Warning, a long article on the failings of Arry.

Why Harry Redknapp is no longer the manager to take Spurs forward


Let me preface this by saying that this blog post is not knee-jerk,
it is not based purely off the back of two heavy defeats to the best two
teams the English Premier League has to offer. These concerns have
lingered and grown across the course of the last year, and this blog
post is born out of the frustration that the issues I will discuss are
rarely reported or deliberated in mainstream media. While one North
London manager is pilloried in the press, another – whose team sits
bottom of the league – sees his managerial ability remain unquestioned.
Arsene Wenger has been heavily criticised in the wake of Arsenal’s 8-2
loss to Manchester United, and there have been calls for the
“humiliated” manager’s head. But Harry Redknapp, who has guided his side
to an 8-1 aggregate loss against the Manchester clubs, has received no
such treatment. And that is perhaps understandable, given that Redknapp
is generally an affable, jovial soul, only too happy to regale anecdotes
about Paolo Di Canio, provide the media with a year’s worth of sound
bites from a single press conference and make humorous quips about
Darren “Sandra” Bent, or Samassi “He don’t speak the English too good”
Abou. So here begins my Redknapp roast, and where better to start than
‘Arry’s relationship with the media.

Got time for a quick chat ‘Arry?

Ah,
Harry and the press. It’s perhaps this issue which has driven the
greatest wedge between Redknapp and the fans. Redknapp, it is perceived,
uses the media for two purposes: self-preservation and self-promotion.
Since February, Spurs’ form has been nothing short of disastrous (more
to come on that later), but with every loss against bottom half
opposition or humbling home draw came an excuse from the manager: “Well,
that’s football.” “It was just one of those days.” “It’s a funny old
game.” But Spurs enjoyed “one of those days” with greater frequency than
any other side with top four aspirations did last season, and there was
a worrying lack of willingness from Redknapp to take responsibility for
defeat or even accept that there was a problem (instead listing the
sums of money spent by Spurs’ top four rivals). Every conceded goal or
dropped point(s) was accompanied by a defence that deflected blame away
from Redknapp, whether it be injuries, fixture congestion, a refereeing
error, luck or a stroke of genius from the opposition. When questioned
after Spurs’ 2-2 draw against West Brom at home (having conceded a late
equaliser), Redknapp said, “Everyone has results like that [...] We had
the game in the bag and then the kid hit a worldy [shot]. It was unreal.
He could try that every day for the next six years and he would not be
able to do that again.” Redknapp opted not to mention how open the game
had obviously been before West Brom equalised (a problem he could have
rectified with his one remaining substitution), and failed to note that
this was not the first time a lower half, relegation fighting side had
matched Spurs. A manager who cannot accept that there is a problem will
never find a solution, and two weeks later Spurs were held to a draw at
home to Blackpool.

Another bugbear is the ease with which Redknapp puts down the club
and insults the fans. He’s launched tirades against the “idiots” who
phone up radio shows and dare to question Spurs’ form. “If they don’t
enjoy the football being played at the lane, they don’t know football,”
snarled Redknapp. Yet only one side (Birmingham) in the Premier League
played more long balls than Spurs last season, and the aesthetic
Redknapp promotes is far from enjoyable as a result. Last season, in the
league, Spurs fans would struggle to recall more than three halves of
genuinely exhilarating football. But “this is the best they’ve ever had
it” is the mantra that Redknapp uses to describe the 2010/2011 season, a
remark that is highly derogatory to the club’s past (particularly the
attractive and silverware-winning football played under Bill Nicholson,
as well as the ‘push and run’ football created by Arthur Rowe), while
also failing to recognise that Redknapp won nothing last year (even
Juande Ramos managed a Carling Cup) and Spurs finished in the same
league position as they did under Martin Jol in both 05/06 and 06/07
(despite Jol having a far inferior squad). In fact, Redknapp went as far
as to say (in a pre-match interview on ITV4 ahead of Spurs’ Europa
League clash with Hearts) that Spurs “won’t have a better season [than
last year] for the next 20 years.” Comments such as this underline both
Redknapp’s lack of ambition, and his frustrating tendency to lower the
success that should be expected of Spurs in order to exaggerate the job
he has done at the club. He constantly puts down the club (to whom he is
employed) which elevates the relative success he has had: “The fans had
nothing before I got here.” “I brought Champions League football to a
club that had never had it.” “Two points from eight games.” Harry’s use
of the media always has an element of self-interest. Whereas a manager
such as Wenger or Sir Alex Ferguson will use the media to assist their
team (for example, putting extra emphasis on a particular dimension of
the game – Wenger highlights the roughness of the opposition, “Fergie
time” etc.), Redknapp uses media to make himself look better. While
Redknapp is happy to pat himself on the back, a lone voice in the
Tottenham squad offered a different appraisal of Spurs’ season (a view
that mirrors that of many fans): “Even if people say ‘you had a great
season’, I don’t think so,” says William Gallas. “To get to the
quarter-finals of the Champions League at the first attempt was amazing
for Tottenham but everyone is upset because we got nothing at the end.
When we play against the small teams, maybe – I say maybe – we thought
we had won before we played, so perhaps that’s the mistake we made.”

