Next Spurs Manager v.2

[DHSF]

What I meant by that is he ticked all of Levy's boxes. Didn't work out but the logic was there. This is the thing that makes manager appointments very difficult and why the success rate is so low across the majority of teams.

I really like Martinez, and with hindsight maybe he would have been the better appointment but who is to say that the success he's had at Everton would have carried over to us. Bearing in mind he's never had a large squad to work with, never managed 'big' players, never managed in Europe, never had to deal with big expectations etc. To a certain extent he still lacks a majority of those skills which our ideal candidate would require (e.g. a FDB or Benitez).

It's for similar reasons I'm still reluctant on Pochettino or any other of our mooted targets.

I dont see it with AVB and never have and most probably never will. I dont like how he turns/ed football into a bunch of statistics and angles. He was never the one for us then again I dont know what Levy had seen, im sure he was impressed.

I think with some Managers you can tell whether theyre going to go on to great things or not. Martinez was simply one of them for me - i enjoy listening to what he says about football when he is a pundit or in a press conference.

And for those who say he wasnt as qualified - how the hell did you work that out. This is a guy who kick started Swansea's rise to the top and set a foundation and a structure based on his philosophies and before Laudrup - it accumulated into a success built on by others. Then he was a success at Wigan. Thats not to mention, as I mentioned, his mindset of what football should be about. Qualified doesnt mean a bunch of A's and B's culminating a degree from Harvard.

Anyways all in the past and we are where we are

 

[braineclipse]

Or he has simply been doing whatever the chairmen have asked of him. We don't know. That's why you do an interview, to learn more about his approach and what he can do. The Stoke academy might be completely ****.

He did well while on a modest budget at Stoke, it was the more expensive signings that were poor. Again, that might as well depend on those running the business side of things.

In terms of playing style, perhaps for a while. But the move towards a "we're passing the ball" and Hughes after Pulis indicates to me that the playing style was at least partly his own choice.

In terms of developing young players, perhaps their academy is ****, I can see that. But he spent a lot of money, pretty consistently. On players that he then failed to develop into properly good players. That's a pretty bad sign for me.

Stoke had something like the third highest net spend over the past few seasons or something crazy like that. I think he under-delivered at Stoke when you look at how little they progressed with the money spent

Agreed, not sure about wages, but the "modest budget" story about Stoke compared to other mid table teams has been way oversold imo.

 

[DHSF]

AVB did a lot of good for the structures of our club in his tenure.

Remember he had to cope with the loss of all 4 of our world class players in a 12 month period, had to overhaul Redknapp's ageing squad and do all that with negative spend. That's as well as improve our tactics, fitness and mentality.

The next manager is really going to benefit from the groundwork AVB did. A bit of confidence, a bit of organisation, and we'll be flying.

Im sorry I dont see this structure, if its internal - how do you know what structure he has left behind?

As far as im concerned we have a squad lacking in quality and depth and quality depth at that and had no identity under his tenure. Just look at the youtube clips in the other thread to see... we had a squad who fit together playing great football (an identity) and yes it was successful. Fine it had quality players in it but its up to whoever i.e. AVB in tandem with anyone else to bring others in... A Manager is not judged just on one criteria i.e. the pitch but on everything else.

 

[Ryan]

I dont see it with AVB and never have and most probably never will. I dont like how he turns/ed football into a bunch of statistics and angles. He was never the one for us then again I dont know what Levy had seen, im sure he was impressed.

I think with some Managers you can tell whether theyre going to go on to great things or not. Martinez was simply one of them for me - i enjoy listening to what he says about football when he is a pundit or in a press conference.

And for those who say he wasnt as qualified - how the hell did you work that out. This is a guy who kick started Swansea's rise to the top and set a foundation and a structure based on his philosophies and before Laudrup - it accumulated into a success built on by others. Then he was a success at Wigan. Thats not to mention, as I mentioned, his mindset of what football should be about. Qualified doesnt mean a bunch of A's and B's culminating a degree from Harvard.

Anyways all in the past and we are where we are

That's fine that you haven't seen it with AVB and during his tenure you were largely proved right. I imagine that he will still have success elsewhere but just wasn't the right fit for us.

