Why is Redknapp so highly rated?

Discussion in 'Sports' started by seabs, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. I can't say I've ever gotten on the Harry bandwagon tbh, he's a decent manager when given finances but when compared to someone such as Moyes(with a lot less money) his accomplishments look very meh imo. So yeah, why do you rate Harry if you do?
     
  2. His accomplishments with Spurs and Portsmouth especially speak for themselves. I think that's proof he's a lot more than a decent-with-money-only manager.
     
  3. Re: RE: Why is Redknapp so highly rated?

    What accomplishments? He won an fa cup after spending a ridiculous amount with Pompey and took a Spurs team which had finished 5th recently in 2 seasons under Jol into 4th. Sure they were faltering under Ramos but does that make Harry a great manager due to the circumstances ?

    He had a good run with Bournemouth and West Ham but nothing to gain this billing as an English football saviour he's been branded as by some in the media for example.
     
  4. Ridiculous amounts of money? Do you have a source to show how much he spent? I'm curious. Pretty much all of his teams have been consistently decent, or better off with him in charge. The turn around at Spurs was nothing short of fantastic, regardless of their previous seasons (that means nothing). It shows great man-management to have such a fast turn around. He also managed them in a fantastic CL run reaching the quarters, especially after the Milan games.

    Not only that, but it's his style of football. A lot of English mangers are "solid", "organised" and have men behind the ball, he brings flair to all of his teams imo. He's not a football saviour, and I haven't seen him billed as such, he's just the best English manager there is imo.
     
  5. Re: RE: Why is Redknapp so highly rated?

    http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/portsmouth-fc/transfers/verein_1020_2007_default_default_alle_a.html

    30 million net here with around 10 the previous 2 seasons, for a team like Pompey that is a ridiculous amount imo (look at how had their finances are still - not Harrys fault but he did spend a lot whilst there for the clubs size especially when you consider the wages that'd be on offer when speculated)

    I disagree the previous seasons mean nothing as the foundation was there, he did take over a team which was struggling under a poor manager but the talent was there, his man management is very good I'll admit that (his press conferences about Taarabt were classic Harry) But he lacks in other areas glaringly imo, especially tactically he's pretty easily sussed out.

    Aren't Spurs 4th also? They haven't regressed or progressed imo since he left, finally he probably is the best English manager out there but that's more of a reflection on the state of English management imo, we aren't producing any with that winning instinct. Perhaps I was harsh describing him as decent, good is a fair compromise with all things considered. Also didn't you see all the hype when he was linked with the England job multiple people were saying he was the shot in the arm our international football required and whilst I can't guarantee it I speculate he'd have had no more successful than Woy.
     
  6. If the owners tell you they have that sort of money, would you not use as much as you can to turn the club around? The foundation is more important in the backstage areas. The training facilities, staff etc, previous season form doesn't mean anything imo. You have teams like Newcastle who were 5th and were CL contenders all year in 15th place at the moment.

    As for the England job, I completely agree with the fuss made to give him the job. England for years now have had this ugly outdated style of 4-4-2 and long-ball football. Our golden generation of world class players like Lampard, Gerrard, Cole, Rooney - all considered potential BITW in their positions at the time - were not utilised at all. The style was so disgusting to watch and the never ending frustration was annoying. We all saw the flair Harry gives, and he was ultimately the man for the job in my opinion. Especially when his only competition was Roy, a manager not known for his nice football at all (though he's pleasantly surprised me with England), the hype was inevitable. Harry isn't a world class manager, but he is the best English manager.

    To put it this way, I'd be disappointed if he took over Manchester United, but I would be ecstatic if he took over England.
     
  7. Re: RE: Why is Redknapp so highly rated?

    It's not a problem with him spending the money as such its a requirement for him to get success, Moyes has spent less and gotten better results more consistently I believe, say if Moyes got the Spurs job for instance I'd back him to do better than Harry with the same resources.

    So you believe he's the best man to take England forward but not UTD? If you have the confidence in him to get the best out of Rooney and Co couldn't he do it at UTD also, sorry but you've thrown me a bit with that last bit lol, unless it's a case of an English manager should always be English?
     
  8. Don't be a revisionist, Seabsie.
     
  9. It's not a requirement though, Spurs, West Ham etc are proof of that.

    This. I was under the assumption since Capello it would always be an English manager now. If I had any choice for England manager it'd be Mourinho, and Guardiola at United :smug:.
     
  10. Didn't he spend at Spurs (Palosios, Bentley and Crouch cost a fair bit didn't they?) I'd have Jose for England also, although whoever we have won't matter as we don't have enough talent to win anything imo. Spain and Brazil got it locked down.
     
  11. No idea if he bought them and how much they were, but you can't say any of those three players had a massive impact on his Spurs career lmao. And yeah agreed unfortunately. :(
     
  12. They didn't have a massive impact but still the return for investment with him seems very poor imo, especially for a Wheeler dealer (As much as I hate him SAF is the GOAT at that, picking CR7 up for 12 million was a masterstroke for example)
     
  13. Have to agree with seabs on this one [Dont get used to it]. Redknapp achieves success but at the cost of huge financial spending. Not to mention i find his transfer policy quite ridiculous. He plays with 1 striker for Spurs, yet he buys a 4TH STRIKER [ Adebayor] despite having 3 quality strikers in Crouch Defoe and Pavlyuchenko. Not to mention, even if he decided to sell some of the strikers he has when he bought Adebayor he could have got fair bit of money for them, but what he does is he makes them rot in the bench and when their transfer value has reached dead low thats when he sells them.

