the time.
