Tactical decisions: Harry`s Achilles heal?

[Bingy]

I agree that Harry has shown many 'tacticle faux pas' in his short reign at WHL and I am more willing to forgive these, as long as they are rare! It is more evidence that he may drop down to the England job....as it is a must for the FA (and the rest of the football world!).
We have dropped 10 points, this season....give or take a point, and a top, european, manager would never allow that? That said, Harry has exceeded expectations, at WHL, and for that we should rejoice....COYS!

 

[sloth]

Bloody hell. Are you sure? There was fuck all wrong with our tactics against Utd. Get a grip, reading some of these posts in here, it's like listening my five year old trying to explain Chess to me.

If you're not sure you understand something, if you know a few of the moves but not really how it all works, then don't hold forth on the subject because you end up looking a bit silly.

 

[arnoldlayne]

Tactically Redknapp did fine yesterday, but the thing that some of us keep talking about, that coached ethic, drilling a philosophy into players day in day out, is important, it is what keeps ManU - who I think aren't as good as us man for man (or Arsenal for that matter) - always up the top. Tactically I don't think Ferguson was any better than Redknapp yesterday. But that attitude he instills of always working until the last second of the game, always taking responsibility for your corner, is what keeps them winning ugly even when they aren't playing scintillating football.

This article in the Standard touches on it:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport...eeping-into-spurs-beautiful-game-7537487.html

"It is an eternal source of frustration to followers of every other club that United seem to ‘get the breaks’ more than anyone else but their diligence and focus is so great that it enables them to take maximum advantage when their chance comes. United’s consistent application is a testament to Sir Alex Ferguson and while his team do not necessarily compare favourably with his greatest, they are brimming with resilience and knowhow.

Tottenham may have been the better side here but they failed to match United’s maturity and handed their opponents a vital win. Small moments clearly matter. Danny Welbeck could have allowed Brad Friedel to catch a looping ball but instead applied pressure, forcing the Spurs goalkeeper to tip the ball behind.

From the resulting corner, Kyle Walker’s lackadaisical approach to marking Wayne Rooney had disastrous consequences and suddenly, after controlling most of the opening 45 minutes, Spurs were behind."

There's a thread in COYS on "Our set pieces"

POTL (or Phantom of the Lane = official ITK) posted this in reply to complaints about our lack of effective set pieces:

Posted Yesterday, 11:18 AM
That's what happens when you don't practise them, and if you don't practise shape in the week- that is what you get.

Sometimes you have to wonder if we are actually over achieving?

 

[YiddoJames]

HAven't read everyone's posts but my own thoughts on tactics by Harry.

A couple of games spring to mind where he has made positive changes which have improved the team's performance.

Fulham FA Cup replay at home . 1-0 behind at HT, brings on Pav and Bentley, we win 3-1.

Stoke away this season - we still lost. But we were hugely unlucky. Not only did he make subs he changed to 3-5-2 and we battered them, totally changing the game. Had it not been for some awful decisions by the ref we'd have won that game.


Just a couple of examples to show he can and has made good tactical changes and subs.

I'm sure there are others and I'm also sure there's been times where he's got it wrong. Watford and Stevanage in the FA Cup recently stand out as unbalanced teams, with some strange selections.

I disagreed with the starting XI on Sunday for eg.

No one will get it right all the time though!

 

[ShelfSide18]

Bloody hell. Are you sure? There was fuck all wrong with our tactics against Utd. Get a grip, reading some of these posts in here, it's like listening my five year old trying to explain Chess to me.

If you're not sure you understand something, if you know a few of the moves but not really how it all works, then don't hold forth on the subject because you end up looking a bit silly.

This is new uncharted territory, BC, Sloth and myself standing in defence of Redknapps tactics...