    He did that with Portsmouth too. I dont think he will be as sucessful if he doesnt get money to spend. Moyes imho is a top manager, Everton is probably one of the least spending side in the whole league, and yet they compete for the International Cup spot every season consistently. However at the same time i dont know if hes going to achieve sucess with other clubs. We all know remember what Sam Allardyce did to Bolton, transfere them to a top club spending very little, but then failed at other clubs.

    I think theres a lack of good british managers out there, and i honestly couldnt believe when they sacked Fabio Capello for a Liverpool manager.

    __________

    Nah definitely not Brazil. They might have talent, but they lack experience. Without experienced players all the talent in the world wouldnt do any good, you dont have to look further than Arsenal to know that.

    Argentina are stronger than Brazil in almost every area except defense. Tevez, Aguero, Messi against what? Neymar Pato and Robinho? I dont rate brazil's chances too highly.

    Italy have a very strong squad too, but i would like to see if they can find someone to replace Pirlo who imo is still best playmaker in the world today, even better than Xavi.

    Spain obviously has the strongest squad.

    England have a good squad too, and enough future stars, they just play the wrong way imo, always double layer defending, not pressing enough in the midfield, and relying on counter attacks and long passes.

    Gerrard and Terry are still two of the greatest players in the world. Then theres youngstars like Cleverly and Walcott and Chamberline to back them. I would like to see Welbeck loaned out to get more play time so he can be a regular for England. I would also like to see Crouch replacing Caroll. Crouch is just a better version of Carroll imo, Crouch has more work rate than Carroll and is also better than Carroll with the ball at his feet as we all saw in his Liverpool days.
     
  14. Germany lack experience and have a new youth team, yet they're arguably the second best team in the world. Argentina have horrible defenders and a horrible midfield... Brazil have Dani Alvez, Thiago Silva (one of the best in the world), Dede and Marcelo as a back four...

    Brazil are definitely the team with the potential to overtake Spain. Their philosophy and roster is incredible. But at the moment Spain are leaps and bounds above everyone, which is rare as not many international countries in the history of international football have achieved that.
     
  15. Germany doesnt lack experience. They have a world class and arguably the best goalkeeper in the world today. Philipp lahm is an experienced wing back and so is per mertesacker. In the midfield they have the experience of Shweinstieger, they also had Ballack and Frings a few years ago. In offense they have Klose Podolski and Gomez who are all veterans.

    Brazil does have a good defense, and i also stated that the only bad thing about the Argentina team is their defense. However i dont agree they have a horrible midfield. Mascherano is one of the best pure defensive midfielder in existance today, Di Maria is a world class player and Lucho Gonzalez is a hard working box to box effective midfielder. Cambiasso can be a world class player if hes on form too. Its a pity they wasted Riquelme and Veron, they both were world class players.

    I do agree though that Spain are above everyone else, but in a few years with Villa, Xavi, Iniesta and Alonso getting old, they might have some problems.

    I think the Brazil team of 2002 was leaps and bounds ahead of every team too. As a matter of fact if the 2002 Brazil team face the current Spanish team i think the Brazil team is gonna win, they just had too much flair teamwork and pace with them. Not to mention Ronaldo was like a god back then and could finish from virtually every angle and position.
     
  16. Don't they have Isco, Muinian and the like coming through though? How do they do in youth tournaments? Agreed on Mascherano, who's better at doing the donkey work in midfield? No one imo.
     
  17. Di Maria I counted as a forward. Mascherano is a fantastic CDM but he gets played as a CB most of the time now. Cambiasso is old and overrated. Argentina are really not that good. As for Germany, Mertesaker is piss poor (and not a wing back). Shweinsteiger is fantastic yes, but the other names you mentioned don't matter as they internationally retired years ago... Gomez is experienced, Podolski doesn't start that much anymore. Their foundation is ALL youth.

    Spain have Fabregas, Mata, Isco, Thiago, Busquets, Rodrigo, Alba, and MANY others (which is why they are leaps and bounds ahead), they win the U21 competitions a lot. They have such a fantastic youth system to step into their places, trust me.
     
  18. Spain can be beaten. Portugal came very close at this years Euros. All their guys will be a little older and a lot less hungry come 2014. Germany will be tough to beat after all their youngsters have another 2 years experience under their collective belts. Brazil is always a threat, you can't deny the pure skill that comes out of that country. Argentina still doesn't have the horses on the back end to support the talent up front. The dark horse team will be Uruguay. They are balanced and play at a great pace. Don't be surprised to see them make it very far.
     
  19. The older argument has been settled already and the "less hungry" argument I always find absolutely astonishing. Barcelona have won everything under the sun multiple times, their "hunger" has never ceased to exist even with that success. Spain have won Euro 2008, World Cup 2010 and then Euro 2012, is that the limit for hunger or something? You would think winning the three major international tournaments in a row would show you that the lack of hunger argument is completely null now. I don't understand, do people really think players will think "Ah dw, don't need to play well in this world cup, we won it four years ago"?
     
  20. I see your point but there's less motivation and more pressure being the defending champs. I'm not saying they can't win, or they don't want to. Previous to the first Euro win, they were known as the skilled team that could never win the big one. Now that the feats have been accomplished it gets harder and harder for them to repeat. That extra ember in your fire to shut everyone up is definitely a factor IMO. Where as you have a team like Uruguay which is great but doesn't really have the world pressure on them cause no one expects them to win it all. In conclusion, my main point is Spain can be beaten, and it's going to be a lot harder to win a fourth major championship in a row then it was to win others.