• Tottenham Hotspur Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • RAYMOND RAYMOND Jun 24, 2012 00:43 Flag

    redknapp's Firing

    It cannot be as simple as you describe, even Levy is not so thick as to appreciate the effect it could have on the club, not least the fact that a number of players will probably seek a way out of the club. On reflection, and as much as I appreciate how Harry turned the fortunes around, there were a number of factors that suggested he was losing the plot. The signings of Saha and Nelson were illogical and wasteful, and his switching of tactics at a critical phase of the season was misjudged. He took his eye off the ball and we endured a period of ineffective rubbish to be quite frank, all of this going on whilst Harry had his head in the clouds absorbing the adulation of the media and selecting his first England team. There are factors that we will never be privileged to know about, it cannot be as simple or as stupid as just booting him out for the sake of it. Can it?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Ray,
      What was the change in tactics in a critical part of the season?
      I thought the others here were arguing the opposite. I thought 'arry played with 1 striker and VdV behind. The argument has been here (I think), that that wasn't attacking enough against Villa and that Daffy (presumably, or Gio) should have come on for VdV. Presumably changing the structure to 4-4-2.

      'arry did try the 4-4-2 against Norwich and true it failed then.

      • 1 Reply to Jlock
      • 'arry did try the 4-4-2 against Norwich and true it failed then."

        john still playing dumb again!

        u leave out facts to suit your argument as always.
        we had no parker or sandro in DM against norwich.
        playing livermore as the only defensive midfielder was asking for trouble. another mistake by redknapp.

        & what about all the game this year that 4-4-1-1 failed?!
        overall we never looked like scoring many with this system.

        the vdv behind ade failed a lot this year.

        u are getting more silly,stupid & pathetic in each defence of harry.

        & the 4-4-1-1 wasnt troubling villas goal at all. we never looked scoring bar a pen. which lets face it, seemed the only way we would score.
        even after the we scored, we never looked like scoring & harry just left it as it was. oh well he did bring on a DM at the end to sure up the 1pt!

        john, harry has stated he settled for 1pt against villa.
        & if given the chance again would settle for 1pt & 4th spot.

        surely that goes against everthing u believe in?!
        especially your cringing reach for the top/stars philosophy.

        how can u defend this-

        harry=we can win the title
        then id setlle for 1pt & 4th spot despite 3pts & 3rd being within grasp.

        it goes against everything u believe john.

        but once again, u make huge contradictions to defend harry.

        can u really not see how pathetic & silly u look?

    • Raymond,
      I don't think Saha and Nielsen were wasteful - if you look at how 'arry worked, he used a sticking plaster approach. If there was a problem, 'arry fixed it. He didn't seem to plan 'future'.
      IMHO, I think that is more likely a reason why he had a problem with Levy et al. In the past we seemed to buy young(er) and look to develop players to sell on. That changed a bit, and we stopped selling. But still the 'ethos' appeared to be 'young'.
      'arry changed that (and it's difficult to know whether that was due to not having funds at the right time, not finding the right fit players, or simply failure in the transfer market) and seemed to buy to 'fix'. Bassong, Gallas, Nielsen, Saha were in my mind examples of that. Even Parker, who has turned into a good signing, is/was limited life.
      So, to me, even though some of the purchases worked, I could see that it may have gone against the grain with the board.
      What confuses me though, is that I would guess that the final say on any purchase is still with the board. So I'd be gobsmacked if they initially rubber stamped the purchases, and then later used them as a reason to sack him.