 

[arnoldlayne]

There is an interesting article by Jonathan Wilson in the Guardian on this subject today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/mar/06/harry-redknapp-england-manager-tottenham?CMP=twt_gu


Why Harry Redknapp may not be the right choice for England
The Tottenham manager would probably inspire a short-term jolt of optimism but at international level it is sometimes necessary to shut down a game to frustrate superior opposition

Harry Redknapp's uncomplicated attacking approach may bring impressive results against lesser opposition but the problem for England would arise against superior sides. Photograph: Mike Hewitt/Getty Images
Tottenham Hotspur's defeat to Manchester United on Sunday was, in some ways, freakish. United were second best for much of the first hour, but found themselves 2-0 up thanks to two defensive errors. First, Kyle Walker failed to pick up Wayne Rooney from a corner and then Luka Modric switched off to allow Nani to collect a throw-in unchallenged, allowing him the space to put in the cross that led to Ashley Young's first goal. Young's second was also partly down to poor defending as everybody backed off allowing him the space to shape in his shot.

That happens sometimes and in isolation an unfortunate 3-1 defeat to United would not raise too many concerns. What is more troubling is the general pattern that is emerging of what happens when Tottenham lose and it raises serious questions about Harry Redknapp's suitability for the England job.

Spurs have lost six league games this season. One of them, at Stoke City, was largely the result of some poor refereeing. In the other five, Spurs have conceded three on three occasions and five twice. In all of them, there were moments when Spurs played well, when it looked like the game might fall their way, but in all of them they ultimately paid for their openness. In both the 5-1 home defeat to Manchester City and the 5-2 defeat at Arsenal, there was a spell of 20 to 25 minutes when they seemed powerless to stop the tide.

Both involved Spurs setting out in a 4-4-2 against a side that outnumbered them in central midfield (Arsenal in a classic 4-3-3, City playing a narrow 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1 that, with Sergio Agüero dropping deep and Samir Nasri and James Milner playing narrow, gave them an effective extra man in the middle). The gamble then is always that the team playing 4-4-2 will be unable to gain meaningful possession either because they are being bullied physically in the middle or because the team with the extra central man can keep the ball away from them. The pay-off is that with two forwards the side playing 4-4-2 can be more direct and, when they do get possession, are able to exploit space in wide areas (as Spurs did, for instance, away to Milan and more especially at home to Internazionale in the Champions League last season).

In that Tottenham rapidly went 2-0 up at the Emirates, the gamble could be said to have paid off. But really both goals stemmed from defensive laxity, as Arsenal were caught with both full-backs high up the pitch with Alex Song in no position to cover. Even then it took a deflection and a questionable refereeing decision to bring the goals. Arsenal might have wilted and the game would have been written off as Spurs capitalising on their shortcomings at the back, but they did not. So palpable was Arsenal's superiority even at 2-0 down that the comeback always seemed possible. Once the first goal had gone in, it even seemed likely.

Redknapp recognised that, of course, and switched to a 4-3-3-cum-4-1-4-1 at half-time, bringing on Sandro and Rafael van der Vaart for Louis Saha and Niko Kranjcar. He was unable, though, to staunch the bleeding. Partly that was down to momentum, but equally there was a loss of shape. Gareth Bale did almost nothing to check Bacary Sagna's forward surges – one of which led directly to Arsenal's third goal. Sandro seemed confused as to what his role was supposed to be; if he was meant to be sitting, he did not. Spurs pushed higher than they had in the first half – logically, for a single striker can become very isolated if his back four sits too deep, but with the offside line rickety and the pressing lacking focus all that did was create room for Theo Walcott to attack with his pace.

Redknapp is far from the tactical Luddite he often likes to make out . He tends to deal in broad brush-strokes, preferring to get the basic strategy right and avoid the risk of overcomplicating things. There is nothing wrong with that and his success over the past couple of years at Spurs is evidence of how effective the approach can be. There is no such thing as the perfect manager who is supremely gifted in all aspects of the game.

But, at the very highest level, there will be times when a manager sees an opponent hitting form and is forced simply to shut the game down, to minimise the damage, see through the storm and then assess if anything can be salvaged. Roberto Mancini did it last season when his Manchester City side ran into an Arsenal in peak form. After enduring a 10-minute drubbing, he retreated to the bunker and dug in for a goalless draw, a decision that drew criticism but also won a point they almost certainly would not have won otherwise.

