| We must trust harry 02:16 - Aug 23 with 3571 views | WindsorHoopMan |
This time last year he said "dont worry we will be there and there abouts and we will be fine" I believed him and we went up. Just watched match of the day and he said we will be alright. I believe him and we will stay up. I,m no fool, this is my 29th season and I know what I,m talking about |  | | |  |
| We must trust harry on 06:39 - Aug 23 with 3520 views | N12Hoop |
For me the lack of trust last season emanated from the fact that there was no consistency in team selection or any obvious sign of tactics. Players wouldn't even make the bench one week but be catapulted into the starting 11 the week after and then disappear again. Other players would play well and then be dropped whereas players would play badly and stay in. This year seems different. A defined system and players to fit it. So for now I'm trusting Harry but last season he just seemed like a bloke who wasn't that interested and didn't really have a plan. |  |
| |
| We must trust harry on 08:57 - Aug 23 with 3417 views | CHUBBS |
The problem with last year was we never had the balance in the side required to play a consistent style.
Coupled with long term injuries to key players and the dreadful team spirit and attitude of the squad, i think it was a minor miracle we were promoted.
Just look at Reading and Wigan who we all thought would piss the league and both are now going to struggle to make the playoffs this season.
Harry has done an amazing job but some people just won't give him the credit he deserves. |  | | |
| We must trust harry on 12:17 - Aug 23 with 3349 views | Ingham |
Yes, very interesting post(s). I suppose it would make a change, but in 29 years, when did we ever trust a manager? If he didn't get results almost at once, he was out. Maybe having sacked his two predecessors in short order, the Board will give Redknapp time.
But why should they, really? He's only here because his predecessors were sacked for not getting results. If we look as though we're getting there, he'll be given time - up to a point, provided he gets much better results than Warnock or Hughes. But why should he stay if he doesn't?
That's always been the problem. We'd like to give them time, but we never do, because 'time' it never seems to involve very much losing. But that's what giving them time means. It doesn't make sense to give a manager 'time' when he's playing the opposition off the park.
If he doesn't, time is one thing he hasn't got. And every defeat begins to look like a step backwards. And it is easy to see why. If we're not in the top half of the table, there are always at least - what? - at least three or four managers at comparable clubs doing better. Once you're wondering whether someone else is better and that someone else wins when our guy loses, every defeat is a nail in his coffin.
We're reluctant to admit that we're a very small Club, but we're also very reluctant to face up to the long haul that might be required to make us a significantly bigger or better Club.
So we talk ourselves up at a point when we don't have the punching power to show we're anything more than small and under-resourced. This leaves the manager in no-man's-land. If the Board sacked themselves every time they got it wrong, and kept an old head like Redknapp, maybe THAT would make a difference.
But when did that ever happen?
Redknapp's own remarks tell us he knows very well that the easy way out is to create a fresh buzz by sacking the manager and 'starting over', telling ourselves that, yes, FINALLY this is the guy, NOW we can really get going, the only way is up, and all the stuff we said when we got it wrong every other time.
If we could live with failure, accept a long 'learning curve', we might gradually find out why we never live up to our own expectations. If that happened, we might be more realistic when it comes to managers.
And maybe more demanding of the overpaid, underperforming players who take Club after Club down, and swan off to some other bunch of credulous hopefuls who make all the same mistakes they made last time.
Maybe that is why small Clubs never grow, and never become bigger Clubs.
Me, I like Redknapp. I've no idea how good he really is because he's a manager and like other managers, he never gets the chance to do anything in depth or truly long term.
Solving this mystery would make QPR dangerous. We can guarantee that virtually no other Club will even bother. What concerns me is that we remain one of the sheep, and we'll suffer the fate of sheep.
Redknapp's arrival might be a good time to replace mindless optimism with realism, and ask ourselves exactly how easy it will be to curb our expectations sufficiently to keep an experienced guy like him in the hot seat for longer than the next extended bad run, which is invariably curtains.
A Club like ours will learn a lot more from understanding why we fail so consistently than from trying to cover up our shortcomings by despatching yet another sacrificial victim.
Otherwise, all he has to do is win  | | | |
| We must trust harry on 12:32 - Aug 23 with 3325 views | bluetooth |
One game at a time Im going to enjoy watching this squad grow. I really belive in HR, GH , TF and the squad. Might take time to click but think were be fine.
a win a spuds tomoz by the way is 6-1 get on it | | | |
| We must trust harry on 12:44 - Aug 23 with 3311 views | Pommyhoop |
| We must trust harry on 12:17 - Aug 23 by Ingham |
Yes, very interesting post(s). I suppose it would make a change, but in 29 years, when did we ever trust a manager? If he didn't get results almost at once, he was out. Maybe having sacked his two predecessors in short order, the Board will give Redknapp time.
But why should they, really? He's only here because his predecessors were sacked for not getting results. If we look as though we're getting there, he'll be given time - up to a point, provided he gets much better results than Warnock or Hughes. But why should he stay if he doesn't?
