Can't face thinking about the game so I am distracting myself;
Not a dig (in case Sunderland fans are offended) but I really don't get why he is rated. To be honest I never have.
I was really worried when his name was mentioned in relation to the spurs job a few years back as I honestly think he is massively over rated.
He spent quite a lot at Villa and achieved top 6 finishes which I don't think is particularly good. He has spent quite a bit at Sunderland too and they are shockingly poor. He kind of did well with Leicester but the football they played was pretty ugly a lot of the time and at Celtic he did well but there were only 2 clubs fighting for trophies up there.
His style of football is like stokes and he seems to be tactically at the level of Allydice (excuse spelling) and Pullis...hoof it and play the percentages.
Finally I've seen and read lots of fans and reporters claiming (rightly or wrongly) that Redknapp has ruined Southampton; Portsmouth; Bournemouth and West Ham ... all of whom went into administration and in the cases of West Ham and Bournemouth years after he left.
Yet I have never read anything about how Wycombe; Leicester; Celtic and Villa all experienced serious financial problems after he left them.
Personally I think those who control the financial purse strings at those clubs are the ones responsible...managers ask but do not decide what is spent on transfers and wages...but if RedKnapp is held responsible then so should MON.
Was just wondering what others think.
Not a dig (in case Sunderland fans are offended) but I really don't get why he is rated. To be honest I never have.
I was really worried when his name was mentioned in relation to the spurs job a few years back as I honestly think he is massively over rated.
He spent quite a lot at Villa and achieved top 6 finishes which I don't think is particularly good. He has spent quite a bit at Sunderland too and they are shockingly poor. He kind of did well with Leicester but the football they played was pretty ugly a lot of the time and at Celtic he did well but there were only 2 clubs fighting for trophies up there.
His style of football is like stokes and he seems to be tactically at the level of Allydice (excuse spelling) and Pullis...hoof it and play the percentages.
Finally I've seen and read lots of fans and reporters claiming (rightly or wrongly) that Redknapp has ruined Southampton; Portsmouth; Bournemouth and West Ham ... all of whom went into administration and in the cases of West Ham and Bournemouth years after he left.
Yet I have never read anything about how Wycombe; Leicester; Celtic and Villa all experienced serious financial problems after he left them.
Personally I think those who control the financial purse strings at those clubs are the ones responsible...managers ask but do not decide what is spent on transfers and wages...but if RedKnapp is held responsible then so should MON.
Was just wondering what others think.