The Modric situation

Redknapp’s methods of deflection were plain to see in his post-match
press conference after Spurs’ most recent defeat against Man City
(Spurs’ biggest home defeat for eight years). Many people would concede
that Spurs’ central midfield duo of Niko Kranjcar and Luka Modric were
totally incapable of dealing with City’s attack, and offered no
protection to an often exposed back four. Rather than address the
obvious shortcomings of his team selection, Redknapp called upon his ace
in the hole: Luka Modric. “Luka’s head
wasn’t right again. He came to see me at 12pm and he told me he didn’t
feel his head was right.” And with that, all post-match discussion was
deflected onto Modric’s shoulders. Redknapp went on to explain how
difficult pre-season had been, with the implication being that the
Modric ordeal had unsettled Spurs’ preseason preparations. Redknapp’s
stance throughout the ongoing Modric saga has been inconsistent to say
the least. Daniel Levy, the Tottenham chairman, made it plainly and
explicitly clear that Modric was not for sale, but it is not a sentiment
that has been echoed by Redknapp: “When a player wants to be somewhere
else, sometimes it’s better to sell them. Maybe you would get three or
four players in to make you a better team. If Luka really had his mind
made up and he wasn’t going to be happy and get on with it, then
sometimes you’re better off letting him go, there’s no doubt about
that.” Redknapp has fanned the flames regarding the Modric situation by
not toeing the line set by the chairman and has sent mixed message to
the diminutive Croatian. It could have been perceived that Redknapp’s
friendly, sympathetic approach to Modric’s plight was designed to keep
Modric on side and provide an empathetic figure within the club’s
hierarchy. But now Redknapp has betrayed Modric’s trust and risked
destabilising him further. It’s also worth noting that Redknapp has been
highly critical of the dark forces that have turned Modric’s head, yet
he has used the media to essentially tap up Scott Parker
who is widely expected to sign for Tottenham within the next 24 hours.
Many of the concerns up until now might be dismissed as largely
superficial or overly sensitive, but Redknapp’s flaws extend beyond this
use of the media.

Form from February 2011 onwards

Spurs’ league form since February has been terrible. Between February 22^nd
and the end of last season, Spurs have won just three times, drawing
against Wolves, West Ham, Wigan, Arsenal, West Brom and Blackpool – four
of those teams were involved in a relegation fight. In all
competitions, from February 15^th until now, Spurs have played
18 games, won four, drawn seven and lost seven. Is that really the best
Spurs have ever had it, as Redknapp insists? Spurs picked up just four
points from a possible 24 in eight games against Blackpool, Wigan, West
Ham and West Brom, and only managed to keep as many clean sheets as
Blackburn, who finished just four points above the drop. Juande Ramos
was in charge of 54 games at Spurs in all competitions. He won 21, drew
16 and lost 17. In Redknapp’s last 54 games, he has won 22, drawn 17 and
lost 15. That’s 83 points for Redknapp and 79 points for Ramos – a
difference of just four points over 54 games. Ramos was ridiculed,
Redknapp is applauded.