Or take the way Antonio Conte shuffled his Juventus side from 3-5-2 to 4-3-3 as Milan outplayed them in the first half a fortnight ago . Even 1-0 down there was a spell of simply breaking up the game and keeping Milan in reach. Having done so, he could then look to strike back and did so, finding an equaliser through the substitute Alessandro Matri. Conte admitted he got it wrong initially, but the point is he was able to correct the error.

Contrast that, say to Tottenham's performance away to Real Madrid in the Champions League last season when having gone a goal and a man down with the sending-off of Peter Crouch, they were not only unable to check Madrid's forward momentum, but seemed to have little notion of how they might begin to do so, being run ragged by Madrid's overlapping full-backs.

Killing the game is not pretty. It is not something that wins reams of positive media coverage. But it is necessary, particularly at international level where football has become increasingly attritional because of the lack of time available to coaches to develop attacking cohesion.

If he takes the England job, Redknapp will probably inspire a short-term jolt of optimism and his uncomplicated attacking approach may bring impressive results against lesser opposition. The problem, though, will come when England have to break up the game against opponents of similar or greater stature. Tottenham are the third-best team in the country and have let in 14 goals in four games against the two sides better than them and six in two against the fourth-best. In tournament football, that equates to comfortable qualification followed by an exit against the first serious contender England meet, which is pretty much where they have been since 1968.

If only there was somebody around who could organise a side to frustrate, say, the reigning world and European champions and then nick a goal from a set-play to pull off an improbable 1-0 win.

Previous Blog home

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

 

[ShelfSide18]

Cheers for that Arnold, good article.

 

[Krafty]

I think Harry has shown he has all the tactical knowledge needed to be a success - we went to Milan and won 1-0 with two defensive midfielders, we went from 4-4-1-1 to 4-4-2 when 2-0 down at the Emirates, we went 4-4-2 at Eastlands and got the win for CL qualification when most were saying 4-5-1...

However they have been times when his decisions have been mind baffling. Its easy to point to recent results, but I recall him playing Crouch against Vidic and Ferdinand in the 0-0 draw last season, when it was obvious that crouch would not get anything in the air and we needed someone with more mobility to trouble them (I think he had played Defoe three earlier against a very deep, defensive team when Crouch's height would have been useful); there was a trip to Bolton where we lost 4-0 when Harry gave Sandro his debut, and Kranjcar played his first game of the season. Three days later we had a struggling Sunderland team at home which would have been a much better game to give someone their debut and to play someone who was lacking match sharpness.

It appears to me that when Harry has a clear plan in his head, even if that tactic is just to go out and play, he is successful. However, when he starts shoehorning people into systems that they are not suited for, with plans (or lack of) that don't appreciate that the opposition will be a strong and consistent attacking force, the results are not successful.

The fact we are so woefully inept at set pieces indicates that we do not focus on specific game events enough.

 

[sloth]

I think Harry has shown he has all the tactical knowledge needed to be a success - we went to Milan and won 1-0 with two defensive midfielders, we went from 4-4-1-1 to 4-4-2 when 2-0 down at the Emirates, we went 4-4-2 at Eastlands and got the win for CL qualification when most were saying 4-5-1...

However they have been times when his decisions have been mind baffling. Its easy to point to recent results, but I recall him playing Crouch against Vidic and Ferdinand in the 0-0 draw last season, when it was obvious that crouch would not get anything in the air and we needed someone with more mobility to trouble them (I think he had played Defoe three earlier against a very deep, defensive team when Crouch's height would have been useful); there was a trip to Bolton where we lost 4-0 when Harry gave Sandro his debut, and Kranjcar played his first game of the season. Three days later we had a struggling Sunderland team at home which would have been a much better game to give someone their debut and to play someone who was lacking match sharpness.

