Harry 'Old Skool' Managment Style Enough?

StillRickyVilla

Just wondering if Harry's 'Old Skool' managment is going to be enough to take us to the top?

1. I'm worried about his tactical know-how and ability to change a game depending on the match circumstances or opposition. He plays the traditional 4-4-2 which is fine, a solid, balanced formation. But he plays this way what-ever happens, and who-ever we play. Its not always the best formation to play. For example against the lesser teams, they know EXACTLY how we are going to set up and play. Therefore it becomes far easier for the opposing manager to counter-act us and stop us playing (and getting easier - Hull's Phil Brown admitted that he'd studied and used the Wolves & Stoke games). In these circumstances, in effect, Harry has lost control of the situation and is relying entirely on one of our players doing something special to break the opposition down. Playing the traditional 4-4-2 against supposedly 'superior' teams poses a different problem. Because the likes of Wenger, Ancellotti and continental managers in general play much more fluid systems, a traditional 4-4-2 often finds it hard to cope. These teams tend to use systems that flood the midfield thereby gaining control of matches and then create chances through fast inter-action of their forward midfield players. Because the 4-4-2 is so rigid, its often hard to counter-act this as we have no idea where the next attack is coming from. Again when the top teams don't have the ball, they'll know exactly how we are going to play and so can defend accordingly. Maybe this is why we have no success against the top teams.

2. It is obvious Harry prefers the traditional 'little and large' strike partnership of Crouch and Defoe. But like i've said many times on here, this kind of tactic harks back 20 years. 20 years ago I would have completely agreed with him! Yes, having the big guy up there is going to create a degree of unease in the opposition's back 4 with his flick-ons and knock-downs. But only in the same way that Stoke City cause the opposition problems with their constant high balls - and do we really want to have the same tactics as Stoke City!? The game has moved on so much. Its all about pace, movement, skill, clever inter-play and tactics. Having one big guy up there is food & drink to the likes of Hull etc. I note Gio dos Santos still isn't getting a look in - if Keane is in decline why not have a look at him? Why not have Defoe on his own up front (like Rooney and Arshevin play alone up front - currently 1st and 3rd in the PL) and have Modric and Kranjcar playing in and around him. The traditional 'little and large' strike force will be successful to a point - but Harry needs to bring himself into 2010 - none of the top teams or modern managers feel the need for this.

3. I cannot believe Harry was ok with the recent Xmas boozing and partying. Again this would have been great 20 years ago for team spirit etc. Even if you are ok with the lads having some time off, it still smacks of us having a party culture - at one of the most crucial times of the season! The modern day footballer is supposed to be at the pinnacle of physical fitness and earns ridiculous amounts of money. For this they need to make sacrifices - and do - at the very top clubs. The modern day top manager never allows his players to lose focus or worse fitness half-way through a season. I want our players NEVER to be photographed in nightclubs - unless its the end of the season having won something. Ronaldo was in the newspapers for the whole of last summer, boozing in nightclubs - that was fine - he'd already won Man U the PL by then. Harry this is 2010 and our players need to realise they've achieved nothing yet.

therecklessone

1. We had a continental style manager, with a more fluid style of play. He left us at bottom of the table, remember? Have you given any thought to the fact that Redknapp plays the formation he plays because it is the most compatible with the players he has at his disposal?

Maybe this is why we have no success against the top teams.

I call bullsh1t.

2 league wins vs Liverpool, 1 vs Chelsea, 3 vs Man City and 1 vs Villa.

2 draws vs Arsenal, 1 vs United, 1 vs Villa.

2 defeats vs United, 1 vs Arsenal, 1 vs Chelsea.

That stacks up well in any man's language.

2. That is utter garbage. We started the season with Keane and Defoe as the front two, the only league game Crouch started with Defoe (before November) was the 1-3 vs United, and that was only because he moved Keane back into midfield to cover for the loss of Modric. He prefers Defoe and Crouch because of his available players they are the partnership that yields the best results for the team. Don't believe me? Take a look:

Crouch and Defoe have started 8 games together, we've won 4, drawn 3 (all away from home I might add) and lost 1. We have never failed to score as a team when they have started as a pair

Of the remaining 13 games we have experienced 6 shut outs.

Coincidence? I think not.

3. He's said he doesn't tolerate piss ups, they've happened and he's dealt with them. In house. The way any decent manager does his work.