That's always been the problem. We'd like to give them time, but we never do, because 'time' it never seems to involve very much losing. But that's what giving them time means. It doesn't make sense to give a manager 'time' when he's playing the opposition off the park.
If he doesn't, time is one thing he hasn't got. And every defeat begins to look like a step backwards. And it is easy to see why. If we're not in the top half of the table, there are always at least - what? - at least three or four managers at comparable clubs doing better. Once you're wondering whether someone else is better and that someone else wins when our guy loses, every defeat is a nail in his coffin.
We're reluctant to admit that we're a very small Club, but we're also very reluctant to face up to the long haul that might be required to make us a significantly bigger or better Club.
So we talk ourselves up at a point when we don't have the punching power to show we're anything more than small and under-resourced. This leaves the manager in no-man's-land. If the Board sacked themselves every time they got it wrong, and kept an old head like Redknapp, maybe THAT would make a difference.
But when did that ever happen?
Redknapp's own remarks tell us he knows very well that the easy way out is to create a fresh buzz by sacking the manager and 'starting over', telling ourselves that, yes, FINALLY this is the guy, NOW we can really get going, the only way is up, and all the stuff we said when we got it wrong every other time.
If we could live with failure, accept a long 'learning curve', we might gradually find out why we never live up to our own expectations. If that happened, we might be more realistic when it comes to managers.
And maybe more demanding of the overpaid, underperforming players who take Club after Club down, and swan off to some other bunch of credulous hopefuls who make all the same mistakes they made last time.
Maybe that is why small Clubs never grow, and never become bigger Clubs.
Me, I like Redknapp. I've no idea how good he really is because he's a manager and like other managers, he never gets the chance to do anything in depth or truly long term.
Solving this mystery would make QPR dangerous. We can guarantee that virtually no other Club will even bother. What concerns me is that we remain one of the sheep, and we'll suffer the fate of sheep.
Redknapp's arrival might be a good time to replace mindless optimism with realism, and ask ourselves exactly how easy it will be to curb our expectations sufficiently to keep an experienced guy like him in the hot seat for longer than the next extended bad run, which is invariably curtains.
A Club like ours will learn a lot more from understanding why we fail so consistently than from trying to cover up our shortcomings by despatching yet another sacrificial victim.
Otherwise, all he has to do is win |
Pfft whatever..
Great post Ingham. |  |
| |
| We must trust harry on 14:11 - Aug 23 with 3274 views | LazyFan |
Hi,
The biggest issue last year was we lost Charlie to injury. Then the Jan transfer window opened up and even our management at the time admitted that we relied too heavily on Austin’s goals.
So, what did they do about it? Err nothing. And we slipped away fast from the auto-spot to play-off's. This was when the trust was lost. We had a problem, they did nothing about it. Big risk.
Luckily Austin came back and pushed us past the the post to the final. Then we played finally as a team from which the rest is history.
This year, we have made some good signings. I look at them like this, if we get relegated will the longer term signings get us back up? From this we can see the answer would be a good estimation of Yes. Therefore the squad looks more balanced for the longer term and we always have the chance of staying up of course.
We just need some trust to be built on the stadium and facilities long term. Then we can look at QPR as a Club again. Which many teams seem to have abandoned as a concept these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club |  |
| |
| We must trust harry on 21:02 - Aug 23 with 3208 views | DylanP |
It wasn't as simple as we didn't have a plan last year and we do this year. Last year we had to do two things; get rid of the most expensive players AND get back up. That WAS the plan.
We got rid of as many of the big ticket players and then, with what was left, and the players who could be brought to Loftus Road on the cheap. Its not that management did nothing during the January transfer window to increase the number of strikers, the opposite is true. We brought in all kinds of strikers and midfielders during that window. The things, we could only afford cheap cast-offs. Strikers are the more expensive players. True goal scorers cost big bucks, especially during the January window. So, instead, 'arry made do with what he could find on frees and loans. The plan wasn't to play beautiful football or to win the division by a mile. It was to get out of the division before we went broke. Plan achieved. Division is now left.
Likewise, the goal this season is not to dominate the division or challenge for Champions League football. It is to finish 17th or better and build a team. Hence, lots of young potential. Now they just need the time to bed in, develop chemistry and learn the system. That means there will be plenty of games where we won't look very good. That means there will be plenty of games where the players look like they don't know each other or the system (coz they don't). That means the fans have to try not to panic when a bunch of young players thrown together right as the season kicked off don't look like a world beaters.
He has a pretty good record so far, so "In Harry We Trust" |  |
| |
| We must trust harry on 23:27 - Aug 23 with 3138 views | kensalriser |
Not sure why anyone thinks we'll keep all the new signings if we go down. Caulker, Mutch and Fer just jumped ship from relegated clubs... |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| We must trust harry on 10:48 - Aug 24 with 3050 views | Ingham |
Yes, and they wouldn't be here in the first place if they were better players.
