How did Harry deal with the lead? Yes - that's my point. I admit - not too well. But why focus just on that? Who GOT us the kind of lead that I've never seen before in my lifetime?
Getting a lead is irrelevant if you fail to maintain it, be it the story about the tortoise and the hare or Newcastle in the 1995-6 season.
All this talk about happy fringe players etc: Look - anything you say about whether players were happy or whatever has to boil down to one thing: Did the team perform? Did Spurs have good results on the pitch? Cos compared to that I could not give a monkey's how GDS feels. And the fact is that harry provided the best EPL results we've ever had. So his methods (though flawed cos, guess what - he's human) must work pretty well.
Did the players perform? Let's look how many points we got from the various clubs in the league:
Man City: 0
Man Utd: 0
Arsenal: 3
Newcastle: 4
Chelsea: 2
Everton: 3
Liverpool: 4
Fulham: 6
West Brom: 6
Swansea: 4
Norwich: 3
Sunderland: 4
Stoke: 1
Wigan: 6
Villa: 4
QPR: 3
Bolton: 6
Blackburn: 6
Wolves: 4
That shows that we didn't perform in the biggest games - against the Manchester clubs, against Chelsea, and at the Emirates. Excuses can be made for the City results (although a lot of excuses need to be made for losing 5-1 at home), but the complete lack of adventure in either of the Chelsea games, laying down in front of MUPLC at home, and the patheric capitulation at the Emirates undermine any talk of the players performing.
The late season saw us put in pathetic displays against QPR, Norwich, Villa and Sunderland - there is no point in looking back at our form from September-December when our March-April form was the exact opposite, as we failed to perform and we failed to get results, which saw us drop points every time we took to the pitch and had several on this board fearing that we'd be lucky to hang onto Top 6, let alone Top 4.
I didn't sidestep anyone - I just don't want to go on too much. My point is simple: Harry has faults, we all know this. BUT Harry has delivered better results than any other manager for thirty years. And if you say "But he had a better team" well, er - he built a fair part of that team. And much as I love Martin Jol it's just not true to say that he did what he did with a fraction of what harry has had. Jol had possibly the best strike partnership in the league at the time. And loads and loads of money was spent on players when he was here - not players he chose necessarily but it's not like he was starved of resources.
Harry hasn't delivered better results, that's the point - during his tenure we...
* Failed to register a win over Manchester United (including the Man Utd reserves in the 2009 Carling Cup final)
* Failed to break out Stamford Bridge hoodoo,
* Failed to take advantage of Chelsea being in the middle of appalling form and gifted them a draw two seasons running
* Took the grand total of four points from the three teams relegated in 2010-11
His approach to games against most of the top teams, especially MUPLC, was to hope for a draw - a tactic that failed every single time.
Still - if you're convinced that Moyes will do a better job I guess the proof of that delicious pudding will be in the eating. 3rd and a cup here we come!
Two things you can guarantee: Moyes won't be angling for the England job, our set pieces will improve overnight.