TBH, your entire post smacks of bias against the manager rather than a well though out or well argued contribution.

StillRickyVilla

therecklessone wrote: »

1. We had a continental style manager, with a more fluid style of play. He left us at bottom of the table, remember? Have you given any thought to the fact that Redknapp plays the formation he plays because it is the most compatible with the players he has at his disposal?



I call bullsh1t.

2 league wins vs Liverpool, 1 vs Chelsea, 3 vs Man City and 1 vs Villa.

2 draws vs Arsenal, 1 vs United, 1 vs Villa.

2 defeats vs United, 1 vs Arsenal, 1 vs Chelsea.

That stacks up well in any man's language.

2. That is utter garbage. We started the season with Keane and Defoe as the front two, the only league game Crouch started with Defoe (before November) was the 1-3 vs United, and that was only because he moved Keane back into midfield to cover for the loss of Modric. He prefers Defoe and Crouch because of his available players they are the partnership that yields the best results for the team. Don't believe me? Take a look:

Crouch and Defoe have started 8 games together, we've won 4, drawn 3 (all away from home I might add) and lost 1. We have never failed to score as a team when they have started as a pair

Of the remaining 13 games we have experienced 6 shut outs.

Coincidence? I think not.

3. He's said he doesn't tolerate piss ups, they've happened and he's dealt with them. In house. The way any decent manager does his work.

TBH, your entire post smacks of bias against the manager rather than a well though out or well argued contribution.

Caught a nerve?!

1. My argument about HR needing to be more flexible with his formation in certain games and situations is pretty fair i think? So I take it you were happy with us ploughing away in exactly the same formation hoping a Crouch knock-down would fall to someone in the box? For a THIRD time against inferior opposition & not being able to break them down? Educate yourself - take a look at how some of the top teams across Europe play. I'm not saying 4-4-2 with a traditional big man little man upfront is a bad way to play. What i'm saying is, HR should certainly have the know-how to switch things round to a more fluid formation during a game if needs be - again thats pretty fair I would say!?

And c'mon - Everybody knows I was referring to the comprehensive defeats this season against Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal! and Liverpool...you are having a laugh aren't you!?

2. Garbage right back at you! For 1 it was HR that brought Defoe and Crouch to the club in the first place, with the intention of playing them together - its hardly Harry being pragmatic with the players hes' been given/has available! And 2 I go back another thread where I mentioned that Defoe could play on his own with Kranjkar and Modric and even Lennon buzzing around him. All available to HR? I again refer to the TOP teams - Arshevin, Rooney for example playing alone up front with others supporting from midfield. When Liverpool were doing so well (before this season) they played Torres alone upfront with Gerrard and others supporting from midfield (incidently the reason why Crouch couldn't get a game and left!).
Again i'm not saying Crouch and Defoe is WRONG - that kind of traditional tactic could take us a long way. I'm saying its not a way of playing thats likely to take us to the TOP!

3. I might be corrected but there was no big tabloid news of Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea players out on the p1ss over Xmas?

I'm not saying HR is a bad manager, i'm highlighting potential weaknesses that MAY prevent us from getting right up there and putting them out there for discussion.

Jeeezus.

StillRickyVilla

therecklessone wrote: »

1. We had a continental style manager, with a more fluid style of play. He left us at bottom of the table, remember? Have you given any thought to the fact that Redknapp plays the formation he plays because it is the most compatible with the players he has at his disposal?



I call bullsh1t.

2 league wins vs Liverpool, 1 vs Chelsea, 3 vs Man City and 1 vs Villa.

2 draws vs Arsenal, 1 vs United, 1 vs Villa.

2 defeats vs United, 1 vs Arsenal, 1 vs Chelsea.

That stacks up well in any man's language.

2. That is utter garbage. We started the season with Keane and Defoe as the front two, the only league game Crouch started with Defoe (before November) was the 1-3 vs United, and that was only because he moved Keane back into midfield to cover for the loss of Modric. He prefers Defoe and Crouch because of his available players they are the partnership that yields the best results for the team. Don't believe me? Take a look:

Crouch and Defoe have started 8 games together, we've won 4, drawn 3 (all away from home I might add) and lost 1. We have never failed to score as a team when they have started as a pair

Of the remaining 13 games we have experienced 6 shut outs.