It appears to me that when Harry has a clear plan in his head, even if that tactic is just to go out and play, he is successful. However, when he starts shoehorning people into systems that they are not suited for, with plans (or lack of) that don't appreciate that the opposition will be a strong and consistent attacking force, the results are not successful.

The fact we are so woefully inept at set pieces indicates that we do not focus on specific game events enough.

I think he's shown good signs of improvement this year (though often I get the impression that the insight has come through random events such as injuries to key players, rather than because he's thought it out).

I agree with you as far as it being his weakness however.

But coming third this year is an achievement, and it hasn't happened simply because we have good players. It's happened because he's put a bloody brilliant team together, many of the key players of which were his picks.

Sometimes you can't have everything, especially if you're a club our size. I'll take progress and say that's a positive thing.

 

[Mr Pink]

Very good article that...so basically England need Mourinho :grin:

 

[Mr Pink]

I think he's shown good signs of improvement this year (though often I get the impression that the insight has come through random events such as injuries to key players, rather than because he's thought it out).

I agree with you as far as it being his weakness however.

But coming third this year is an achievement, and it hasn't happened simply because we have good players. It's happened because he's put a bloody brilliant team together, many of the key players of which were his picks.

Sometimes you can't have everything, especially if you're a club our size. I'll take progress and say that's a positive thing.

Sloth I think that's a very succinct way of putting it.

 

[Wheeler Dealer]

I now question Redknapp's credentials for England job as he has now stated that Livermore could do a job for England...

 

[Krafty]

I now question Redknapp's credentials for England job as he has now stated that Livermore could do a job for England...

I think Livermore could become the next Parker. He is the type of player who does the ugly stuff very well, he wont dazzle with dribbles or flicks and the like, but he creates the base for others to shine. While talk of England might be a bit premature, I think he has the discipline (and humility) that the England team has been lacking. He is more mobile than Barry (not hard) and I'd rather have someone like Jake than an old timer like Lampard. Maybe next season...

 

[Mr Pink]

I now question Redknapp's credentials for England job as he has now stated that Livermore could do a job for England...

Seriously what is your obsession with slating this kid, I noticed his performance against United had you silent for once.

 

[Misfit]

Seriously what is your obsession with slating this kid, I noticed his performance against United had you silent for once.

No idea, after a every game, in which he usually does OK and sometimes very well, a snide comment or two is thrown in by some.

Ok ok, he isn't Redondo, we get it.

 

[Mr Pink]

No idea, after a every game, in which he usually does OK and sometimes very well, a snide comment or two is thrown in by some.

Ok ok, he isn't Redondo, we get it.

This guy (wheeler Dealer) is the worst for it though, every time calling him useless and that he offers fuck all.

 

[mattyspurs]

Seriously what is your obsession with slating this kid, I noticed his performance against United had you silent for once.

I agree Mr P, I think that Jake has made a good steady progress this season, it has matured him. With Parker not going to be around forever, I am quite happy with the thought of Sandro and Jake being in the middle for several years. It's one area we don't need to address.

 

[Mr Pink]

I agree Mr P, I think that Jake has made a good steady progress this season, it has matured him. With Parker not going to be around forever, I am quite happy with the thought of Sandro and Jake being in the middle for several years. It's one area we don't need to address.

Exactly Matty...

 

[mpickard2087]

I now question Redknapp's credentials for England job as he has now stated that Livermore could do a job for England...

Ummm he was possibly the best player on the pitch for us against Man Utd, and in his last few league outings with our proper team out he hasnt looked out of place so if he keeps developing in the next year or so then that might not be out of the question. How about you get behind him instead of writing off a guy who's in his first year in the first team?

 

[Paolo10]

Thought Livermore was good at OT without doing too much. I just don't rate him as highly as some of you do. He is cover, he will never make a regular impression on our first team if we want to be Top 4 regulars and I don't think he's anywhere good enough to play for England at all regularly.

He is nothing like Parker btw. I wish he was.