He was still by far more qualified and suitable at the time of hiring than Martinez based on achievements that were relevant to our requirements. Martinez has had a good career so far but how would he handle a big squad? Big players? The inflated expectations of both our chairman and our fans? He had had zero experience managing in Europe too. His contribution to Swansea shouldn't be overlooked but there are gaps that don't transfer to us. Therefore as a chairman we would arguably be hiring on a lot of speculation and faith. Every appointment carries risk so I imagine a lot more thought, detail and analysis goes into it than we can imagine (at least I ****ing hope so!)

I'm agreed with you on Martinez though in that he's a class act. Respectful, plays good football and his loyalty to Wigan was refreshing. It will be interesting to see how far he can take Everton.

 

[Modric THFC]

Bit harsh to compare us to Barca on this, they will have a lot of options that we will not.

You don't think Southampton can even be described as playing decent football? I have to say I think you're in a minority here. Pep Guardiola on his Espanyol side by the way: "There are teams that wait for you and teams that look for you: Espanyol look for you. I feel very close to their style of football." I have to admit I never watched his Espanyol side, but I will go ahead and take that Guardiola quote above your claim that he's never managed a team that plays decent football unless you care to expand on your statement a bit...

For me, looking at what Steff said above and 3 of the candidates being Poch, FdB and Martinez with Martinez probably being out of our reach. To me that makes a lot of sense. Young or young-ish manager looking to implement systems of play that could suit us. FdB obviously inspired by the classical Ajax and Barca approaches, Poch inspired by Bielsa.

I haven't seen many proper rumours about Benitez, more forum talk than anything. A different type of manager to those 3 above, but a proven manager at a very high level with a lot of experience. If he's being considered as the option for a slightly different approach I can see that too.

I really don't see what you're upset about at this point. Most of what's being talked about is just forum talk. Most of the candidates we're being linked to make a lot of sense to me.

He talking about their pressing off the ball.
His football is high pressing and quick counter attacking. AVB all over again.

 

[veron23]

LVG confirmed as UTD manager.
Thanks Levy. Thanks a bundle

 

[braineclipse]

He talking about their pressing off the ball.
His football is high pressing and quick counter attacking. AVB all over again.

Sounds like it could be a description of Klopp's Dortmund.

It's frankly ridiculous that just because someone likes a high pressing style it's "AVB all over again". Actually one of the ongoing criticisms about AVB was that our counter attacking wasn't quick enough and that we passed it around aimlessly at the back for too long.

 

[braineclipse]

LVG confirmed as UTD manager.
Thanks Levy. Thanks a bundle

How would that be Levy's fault?

Sounding like the "Thanks Obama" memes now...

 

[veron23]

Not sure if this is sarcastic or not

He's just a bit flavour of the month at the moment. I'll admit his work with Palace is changing my perception of him but he needs to go a long way to the fairly disgraceful nature of that Stoke team. Many also quick to gloss over the amount of money he wasted there too just to keep them standing still

Its commonly accepted that the best manager is one who builds his approach around players at his disposal rather than the other way around.
Pulis worked one way at Stoke because that was the best way to get optimum results from the players he had.
He is proving now at Palace that he can approach and WIN games in more than one fashion.

 

[spurs' magna carter]

LVG confirmed as UTD manager.
Thanks Levy. Thanks a bundle

How the f@ck is Levy to blame?

Anyway, can't see it anywhere.

 

[braineclipse]

Its commonly accepted that the best manager is one who builds his approach around players at his disposal rather than the other way around.
Pulis worked one way at Stoke because that was the best way to get optimum results from the players he had.
He is proving now at Palace that he can approach and WIN games in more than one fashion.

Pulis was at Stoke for a long time and was given money to spend.

Your argument might hold true for a year or two, but after 5-6 years and a high net spend surely it's not just "the players he had", those were the players he wanted.

 

[veron23]

they played better over time didn't they?

isn't it also fair to say that he learned each year and is now a more accomplished coach?

personally i think spurs need organisation from the back and positional intelligence to allow our players to flourish. Pulis ticks those boxes IMO

Pulis teams work hard, don't make it easy (usually) to score against them and also move the ball quickly forward in numbers.
Something we lack desperately

 

[Ryan]

Pulis was at Stoke for a long time and was given money to spend.

Your argument might hold true for a year or two, but after 5-6 years and a high net spend surely it's not just "the players he had", those were the players he wanted.

Yep, I think the fact that he had so much time to try and develop something new and steadfastly refused to despite their lack of progress proves that.