Tactics

Ask
Redknapp about tactics and he’s more likely to describe the green and
orange mints. The low estimation with which Redknapp holds tactics is
well known, but it’s worth reiterating. “You can argue about formations,
tactics and systems forever, but to me football is fundamentally about
the players,” says Redknapp. “Whether it is 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, the
numbers game is not the beautiful game in my opinion. It’s 10 per cent
about the formation and 90 per cent about the players. If you have the
best ones and they do their job, then they can pretty much play any way
you want them to.” Redknapp’s disregard of tactics is further backed up
by Rafael van der Vaart, who described life at Tottenham as such, “It
feels like I’m back on the street. There are no long and boring speeches
about tactics, like I was used to at Real Madrid. There is a clipboard
in our dressing room but Harry doesn’t write anything on it! It’s very
relaxed. The gaffer gives us the line-up 20 minutes before we go out to
do our warm-up. And the only words he speaks to me are ‘You play left or
right, work hard, have fun and show the fans your best’.” Anders Svensson,
who played under Redknapp at Southampton, has echoed van der Vaart’s
comments, saying that Redknapp lacked any kind of tactical knowledge and
the team did zero tactical training.

Jonathan Wilson
has argued that it may be the case that “Redknapp is better at
intuitively understanding a game and feeling what needs changing than he
is at envisioning a match beforehand.” Spurs’ fabled slow starts last
season – such as against Fulham (4-0 down inside the first 45 minutes),
Inter Milan (4-0 down inside 35 minutes) and Young Boys (3-0 down inside
28 minutes) – would certainly indicate a pre-match failing with regard
to how the team should initially be set up. But the substitute-fuelled
comebacks that lend weight to Wilson’s theory have dried up in 2011, and
Redknapp’s changes (or lack of) have begun to cost Spurs.

In
the latter half of last season, Spurs found themselves unable to see
out games (with Redknapp often reacting too slowly to try and close out a
game). Against Birmingham away, Spurs spent 62 minutes in the lead and
though the tide had visibly turned in Birmingham’s favour, Redknapp did
not act. Birmingham equalised. Against Wolves away, Spurs were leading
for 39 minutes. Redknapp made three attacking substitutions in that
period of time, bringing on Kranjcar, Bale and Lennon. The game opened
up and with minutes remaining, Wolves equalised. Against West Brom at
home, Spurs were in the lead for 15 minutes. With the match far too
open, the tempo far too quick and the midfield far too high, Redknapp
again refused to make a defensive change. West Brom equalised. Just
three times in the 10/11 season did Redknapp make a defensive change
before the 80^th minute. Redknapp appears reticent to making
negative changes that have the potential to backfire on him. So with
regard to Wilson’s earlier comment, Redknapp is specifically a manager
who reacts instinctively when behind, when there’s nothing to lose, when
he can afford to throw caution to the wind. However, this season has
seen Redknapp’s attacking changes only ensure the capitulation of his
side. Against Manchester United, Spurs had coped relatively well with
Man Utd for 60 minutes. After conceding, Redknapp brought Huddlestone
and Pavlyuchenko on in place of Livermore and Kranjcar. Pavlyuchenko and
Defoe have never worked well together as a strike partnership, but
Redknapp’s switch to a 4-4-2 with the barely fit Huddlestone and van der
Vaart in central midfield eliminated any chance Spurs had of getting
something from the match. The game opened up and Man Utd cut through
Spurs with ease.