Coincidence? I think not.

3. He's said he doesn't tolerate piss ups, they've happened and he's dealt with them. In house. The way any decent manager does his work.

TBH, your entire post smacks of bias against the manager rather than a well though out or well argued contribution.

And how can you take an EIGHT game sample and suggest the team did so well because Crouch and Defoe were upfront together!! Ridiculous. You could just as easily take any 8 game sample from this or any other season to prove a point!! I suggest the early season stats with Defoe and Keane upfront together would look pretty good! Garbage stuff from you.

The point is reacting to each game, situation as it comes. Not lumping a big man upfront every single game cos thats 'how we do it'!!

StillRickyVilla

therecklessone wrote: »

1. We had a continental style manager, with a more fluid style of play. He left us at bottom of the table, remember? Have you given any thought to the fact that Redknapp plays the formation he plays because it is the most compatible with the players he has at his disposal?



I call bullsh1t.

2 league wins vs Liverpool, 1 vs Chelsea, 3 vs Man City and 1 vs Villa.

2 draws vs Arsenal, 1 vs United, 1 vs Villa.

2 defeats vs United, 1 vs Arsenal, 1 vs Chelsea.

That stacks up well in any man's language.

2. That is utter garbage. We started the season with Keane and Defoe as the front two, the only league game Crouch started with Defoe (before November) was the 1-3 vs United, and that was only because he moved Keane back into midfield to cover for the loss of Modric. He prefers Defoe and Crouch because of his available players they are the partnership that yields the best results for the team. Don't believe me? Take a look:

Crouch and Defoe have started 8 games together, we've won 4, drawn 3 (all away from home I might add) and lost 1. We have never failed to score as a team when they have started as a pair

Of the remaining 13 games we have experienced 6 shut outs.

Coincidence? I think not.

3. He's said he doesn't tolerate piss ups, they've happened and he's dealt with them. In house. The way any decent manager does his work.

TBH, your entire post smacks of bias against the manager rather than a well though out or well argued contribution.

Just reading through your response again there - AGAIN this is garbage from you. HR said it was the fact that they went behind his back & didn't ask his permission that annoyed him - not the fact they actually had the party. Indeed they went on to have a fancy-dress piss up, sanctioned by Redknapp soon after. Just a month before this incident I saw both Woodgate and Crouch, bold as brass in The Sun, dancing away on a nightclub dance-floor - that was November time. Just saying.

mickman

i would say that defoe up front on his own would be shocking.

StillRickyVilla

mickman wrote: »

i would say that defoe up front on his own would be shocking.

Even if it meant having Kranjkar, Modric and Lennon playing as 3 supplementary midfield/strikers behind him? Each making angled runs around and beyond Defoe from a deeper position where they can't be marked. A lot harder for Hull to defend against I would suggest?

mickman

who would hold the ball up? one of the smallest men in the premier league, i know he is strong but any ball that would arrive in the air would just go straight back down again.

crouch to win the header , take it down and bring defoe into it then . i think your analyzing this too much man. it was a bad result but we didnt get beaten as we did against stoke and wolves (now they were bad results).

the main mistake was not starting crouch i think. robbie just dont have it anymore. defoe and crouch should start every single game, robbie to come on later if things not working out, not the other way around

StillRickyVilla

mickman wrote: »

who would hold the ball up? one of the smallest men in the premier league, i know he is strong but any ball that would arrive in the air would just go straight back down again.

crouch to win the header , take it down and bring defoe into it then . i think your analyzing this too much man. it was a bad result but we didnt get beaten as we did against stoke and wolves (now they were bad results).

the main mistake was not starting crouch i think. robbie just dont have it anymore. defoe and crouch should start every single game, robbie to come on later if things not working out, not the other way around

I'll say it again - I do not have a problem with Crouch playing up with Defoe.

What I am trying to do is debate whether this is the ONLY way we should play - i.e 442 with Crouch & Defoe upfront. Clearly Hull, Wolves and Stoke did their home-work on us. And we got comprehensively beaten by Arsenal, Chelsea and Man U. So where can we improve? Thats all i'm saying.

IMO Harry should have back-up formations and plans when things aren't going well that he can turn to to change a game. Is all i'm saying.