Lets re-visit this next season and see how Palace are shaping up but he deserves a load of credit for what he's managed to do so far

 

[LutonSpurs]

LVG may well be confirmed soon but he isn't right now. Not on any official Utd medium.

 

[veron23]

LVG may well be confirmed soon but he isn't right now. Not on any official Utd medium.

Its done

 

[ShelfLife]

Pulis was at Stoke for a long time and was given money to spend.

Your argument might hold true for a year or two, but after 5-6 years and a high net spend surely it's not just "the players he had", those were the players he wanted.

It's a cliché, but what Pulis primarily does is make his teams hard to beat. He does this by ensuring that everyone in the team works hard without the ball, and that his defenders are organised and not likely to mess around when it comes to clearing their lines. It's not all he does mind, as he will always to try maintain an offensive threat based on the strengths of the particular players he has at his disposal (though he seems to favour pacy wingers and physical front men). Logic suggests that if he can find relative success with his methods with the likes of Palace and Stoke, then he ought be able to do well if given the chance to manage superior players at bigger/richer clubs. The big question is whether such methods would work at bigger clubs (i.e. whether better players would be prepared play his way), and whether supporters of said clubs would accept such a playing style.

 

[braineclipse]

they played better over time didn't they?

isn't it also fair to say that he learned each year and is now a more accomplished coach?

personally i think spurs need organisation from the back and positional intelligence to allow our players to flourish. Pulis ticks those boxes IMO

Pulis teams work hard, don't make it easy (usually) to score against them and also move the ball quickly forward in numbers.
Something we lack desperately

Stoke? No, if anything they got worse.

We need organization and positional intelligence, we also need hard work, but we also need a hell of a lot more. If those are the most important for us then there's much more accomplished targets than Pulis out there, for example Benitez.

It's a cliché, but what Pulis primarily does is make his teams hard to beat. He does this by ensuring that everyone in the team works hard without the ball, and that his defenders are organised and not likely to mess around when it comes to clearing their lines. It's not all he does mind, as he will always to try maintain an offensive threat based on the strengths of the particular players he has at his disposal (though he seems to favour pacy wingers and physical front men). Logic suggests that if he can find relative success with his methods with the likes of Palace and Stoke, then he ought be able to do well if given the chance to manage superior players at bigger/richer clubs. The big question is whether such methods would work at bigger clubs (i.e. whether better players would be prepared play his way), and whether supporters of said clubs would accept such a playing style.

I'm guessing none of you would be arguing the case for Pulis if not for his half a season miracle at Palace. That's still a very small sample size.

The clincher for me has been his long term inability to develop attacking play and attacking players into something a bit special. We have some very talented players in our squad, do we really think Pulis is the man to make Eriksen and Lamela for example into truly special players? I see no reason to think that's the case based on what Pulis did at Stoke.

Like Ryan said, let's re-visit this a year (or two) down the line. He's shown at Palace that he might not be the completely one dimensional dinosaur he appeared to be at Stoke. If he can prove that over time then perhaps at some point he could be considered.

 

[braineclipse]

Its done

This is the point where you add why you know this.

And also where you either defend or retract your previous statement about Levy.

 

[veron23]

It's a cliché, but what Pulis primarily does is make his teams hard to beat. He does this by ensuring that everyone in the team works hard without the ball, and that his defenders are organised and not likely to mess around when it comes to clearing their lines. It's not all he does mind, as he will always to try maintain an offensive threat based on the strengths of the particular players he has at his disposal (though he seems to favour pacy wingers and physical front men). Logic suggests that if he can find relative success with his methods with the likes of Palace and Stoke, then he ought be able to do well if given the chance to manage superior players at bigger/richer clubs. The big question is whether such methods would work at bigger clubs (i.e. whether better players would be prepared play his way), and whether supporters of said clubs would accept such a playing style.

Hardworking players, 11 men behind the ball - but with skilled players who when attacking can do damage. Didn't do Capello and Mourinho any harm.

Pulis wouldn't be my first choice but I wouldn't cry if we got him. Lamela, Eriksen and co will always create chances/score goals. With character and an organised Pulis type backbone behind them who knows where it could take us

 

[veron23]

This is the point where you add why you know this.

And also where you either defend or retract your previous statement about Levy.

Sky Sports news