Along with Redknapp’s mistrust of “the numbers game” and his
frequently awkward use of substitutions, there is a plethora of other
tactical issues that Redknapp has failed to grasp (though I won’t bore
you by dissecting each individual point): Spurs set-pieces offensively
and defensively are poor (despite possessing gifted set-piece takers),
Redknapp’s integration of youth last season was almost non-existent (on
several occasions, Redknapp listed two goalkeepers on his substitutes
bench rather than giving youth a chance), the overreliance on the long
ball (three of the Premier League’s top five exponents of the long ball
last season were Spurs players: Dawson, Assou-Ekotto and Huddlestone),
inability to breakdown deep defences, mismanagement of strikers
(Pavlyuchenko’s goals to games ratio was one goal every 159 minutes –
that strike rate, over 38 games, would have produced 21.5 goals),
Redknapp’s failure to effectively accommodate van der Vaart in 2011, the
ineffective use of Bale on the right of midfield and many more.

Injuries

Another criticism of Redknapp’s management that is worth
extrapolation is the vast number of injuries we have endured under his
leadership. According to Four Four Two, Spurs suffered more injuries
than any other side last season – a massive 61 individual injuries. That
resulted in an accumulative total of 1528 days lost through injury (the 4^th
highest in the Premier League), and no one Spurs player was available
for every league game across the whole season. In the 2011/12 season
already, Gallas, King, Huddlestone, van der Vaart, Pienaar, Modric,
Palacios, Sandro and Jenas have all picked up injuries (some more
serious than others, such as van der Vaart’s groin tear which will keep
him out for several months). Though we’re not privy to the goings on
behind-the-scenes, it is believed to be the case that each player
follows a standardised, generic training regime, unlike at other clubs
where each player is given a tailored, individual training plan to suit
their particular needs. Fitness coach Raymond Verheije
used Spurs’ preseason injury troubles to highlight the inefficiency of
coaching: “As long as football coaches do the wrong football exercises
at the wrong time or in the wrong sequence these injury crises keep
happening [...] Clubs like Spurs have staff to avoid injuries but
Modric, Pienaar, Jenas, Huddlestone, Sandro Gallas and King injured
before start of season [...] But as long as people keep looking for
excuses for these ridiculous injury crises the problem will never be
solved. Players deserve better!”

The situation at Spurs is exacerbated by Redknapp’s reluctance to
rotate his squad, and his insistence on playing players too soon (and
for too long) after injury, and even fielding players unfit to play.
Kyle Walker had picked up a bug prior to playing Man Utd last week, but
Redknapp selected him regardless. Walker came off after 45 minutes
having vomited at half-time, but not before being given the run around
by Ashley Young. Similarly, Aaron Lennon was ill prior to Spurs’ trip to
the Bernabeu. Despite his insistence that he could not play, Redknapp
selected him in his starting XI. Lennon pulled out of the team at the
last minute. Redknapp, typically, was quick to criticise Lennon, who in
return wrote on Twitter: “Saying I fell ill be4 the game is bull***. I
fell ill on Sunday morning where the med team put me on anti botics
[sic], but only got worse b4 tues [...] Believe me this is 1 game I did
no wnt to miss and still devo now!!!! But will not be made a scapegoat
saying they only knew jus b4 KO.” Players are regularly thrust into
first team action too quickly after a long lay-off – for example, after a
few weeks on the sidelines, Jermaine Jenas started against Werder
Bremen at home in the Champions League. He lasted just 19 minutes before
limping off. Jonathan Woodgate, a player who made just four appearances
in two years at Spurs, has already made four appearances for new club
Stoke City in the space of a couple of week – with Spurs still seeking
for a new centre-back, did Redknapp’s poor injury management result in
Spurs losing a quality central defender who could have contributed this
season?

Redknapp’s transfer record

Redknapp has been hit and miss with regard to player acquisitions to
say the least. His initial signings in January 2009 were designed to
stop the rot and propel Spurs out of the relegation zone, and in that
respect they were successful. However, Redknapp now finds himself
in the predicament of having to replace signings he had originally
made. Spurs are open to offers for their entire (misfiring) strike
force, which includes Peter Crouch and Jermain Defoe (bought for a
combined total of approximately £25m by Redknapp), while Robbie Keane
(purchased for £12m) has left White Hart Lane for boyhood club LA Galaxy
in a deal worth £3.5m – Redknapp has had three windows to rectify
Spurs’ blunt strike force, though as yet his only signing is Emmanuel
Adebayor on loan. In fact, much of the so-called “deadwood” in
Redknapp’s bloated squad were signed by him, like Sebastien Bassong,
Niko Kranjcar and Wilson Palacios, who is on the verge of signing for
Stoke. Additionally, Redknapp has made several very odd signings that
have made little to no contribution, such as Pascal Chimbonda and Jimmy
Walker. Interestingly, Spurs’ best performers were at the club before
Redknapp joined. Luka Modric, Michael Dawson, Benoit Assou-Ekotto,
Gareth Bale and Aaron Lennon were bought in previous managerial reigns,
while Redknapp ousted a number of players who went on to excel at other
clubs. Last year Darren Bent scored 17 league goals – almost twice the
number of league goals scored by Keane, Crouch and Defoe combined –
while Adel Taarabt and Kevin Prince-Boateng have shone at QPR and AC
Milan respectively. Redknapp would like to have you believe that he
inherited a relegation scrapping side that he has overachieved with,
when in fact the quality of the Spurs squad prior to Redknapp’s
messianic arrival was extremely high. Spurs’ best signings during
Redknapp’s years at the club have been Sandro and Rafael van der Vaart –
the former was scouted and brought to the club by chief scout Ian
Broomfield (and not given much game time until 2011 when injury
necessitated his inclusion in the team), and the latter was a deadline
day present from chairman Levy. Redknapp’s summer 2011 transfer targets
have been worryingly short-sighted, targeting players well into their
30s, like Brad Friedel and Scott Parker. Redknapp’s most recent quotes
on Joe Cole (“I like Joe, and I am not going to say I don’t want to sign
him because I would be lying”), a player who has flattered to deceive
for the past few years, hardly endear him to the Tottenham faithful.
There is also a question mark over Redknapp’s ability to spot talent. He
opted out of a move for Luis Suarez, unsure of his suitability to lead
the line on his own (though after his impressive start to life in the
Premier League with Liverpool, Redknapp – in typical Redknapp fashion –
quickly pointed his finger at Spurs’ scouts, “people thought he couldn’t
play up as a striker [...] They said he’s like Rafa and
you can’t have him and Rafa”). It’s never ‘Arry’s fault.

[color=#ffff00]Longevity

I’m coming to the end of my Redknapp rant now (*breaths sigh of
relief*), but there’s time for one last point regarding the stability
argument put forward by defenders of Redknapp. One way or another,
Redknapp will not be in charge of Tottenham Hotspur FC on the opening
day of the 2012/13 season. Whether it be because of the
soon-to-be-vacant England job, poor results this season or an imminent
court date with HMRC, the last thing Redknapp offers now is long term
stability. He won’t be around long enough to build a legacy. Every Spurs
fan is grateful to Redknapp for the job he has done, but he’s no longer
the right man to take Tottenham forward in the long term. Hiring
Redknapp – who put an arm around the players’ shoulders, created a
relaxed atmosphere and didn’t make the players work particularly hard in
training – was the necessary antidote to the authoritarian rule of
Juande Ramos – who worked the players incredibly hard (employing
gruelling fitness schedules), had no relationship with the players and
overemphasised and over taught tactics. Redknapp was so effective
because his methods were the polar opposite of those that had left the
players so disillusioned, unhappy and alienated under Ramos. But now it
is evident that a once happy camp under Redknapp is fractured. Redknapp
has proven to be tactically inept, fairly impotent in the transfer
market and Spurs’ current form in 2011 threatens to undo the excellent
work Redknapp had done in bringing Champions League football to White
Hart Lane. If Redknapp does not recognise these flaws he can never
correct them, and that will cost Spurs a very attainable spot in the top
four this season.
There are some very valid points worthy of discussion I would say.

Really good read Baz ... agree with most of that

I read that Baz Tuesday morning ,,, plenty of truths there...Thought you guys would've debated it ... Perhaps theres not that many Trust in Harry posters here on the BNF willing to defend him on that article hit...