From QPR Report """""""" ESPN/Gabriele Marcotti Harry Redknapp not afraid to put his reputation on the line What prompts a 65-year-old guy who finished fourth in the Prem last year to take over a club that have yet to win this season? That's Harry for you. Harry Redknapp polarizes. Not because he necessarily means to, but because he has a persona many love and a few absolutely loathe. The cheeky, street-smart cockney character whose interviews get interrupted either by a stray ball hitting him on the head during training or his wife, Sandra, calling him on his cellphone. The wheeler-dealer who works out bargains for exotic players, isn't quite sure what email is, and, occasionally, signs folks who end up living in trailer parks (never mind that the Marco Boogers tale isn't actually true, it gets repeated often enough that it may as well be). The twinkly-eyed, old-school Harry Houdini who keeps things simple and gets results against all odds (in this particular recollection of history, his experience at Southampton usually gets airbrushed). Because Redknapp is so amiable and seemingly gets too much support from the media and most coaches and ex-pros, there is a natural backlash. Some find him fake, some see him as a Forrest Gump-type figure, a sleight-of-hand self-promoter with few original ideas, permanently in the pocket of "friendly" agents. A guy who is lazy, whose folksiness is a put-on to seduce simple-minded owners and fans. A man who, far from being a shrewd operator in the transfer market, has left a trail of financial destruction in his wake (apart from Tottenham, most of his former clubs have suffered major financial ills; whether it's all -- or even partly -- his fault is another matter). Obviously, the "real" Redknapp lies somewhere between the two extremes. I spent some time with him a few years back and I actually found a guy who loved to talk football, who was very comfortable discussing tactics and whose knowledge of foreign players was pretty good. It's a side of him that's rarely portrayed in the media, and heck, for all I know, he could have been putting it on. But then, if he really was the seat-of-the-pants dilettante some believe he is, would Joe Jordan have worked alongside him at Portsmouth, Tottenham and now Queens Park Rangers? In fact, would he have wanted Joe around? I've known Jordan for several years, I've worked with him on TV. He is basically the antithesis of the vacuous, happy-go-lucky character Redknapp supposedly plays in the media. Jordan is serious, methodical and studious. If Redknapp was really "Happy Harry" and nothing else, he would find Jordan depressing and funereal and wouldn't want him anywhere near him. But what's interesting about Redknapp -- apart from the visceral reactions he generates -- is his willingness to get back into the game and put his reputation on the line. You saw it when he accepted the QPR job. It's not a common trait among managers, especially ones near the top of the food chain. The standard arc for a boss is to move on to a bigger job if he can, or at least make a lateral move if he can't or if he gets sacked. Look at Alan Curbishley. Not that long ago he was a kind of "thinking man's Redknapp:" a more cerebral East End type with West Ham connections. When he parted ways with West Ham in 2008, most predicted he'd be back in a Premier League job real soon. Four years later, Curbishley is still out there. Why? Most likely because he simply wasn't willing to take a step down. You could make a similar case for Rafa Benitez. He was out of work for nearly two years after leaving Inter and before becoming Chelsea's interim boss last week. He flirted with a number of gigs but ultimately stayed put, in anticipation of another "big" job. Why do managers sit out and wait for better -- and better-funded -- jobs? The answer, if you're cynical, is that most are generally insecure and they are terrified as to what may happen if they fail at a smaller club. Screw up with a Champions League-caliber team and, generally speaking, you'll be thought of as an A-list boss just because you managed at that level. But move down a notch or two and come up short and you'll have a problem. The (incorrect) assumption is that coaching a big club to a top-four finish is somehow tougher than, say, avoiding relegation on a shoestring. And people who do the former are, almost automatically, better managers than those who do the latter. Because the converse also applies -- a guy who gets relegated with a club that probably should get relegated is going to be worse than a guy with a top-three wage bill who fails to qualify for the Champions League. That's just the groupthink that exists in the game, with very few exceptions. Back to Redknapp, though. What prompts a guy who finished fourth in the Premier League last year and turns 66 in March to take over a club that have yet to win this season? It's not the money. It can't be. Redknapp does live in a palatial home that looks like something out of "Miami Vice." But he's done extremely well in previous jobs and, by all accounts, he doesn't have a flashy lifestyle. Could it be that he genuinely loves his job and the buzz of management? So much so that rather than holding out for a can't-miss gig or sitting there and collecting appearance fees by moving his stand-up routine to the pundit's coach, he's willing to take over the bottom team in the league (again)? Even his harshest critics have to concede this: He is putting his own reputation on the line. Again. There are plenty who would never dare to do what he is doing in taking the QPR job. ESPN """""""""
I asked the same thing myself and concluded that he would not be coming to LR for what is likely his last job in football. I was wrong I'm very pleased to say. The guy either has a genuine love of a challenge or our board are paying him truly vast amounts.