It's cheering to be optimistic, but I think realism gives a Club a much better chance of deploying limited resources effectively. Players and Managers benefit from a climate of optimism because it pushes wages up sky-high, without demanding anything of them. Because optimism isn't about how nondescript they've been in the past, but how wonderful we like to believe they'll be in the future.
And we value players on that basis. We don't hand the money over when they've earned it. We contract to pay them on the basis that they'll get it whether they do anything worthwhile or not.
What our perpetually optimistic valuations of players do, in effect, is over-value them. And, paradoxically, that gives us less money to spend on players who are BETTER. If we sign 8 players in the summer, we talk up the value of the first 4 so we've done the agent's job for him, and that leaves far less money to sign the next 4.
Overvaluing them becomes a systematic kind of self-delusion. If we pay a lot of money for a bad squad, once the penny drops, we're desperate to sign replacements for what Redknapp calls the tossers. But the replacements must, in the very nature of things, be BETTER than the tossers, so we must pay more to get them.
Worse, overvaluing them makes it impossible to compensate for their weaknesses because the need to keep up morale (ours, more often than not) means we find it hard to admit they HAVE any weaknesses in the first place.
Why do we do this? Why do we persuade OURSELVES we have a good squad. Surely it is their job to do that through their performances?
The damage that this does is incalculable. We can't correct our shortcomings because we don't like to admit that we have very little BUT shortcomings. So we can't learn (from our mistakes), and we can't improve. So we make all the same mistakes all over again. How many squads have we had in the last 10 years? 15? 20? And we're still paying for them. Because wages are so high, and performances so poor, the Club is carrying the cost - in the shape of debt - of players who left the Club nearly 30 years ago.
No wonder that when things go wrong, we're baffled. We don't say 'be realistic, they're nothing special' - well, not often enough - we tell ourselves to hope or believe or to get behind the players and the manager. So WE have to compensate for their failures, and we tell ourselves we, who support the Club all our lives, are disloyal if we don't back THEM, the people who, when they've performed abysmally, and taken the Club down, swan off to some other bunch of undertalented hopefuls, starting the cycle beings all over again.
It never seems to occur to anyone in the boardroom - or the managers, come to that - that wages - like points and wins and successes and trophies - should be ACHIEVED. That when they play brilliantly, they'll be paid brilliantly.
Why? We do we have people running the Clubs whose only talent is to lose the Club's money.
Why don't we get the players representatives to represent the Clubs?
The people who run the players - their agents and managers and accountants and PR people and hairdressers - are making money hand over fist DESPITE the huge losses their performances are responsible for? The PFA defends THEIR earnings and status fiercely.
THEY are VERY realistic. If a Club suggested that it was optimistic that the player would perform well, and that until he DID, he would be £50,000 a year, not £50,000 a week, he'd fall off his chair laughing.
Why doesn't Harry do that? If he believes he knows a thing or two, why should the Club back his judgement? Why shouldn't he? Why shouldn't he accept, say, £100,000 a year, and then see how well he does? If the Club makes a handsome profit, and is successful on the pitch, he'll get whatever his skills have earned for the Club.
THEY have every reason to oppose anything of the kind.
But why should we buy into their reasoning. Our loyalty is to the Club, not them. Even our best players left us for more money, bigger Clubs, greater opportunities.
We understand that. Their loyalty is to themselves.
Ours is to QPR. They're being paid to perform, we're not being paid to pretend they're doing so.
Being realistic is not being negative. The glass half empty is no emptier than the glass half full. The person whose glass is full is not the one makes excuses for the landlord cheating him and giving short measure all the time, but the one who insists on getting what he has paid for. | | | |
| We must trust harry on 12:23 - Aug 24 with 3007 views | essextaxiboy |
| We must trust harry on 14:11 - Aug 23 by LazyFan |
Hi,
The biggest issue last year was we lost Charlie to injury. Then the Jan transfer window opened up and even our management at the time admitted that we relied too heavily on Austin’s goals.
So, what did they do about it? Err nothing. And we slipped away fast from the auto-spot to play-off's. This was when the trust was lost. We had a problem, they did nothing about it. Big risk.
Luckily Austin came back and pushed us past the the post to the final. Then we played finally as a team from which the rest is history.
This year, we have made some good signings. I look at them like this, if we get relegated will the longer term signings get us back up? From this we can see the answer would be a good estimation of Yes. Therefore the squad looks more balanced for the longer term and we always have the chance of staying up of course.
We just need some trust to be built on the stadium and facilities long term. Then we can look at QPR as a Club again. Which many teams seem to have abandoned as a concept these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club |
Your timeline is a bit off .Charlie was injured on the 28th Jan .Confirmed as long term on the 31st . We ended up with Maiga Keane and Doyle . Not much time to identify someone and agree a deal ..... |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
