Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Harry Redknapp, Rube of the Year
March 4, 2012 7:12 AM   Subscribe

Despite evidence of extensive misconduct, English football coach Harry Redknapp remains beloved in the hearts and minds of football fans.
posted by reenum (41 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
What's got four legs and more money than Glasgow Rangers?
posted by Abiezer at 7:18 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


Wow. That author really hates Harry Redknapp.
posted by jaduncan at 7:21 AM on March 4, 2012


It could be worse, he could be managing Chelsea.

Also:

*sings* "2-0 and you fucked it up, 2-0 and you fucked it up."

YOUR BOSS CAN'T EVEN SPELL PAEDOPHILE!

posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:25 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


jaduncan, I read it as more like someone retelling the exploits of the lovable neighborhood rascal.
posted by reenum at 7:28 AM on March 4, 2012


What's got four legs and more money than Glasgow Rangers?
Rosie Redknapp, of course!

"He pays tax when he wants. He pays tax when he waaaants! Harry Redknapp: he pays tax when he wants!"
posted by baltimoretim at 7:33 AM on March 4, 2012 [2 favorites]


jaduncan: "Wow. That author really hates Harry Redknapp."

I'm not so sure - derision seems to be a national pastime for the English, and at the end of the article he says that Harry Redknapp becoming the coach of the England team would be the best thing for everybody.
posted by koeselitz at 7:35 AM on March 4, 2012


jaduncan, I read it as more like someone retelling the exploits of the lovable neighborhood rascal.

On a reread, it does rather doesn't it? Sorry about that.
posted by jaduncan at 7:35 AM on March 4, 2012


Recent events have proven that people are more than willing to overlook any and all miscoduct no matter how severe if you can just win enough games.
posted by 2manyusernames at 7:40 AM on March 4, 2012


Do we actually like Harry Redknapp? Or want him to be England manager? We're not going to get a decent foreign manager in, which leaves the English ones: Redknapp, Pearce, McClaren. Pearce has ruled himself out, we've had McClaren and that went so well. So... Paul Ince?
posted by hoyland at 7:41 AM on March 4, 2012


I understand Steve Bruce is looking for work.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:47 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


"It could be worse, he could be managing Chelsea"

Not any more, although after yesterday that was obviously coming.

"...at the end of the article he says that Harry Redknapp becoming the coach of the England team would be the best thing for everybody."
posted by koeselitz

Yeah, he's wrong though. Rednapp would not get England past the quarter-finals at the European Championships at best.

This is all a bit off, those who are conspiracy minded might like to think about the timing of the events, Capello resigning, the case against Harry dropped, everything fell into place nicely. Even though he claimed he can't read or write, and can't use a computer or email.
posted by marienbad at 7:49 AM on March 4, 2012


Frankly I would take Moysey ahead of Rednapp, as his teams are generally hard to beat, and even though it is difficult to say how well he would do with a team of real quality players.

(And can I just add that Robin Van Persie's post-match on MOTD was brilliant: such honesty. Now maybe he could give shooting lessons to Kuyt that Geordie idiot.)
posted by marienbad at 7:52 AM on March 4, 2012


Ah, but David Moyes is Scottish, not English. I'm not sure English footballing pride could cope with that (or if Moyes would want to deal with becoming a public enemy north of the border).
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:59 AM on March 4, 2012


(or if Moyes would want to deal with becoming a public enemy north of the border)

Really? I had no idea the Scots hated the Brits so much.
posted by reenum at 8:01 AM on March 4, 2012


Rednapp would not get England past the quarter-finals at the European Championships at best.

Nobody is getting England pas the quarters in the next European Championship, so why not put him in? At least they might lose in an entertaining way.
posted by eriko at 8:03 AM on March 4, 2012 [4 favorites]


Really? I had no idea the Scots hated the Brits so much.

The English, not the Brits.
posted by knapah at 8:06 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


'Arry's just a fackin wheeler dealer innit?
posted by PenDevil at 8:08 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


"Nobody is getting England past the quarters in the next European Championship,"
posted by eriko

hahaha unfortunately so true.

Interestingly, from the article:

"Had the tax-evasion charge led to anything more serious, I'm convinced he would have sent Tottenham out in a WM formation."

WM formation? Well why not, although the purists and aged at WHL probably wouldn't like it.
posted by marienbad at 8:16 AM on March 4, 2012


The English, not the Brits.

Please explain. I've always thought of the two terms as interchangeable.
posted by reenum at 8:26 AM on March 4, 2012


Britain = the entire Island
posted by JPD at 8:34 AM on March 4, 2012


Euler diagram of the British Isles
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:35 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


"The English, not the Brits.

Please explain."
posted by reenum

I am English, the Welsh are British.
posted by marienbad at 8:42 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


Please explain. I've always thought of the two terms as interchangeable.

The British Isles have upon them the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. England controls the principality of Wales. All are Brits.

In international football, England and Wales compete together as England, both have their own football associations, but internationally, they play as one. Scotland competes as Scotland, with its own FA, and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland both have their own football associations, and compete separately.

So, the English are Brits, but the Brits aren't all English. The Scots are British, but for god's sake, don't call them English.
posted by eriko at 8:50 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


"In international football, England and Wales compete together as England, both have their own football associations, but internationally, they play as one."

No, Wales and England play as separate nations.
posted by Auz at 8:55 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


(You might be thinking of cricket though)
posted by Auz at 8:55 AM on March 4, 2012


English people are from England
Scottish people are from Scotland
Welsh people are from Wales
Irish people are from Ireland

British people are from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
posted by triggerfinger at 8:57 AM on March 4, 2012


I thought this was odd:-

England's been waiting for a cheeky homegrown rascal to take over the national team since Brian Clough was passed over.