By the way, thats Arsenal well clear of us now and they play a midget Arshevin up front on his own. This old 'hold the ball up' argument goes back to the muddy winter pitches of the 70's & 80's when teams HAD to play the long ball up to a big man.

therecklessone

1. My argument about HR needing to be more flexible with his formation in certain games and situations is pretty fair i think? So I take it you were happy with us ploughing away in exactly the same formation hoping a Crouch knock-down would fall to someone in the box? For a THIRD time against inferior opposition & not being able to break them down?

The three games you referred to:

Stoke - Crouch & Keane start due to Defoe's suspension (Defoe and Keane started the preceding game)

Wolves - Defoe & Keane start, Crouch gets 31mins in place of Keane

Hull - Defoe & Keane start, Crouch gets 27mins in place of Keane.

While you're railing against the big man/little man combination, perhaps you need to educate yourself as to why exactly we failed to score against all three sides? If you want to complain about the failings of Defoe and Crouch as a partnership then fine, but picking three games against lower opposition where the two players managed 58mins playing time together is about as tenuous as it gets.

Against Blackburn, away, with Defoe & Crouch starting we won 2-0. That's the team managed by Sam Allardyce by the way, possibly the best exponent of anti-football in the PL.

And c'mon - Everybody knows I was referring to the comprehensive defeats this season against Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal! and Liverpool...you are having a laugh aren't you!?

Oh, so only the results against the big sides that support your "point" count, that's sound reasoning...:rolleyes:

What about Guus Hiidink's only defeat as manager of Chelsea last season? Doesn't that count for something? Probably not, that doesn't fit in well with your "old skool" argument either...

2. Garbage right back at you! For 1 it was HR that brought Defoe and Crouch to the club in the first place, with the intention of playing them together - its hardly Harry being pragmatic with the players hes' been given/has available!

If that is the case, why was it November before he chose to play the two together?

3. I might be corrected but there was no big tabloid news of Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea players out on the p1ss over Xmas?

Alex Ferguson has dealt with everything he's encountered over the years in-house...Lee Sharpe and Ryan Giggs early career partying, Beckham's public preening, Ronaldo etc etc. What about Wayne Rooney visiting aging hookers? What about the United players filmed in a pub last season singing anti-Liverpool songs, Wayne Rooney included?

And because you don't see a mass clearout, or Harry cúnting players off in the press you automatically assume he's at fault...I can guarantee you would be having at go at him if he had reacted in public to them going on the piss, you're just looking for a stick to beat him with, which is pathetic.

StillRickyVilla wrote: »

And how can you take an EIGHT game sample and suggest the team did so well because Crouch and Defoe were upfront together!! Ridiculous.

I am on a damn sight sounder ground than you picking games where the two of them have hardly seen each other and using it to criticise them. Have a word with yourself.

There is an identifiable trend in our league games this season which corresponds to certain players being on the pitch from the start. Even to a casual eye it is obvious that we are a more threatening side with Crouch and Defoe on the pitch, not because of the aerial option with Crouch on the pitch but because they function well as a partnership! I said it when he signed, the results at Pompey when they played together back this up.

I have not just picked a ramdon 8 game sample, I have picked the only 8 league games they have started together. That selection is deliberate and entirely relevant, since you claim the partnership is at fault for us failing to score.

I can't make that any clearer for you.

Dublin Spur

Under HR Spurs have played 51 PL games and won 25 of them.
That's his real scorcard in my view


At home we've done very well in general apart from the odd blip like Saturday.
For instance, ManU, Stoke, Wolves and Everton the only visiting teams to win at the Lane Spurs have kept 15 clean sheets in 26 Premier League games. Also, only ManU have scored more than once.

Our entire PL record at home under HR:

P26 W17 D5 L4 GF: 45 GA: 13 PTS: 56 / 78 (avge 2.10 points per game)


Pretty exceptional I think........


and finally in 6 home games v the SKY 4
P6 W3 D2 L1 GF: 5 GA: 5 PTS: 11 / 18 (Avge 1.83)

Hatch99

Compelling reading lads. This is what makes football and the forum so interesting, opinions...

I'll keep a lid on my HR opinions until season end, Iv done enough ranting about him in the passed.

yiddo

saw this quote on FTL and thought of this thread

"Statistics are like mini-skirts .. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts."

jokes aside very interesting thread.

mickman

its interesting but getting a little bit heated wudnt u agree?

if i talked like that id get a reprimand :-)