Apparently the Terry Venables years are in the process of de-Stalinisation. I am concerned in case I am now removed to some F.A. sponsored gulag for typing this, BUT I REMEMBER 1996...
posted by tigrefacile at 9:15 AM on March 4, 2012 [2 favorites]


(or if Moyes would want to deal with becoming a public enemy north of the border)

For that, he'd have to win something. Which, with the current English talent, is quite unlikely.
posted by Skeptic at 9:17 AM on March 4, 2012


Alan Pardew seems to know what he's doing (these days), although the England job doesn't seem like a traditional manager's position since you don't have the players for long enough to really work with them. With that said, Harry Redknapp is not the tactical ingenue some seem to think.
posted by idb at 9:25 AM on March 4, 2012


USA 1 Italy 0
posted by Brocktoon at 9:41 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


Rednapp would not get England past the quarter-finals at the European Championships at best.

Nobody is getting England pas the quarters in the next European Championship, so why not put him in? At least they might lose in an entertaining way.


Will they put anyone in before the Euros? Why take the risk? Any kind of loss will make them look like a loser and no-one thinks we have a hope in hell of anything but a loss.
posted by biffa at 9:48 AM on March 4, 2012


"USA 1 Italy 0"
posted by Brocktoon

Yeah, looks alright for Jurgen so far.
posted by marienbad at 10:11 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


The British Isles have upon them the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. England controls the principality of Wales. All are Brits.

In international football, England and Wales compete together as England, both have their own football associations, but internationally, they play as one. Scotland competes as Scotland, with its own FA, and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland both have their own football associations, and compete separately.


This is wrong in a few places.

The British Isles is a geographical term, and covers Britain, Ireland, the Isles of Wight and Man, the Isles of Scotland and (traditionally if not geologically) the Channel Islands.

Great Britain is the name of the Island comprising most of Wales, England and Scotland. Calling someone from Northern Ireland British is a somewhat political act - they may or may not respond enthusiastically.

The United Kingdom - short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and sometimes used interchangeably with "Britain" (But not Great Britain) - is an administrative unit, comprising England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. (The Isle of Wight is part of England, the Scottish Islands part of Scotland. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands - Jersey and Guernsey - are Crown Dependencies). These four areas have different levels of autonomy - the seat of government is in England, in Westminster. Wales has an Assembly with limited but growing legislative powers, Scotland has its own Parliament which is able to pass laws outside the areas reserved for Westminster, and Northern Ireland has an Assembly. These three sub-nations also contribute Members of Parliament to the UK Parliament in Westminster.

In footballing terms, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own Football Associations, and thus their own national team and manager. The four are called the Home Nations, and used to have regular "Home Nations Tournaments", until violence and international fixture congestion shut them down.

Although if England and Wales had a unified team, one suspects that the presence of Ryan Giggs on the left in the 90s would have made for a very different footballing decade.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:17 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


England's most successful English soccer manager

...is more than a little mis-leading, as a the moment it's a very low bar. It also implies some kind of historical status, which is far from the case.

'Manager who happens to be doing better at the moment than any other English manager without actually winning anything with his current club and who has won a grand total of one major trophy in his entire career' is a little more accurate.
posted by reynir at 10:40 AM on March 4, 2012


Recent events have proven that people are more than willing to overlook any and all miscoduct no matter how severe if you can just win enough games.
That's a bit harsh.

I've always considered Reddknapp a bit of a mug, but the way he's got the Spurs team playing is remarkable and deserves a lot of credit. He's a shoe-in for England and will give the English the thing they crave the most, which is not winning but losing magnificently.
posted by fullerine at 11:29 AM on March 4, 2012


will give the English the thing they crave the most, which is not winning but losing magnificently

As a Spaniard who had grown used to my national squad losing spectacularly, if not always magnificently, throughout the ages, I can assure you that actually winning the odd tournament or two feels surprisingly nice for a change.
posted by Skeptic at 11:36 AM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


HODGSON FOR ENGLAND

Seriously, think about it. The dude is the Angel of Death for managers under pressure. If he was in charge during Euro 2012, the managerial unemployment line would stretch around the block.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 1:51 PM on March 4, 2012


USA 1 Italy 0

And let's hear it for the Deuce saving fantasy teams worldwide again today.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 2:00 PM on March 4, 2012 [1 favorite]


In footballing terms, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own Football Associations, and thus their own national team and manager. The four are called the Home Nations, and used to have regular "Home Nations Tournaments", until violence and international fixture congestion shut them down.

Moreover, they are explicitly specified to be separate members of FIFA (and the IFAB) in the FIFA constitution. Because, uh, otherwise, they wouldn't count as countries.* This is why there's a big row over the Olympics. Great Britain hasn't historically competed in the football because Great Britain (the entity with the Olympic Committee) isn't a member of FIFA.

*Well, FIFA's definition of 'country' is kind of squidgy. But, say, the Faroe Islands are a member with Denmark's permission. Basically, there's a way for dependencies to be members, but not bits of a single country. Which is how Guadeloupe is in CONCACAF, but not FIFA.
posted by hoyland at 6:13 PM on March 4, 2012


This is why there's a big row over the Olympics. Great Britain hasn't historically competed in the football because Great Britain (the entity with the Olympic Committee) isn't a member of FIFA.

As someone from Northern Ireland, it irritates me that they call the Olympic team Team GB, despite the contribution of athletes from Northern Ireland.

Why not Team UK?
posted by knapah at 3:51 AM on March 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Kuyt that Geordie idiot

I think you'll find he's a Dutch idiot. And Kuyt doesn't really score, he just runs up and down the field very very fast.
posted by MartinWisse at 5:37 AM on March 5, 2012


« Older Network Rail virtual archive...  |  Grotesque Body Horror in the B... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments