The Overlap - some interesting comments from Ange

[SteveAWOL]

When I say he lowered standards, I don't mean it was an intentional thing or something Ange did knowing the risk. IMO, it was a by-product of being so laser focused on winning the EL. I've never seen any team bin off the league like we did to win a cup so what that was going to mean longer term was unknown IMO.

I never saw this season coming in a million years. I remember at the start of the season, on Talksport, Cundy was taking the tinkle out of O'Hara saying "you finished 17th last year" and O'Hara replying "Come on Jase, you know that's not going to happen again". And I wholeheartedly agreed. Last season was a one off, a by-product of us focusing on the EL.

Hindsight gives a better perspective. Our last 14 home games last season - 2 wins, 3 draws and 9 defeats I think. If I'm not wrong, it's identical to this season's record pretty much. We only once finished lower than 8th in 21 years and usually finished top 6, last year we finished 17th. This year, we'd probably all take 17th at this point. That's more than a step change in terms of regression, that's a pretty seismic fall from grace. Unprecedented in my time watching English football.

You hear coaches talk about how important the "feeling" is around a club. You hear people in the game talk about how losing becomes a habit. You hear Tudor talk about our players having bad habits. The trainwreck of last season has had an impact on this season IMO. It's far from the only reason but it's very difficult to argue that such a drop off from the last 20 years straight didn't begin when Ange decided the league was nothing more than an inconvenience.

Our PL form over the past 36 months (during which time we’ve churned through 6 head coaches) makes for grim viewing, no wonder ENIC are struggling to attract elite managers willing to risk tarnishing their CV by attempting to arrest this precipitous downturn!

Especially as our squad no longer has any world class players for them to try and build a team around plus everyone in world football will be well aware of Postecoglou’s comments about ENIC’s shoddy recruitment; which follows similar sentiments by Conte, Mourinho and Pochettino over the past decade… I’ve got a bad feeling about this

 

[DeanoAustin]

May be we didn’t “bin off” the league, perhaps we were just not good enough. Ange knew it so focussed on the EL. There are a so many different permutations we’ll never know. But I was sure, even with the EL success Ange had not built either a team or a system that would use that success as a platform for continuing it. We were not even playing his preferred style to win it. I said it at the time, the win was a one off like the Ramos and Graham wins rather than heralding a new era of success. In many ways he’s been lucky - he got out while the going was good (unlike Ramos and Graham); this season would have been a disaster for him imho.

With injuries, I accept we were never going to be top half of the table once Christmas and January were done.

I don't accept we weren't good enough to finish in a far more respectable position than 17th even while giving priority to the Europa League.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Obviously neither of us. They are just opinions on both sides.

Mine is based more on trends and yours more so on emotion.

I would say that thinking of sacking Ange as the rational, data driven choice and keeping him being the emotional one is exactly why this season has been such a mess.

If you (not you, the board) can’t understand context and have a sense for what the players need, how they are feeling, what really happened last season behind closed doors at the training ground, etc etc, and you purely look at the trend, then yeah. Sack him. But let’s say Ange was kept, and had fewer injuries. The trend would almost certainly be upwards again this season. So does that mean he was then the right choice long term? Or does context and all sorts of other variables then come into it once again?

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Your sequence bothers me here. I would say that most of the losing happened before the penultimate game of his tenure when we became "winners". It's very possible that Ange made it perfectly acceptable across the 2 seasons he managed to lose as long as they followed his tactical instructions. He had them convinced that eventually his methods would prevail and they wouldn't lose so much. Obviously injuries and fatigue was a massive factor. I respected him for wanting to play in an impressive brand but wanted him to pay way more attention to his opposition on any match day.

As you probably know, my problem with Ange was that he set his stall out and tried to make "his way" work from day 1. He didn't build towards his final outcome and make the logical tactical steps (and transfers) to get there. He wouldn't compromise anything until he had to compromise everything, and then we parked that bus. I don't class that as good management. Great managers work with what they have and mould things their way over time using the resources they have. You see constant incremental improvements and sometimes something clicks and you see big change. We never saw that to be fair. I caveat that with the injury variable of course.

I guess my other big problem was that I never saw Ange-ball as going to work even if Ange could have hand picked from the best players in the world. I think it was a flawed tactical setup anyway.

So in the debate whether Ange normalised losing, I think it is how you define it. To me it's a little like Tudor not prioritising "not getting relegated". He doesn't prioritise that at all. He 100% prioritises the execution of the very next match. It's all he can do. So in Ange's mind he wasn't accepting losing but playing the long game to become winners above just the EL trophy. The problem may have become it wasn't Ange's head we were worried about. He wasn't on that pitch and I do think some players just found it OK to lose. IT didn't hurt as much as it absolutely should.

On your main thrust, Ange is who he is and clubs know this going in. I don’t blame him for not being some different version of a coach that he just isn’t. He is very clear about what he does going in.

On your first point about the sequence, I agree that he had the players believing in what they were doing and that eventually things would turn. I just think that saying Ange normalised losing and is a reason for what we’re seeing this season is just another stick to beat him with that doesn’t make sense.

Are we saying that the players didn’t mind losing, and then won a trophy, which was nice, but then to start this season again they felt fine losing? So they start this season well, beat Burnley, beat City. Have the best away record in the league…but the moment we turn into bad bad form again it’s because Ange has normalised it? And not because Frank utterly failed to get the players behind him and had no semblance of an in possession game? Suddenly the spectre of Ange returns in November and the players decide to down tools because of him?

 

[fernadez]

On your main thrust, Ange is who he is and clubs know this going in. I don’t blame him for not being some different version of a coach that he just isn’t. He is very clear about what he does going in.

On your first point about the sequence, I agree that he had the players believing in what they were doing and that eventually things would turn. I just think that saying Ange normalised losing and is a reason for what we’re seeing this season is just another stick to beat him with that doesn’t make sense.

Are we saying that the players didn’t mind losing, and then won a trophy, which was nice, but then to start this season again they felt fine losing? So they start this season well, beat Burnley, beat City. Have the best away record in the league…but the moment we turn into bad bad form again it’s because Ange has normalised it? And not because Frank utterly failed to get the players behind him and had no semblance of an in possession game? Suddenly the spectre of Ange returns in November and the players decide to down tools because of him?

I would say our players don't mind losing yes, and I think this has been an issue at the club for years. We recruit players that are just below the top tier and with that comes caveats not just in their ability. How many of our players historically outwork their talent? Kane, who else?

In an enviroment like ours where not being the best is acceptable, losing becoming acceptable is a short step away. If the whole club is built on scrimping why would the players brought in be any different, them think 'well I get paid regardless' is no different then the board saying 'we're brick but lets release a special edition shirt and people will buy it'.

Cup is a nice bonus, parade, photos, but determination to push on? I don't see those personalities in the squad. We can't even turn around adversity during the course of a game so I don't expect them to do so because of form trends.

Our form graph over the last 2 years shows the reality. Having a mindset of 'it's ok to lose cause we're building something' to me is as dangerous as 'the manager is brick and I don't want to play for him'. Both allow a drop in professional standards. This is why I don't understand why people say they don't care about the result if the football is good. Results in the league are the bread and butter on which the club is judged on.

The phrase 'Winning is Easy' springs to mind.

 

[Bishop]

I would say that thinking of sacking Ange as the rational, data driven choice and keeping him being the emotional one is exactly why this season has been such a mess.

If you (not you, the board) can’t understand context and have a sense for what the players need, how they are feeling, what really happened last season behind closed doors at the training ground, etc etc, and you purely look at the trend, then yeah. Sack him. But let’s say Ange was kept, and had fewer injuries. The trend would almost certainly be upwards again this season. So does that mean he was then the right choice long term? Or does context and all sorts of other variables then come into it once again?

I think if Ange had fewer injuries he would undoubtedly do better but what is there to suggest that would be the case beyond sheer hope? Ange had a litany of injuries in his first season, that continued into his second season and would have also continued into the 3rd when you think that Kulu, Dragusin, Maddison and Solanke were already long term injured. Then look at what actually has happened injury wise under Frank and there is literally nothing to suggest Ange would have had an injury eased season.

This is where the rational thoughts versus the emotion come into play. Even looking at this season in hindsight can we can't even say "oh look how clear of injuries we were, I wish Ange would have had this time with the players." The injuries haven't abated at all, the transfers would have been lacking once again and the squad would still be undercooked for Ange's needs.

Hiring Frank doesn't mean sacking Ange was the wrong thing to do, it just means once again the leadership of this club have very little understanding about what makes a good coach for Spurs.

 

[Bishop]

On your main thrust, Ange is who he is and clubs know this going in. I don’t blame him for not being some different version of a coach that he just isn’t. He is very clear about what he does going in.

On your first point about the sequence, I agree that he had the players believing in what they were doing and that eventually things would turn. I just think that saying Ange normalised losing and is a reason for what we’re seeing this season is just another stick to beat him with that doesn’t make sense.

Are we saying that the players didn’t mind losing, and then won a trophy, which was nice, but then to start this season again they felt fine losing? So they start this season well, beat Burnley, beat City. Have the best away record in the league…but the moment we turn into bad bad form again it’s because Ange has normalised it? And not because Frank utterly failed to get the players behind him and had no semblance of an in possession game? Suddenly the spectre of Ange returns in November and the players decide to down tools because of him?

Not to be churlish but losing did become acceptable to you in the league because of the payoff of the Europa League win. If you can feel that way, who is to say some of our players didn't and don't. Ange has more or less said himself that he was unbothered by loss after loss last season because he had the bigger prize in mind. Maybe we have some deluded players who see the CL this season as a bigger prize and don't mind losing so much as long as the CL is still in the offing?

It sounds ridiculous, but for me no more ridiculous than accepting losing game after game in the league to potentially win the EL.

 

[DeanoAustin]

On your main thrust, Ange is who he is and clubs know this going in. I don’t blame him for not being some different version of a coach that he just isn’t. He is very clear about what he does going in.

On your first point about the sequence, I agree that he had the players believing in what they were doing and that eventually things would turn. I just think that saying Ange normalised losing and is a reason for what we’re seeing this season is just another stick to beat him with that doesn’t make sense.

Are we saying that the players didn’t mind losing, and then won a trophy, which was nice, but then to start this season again they felt fine losing? So they start this season well, beat Burnley, beat City. Have the best away record in the league…but the moment we turn into bad bad form again it’s because Ange has normalised it? And not because Frank utterly failed to get the players behind him and had no semblance of an in possession game? Suddenly the spectre of Ange returns in November and the players decide to down tools because of him?

I've probably been the most vocal in this thread on saying Ange normalised losing. To be clear, I don't believe he is a major reason of why we are where we are. There are so many factors involved, IMO, most of which come back to the tinkle poor way that we've been run. For me, the majority of the culpability is with the board (past and present). Frank also has more responsibility than Ange as do the players. So this isn't an attempt to paint Ange as a spacegoat.

Our home form is the primary reason we are where we are IMO. We've won 2 from 14 at home this season. That record is unprecedented in the new stadium and it's been a very long time since we saw it in the old one too. The only precedent is last season when we won 2 from our last 14 home games. That creates a vibe, a feeling - call it what you want. You get used to losing and, like winning, it becomes a habit. Ange, unintentionally, ingrained a losing habit in the league at home. He bit back at fans on at least 3 occasions I can remember as well as the ear cupping at Chelsea. That created a fracture between the fans and team IMO. This season, I've been at the ground 8 times I think. I think they were booed off on every occasion bar last Sunday and City.

Strong culture gets built through actions, not words.

In the last 15 months, we've seen an unprecedented drop off from a Premier League club. From very consistent top 6 finishes to two finishes around the relegation places. We hadn't finished in the bottom 6 in almost 40 years. We'll now do it two seasons in a row from a position of when we were challenging for Europe and CL consistently.

That's a shocking drop off owing primarily to our home form. For me, Ange helped set a culture where losing in the league wasn't unacceptable (for whatever reason), he was at war with the fans and that carried into this season.

He's not the reason we are where we are. But, in my opinion, he is one of the reasons we are where we are.

 

[Mcfee]

May be we didn’t “bin off” the league, perhaps we were just not good enough. Ange knew it so focussed on the EL. There are a so many different permutations we’ll never know. But I was sure, even with the EL success Ange had not built either a team or a system that would use that success as a platform for continuing it. We were not even playing his preferred style to win it. I said it at the time, the win was a one off like the Ramos and Graham wins rather than heralding a new era of success. In many ways he’s been lucky - he got out while the going was good (unlike Ramos and Graham); this season would have been a disaster for him imho.

Edit: I agree with you that the league form mattered last season even when we supposedly had nothing left to play for and it’s not just about the unacceptable final position or number of games lost. We had been struggling so to change that, Ange should have been using those games to test and tweak his system, getting the squad ready for this season. That he didn’t, did us a huge disservice and meant that Frank basically had to pick up a squad that was not acclimatised to winning in the league. Now Frank didn’t have enough in his locker to change that but he started the season with one hand tied behind his back. Given how Frank just continued the pattern of losing, even if we are not relegated, I think next season is going to be tough for a new manager again.

I think saying Frank had one hand tied behind his back from the start is letting him off the hook tbh. If that’s the case, Tudor has both hands and one leg tied. And unless he arrests the slide the next one is getting into Monty Python territory.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I know it’s annoying to keep coming back to this but…we literally won a trophy! We had an unprecedented injury crisis! We finished 5th during his last 18 months! If you want to say everything else definitively proves Ange would get us relegated, fine. All I’m saying is that I think Ange would have given us a much better season had we not sacked him, than what we saw with Frank.

I think we can all write something that sounds about right with the 20/20vision of the hindsight goggles (fudge, if one can't with them on, gawd help us!).

So it has to be acknowledged that the board took the decisions they did in June 2025. Not February 2026.

If you can provide a post from June 2025 that intimates broadly what you are saying here.....I'll tip my hat to you.

 

[Kane]

If the board can’t understand context and have a sense for what the players need, how they are feeling, what really happened last season behind closed doors at the training ground, etc etc, and you purely look at the trend, then yeah. Sack him. But let’s say Ange was kept, and had fewer injuries. The trend would almost certainly be upwards again this season. So does that mean he was then the right choice long term? Or does context and all sorts of other variables then come into it once again?

Re. 1st bolded...Well, I'm unsure myself what exactly Levy 'sensed'. But he is/was closer to it than we are, no? What we do know, however, is that Levy sacked Ange. So one might assume then, that whatever Levy sensed, or indeed knew, gave him reason(s) to make a change. (Ange, btw, is currently not employed as a football club manager. Would you therefore say that right now a whole host of people out there aren't 'sensing' him either?).

2nd bolded...Yes, agreed. Among which, for example, a variable might be the relative strength/weakness of the 3 relegated teams each season. And if, for example, the bottom 3 last season were weaker than the bottom 3 this, then that is a very important variable because it thus afforded us more opportunity to focus on the Europa League. Another variable might be that when we finished in the top 4 in the Poch era, the strength of the Top4/6, and even the PL as a whole at that time, maybe wasn't as strong as it is now (thus, Leicester won the league). I say 'variable' in the sense that the dynamic is highly unlikely to be exactly the same. So yep, I would agree with you, there is context and all sorts of variables at play.

 

[Muttley]

On your main thrust, Ange is who he is and clubs know this going in. I don’t blame him for not being some different version of a coach that he just isn’t. He is very clear about what he does going in.

On your first point about the sequence, I agree that he had the players believing in what they were doing and that eventually things would turn. I just think that saying Ange normalised losing and is a reason for what we’re seeing this season is just another stick to beat him with that doesn’t make sense.

Are we saying that the players didn’t mind losing, and then won a trophy, which was nice, but then to start this season again they felt fine losing? So they start this season well, beat Burnley, beat City. Have the best away record in the league…but the moment we turn into bad bad form again it’s because Ange has normalised it? And not because Frank utterly failed to get the players behind him and had no semblance of an in possession game? Suddenly the spectre of Ange returns in November and the players decide to down tools because of him?

I think it's not really about "don't mind losing". Nobody likes losing at that level. It's more about how much it hurts and what you're prepared to do about it. That is what diminishes. It's all about the grey space this one.

I do like the idea of having a thread soon about what are the must-haves and nice-to-haves when selecting a Spurs manager. Frank was always identified as not having a stylistic fit with the football club. That's a really obvious one. The one we've spoken about above is more subtle. It's clearly more important to me than others, as is the fear of going 4 seasons conceding over 60 goals in the PL. Another key theme is appearing on the other thread when we're comparing and contrasting people management skills and looking at what it takes to be a good leader for this next generation. What does it take to get the best out of them as good old fashioned Cloughie or Fergie style doesn't seem to work. We saw that with Jose and Dele right?

Too soon for the thread yet though. Let's have a look at Tudor first.

 

[thfcsteff]

When I say he lowered standards, I don't mean it was an intentional thing or something Ange did knowing the risk. IMO, it was a by-product of being so laser focused on winning the EL. I've never seen any team bin off the league like we did to win a cup so what that was going to mean longer term was unknown IMO.

I never saw this season coming in a million years. I remember at the start of the season, on Talksport, Cundy was taking the tinkle out of O'Hara saying "you finished 17th last year" and O'Hara replying "Come on Jase, you know that's not going to happen again". And I wholeheartedly agreed. Last season was a one off, a by-product of us focusing on the EL.

Hindsight gives a better perspective. Our last 14 home games last season - 2 wins, 3 draws and 9 defeats I think. If I'm not wrong, it's identical to this season's record pretty much. We only once finished lower than 8th in 21 years and usually finished top 6, last year we finished 17th. This year, we'd probably all take 17th at this point. That's more than a step change in terms of regression, that's a pretty seismic fall from grace. Unprecedented in my time watching English football.

You hear coaches talk about how important the "feeling" is around a club. You hear people in the game talk about how losing becomes a habit. You hear Tudor talk about our players having bad habits. The trainwreck of last season has had an impact on this season IMO. It's far from the only reason but it's very difficult to argue that such a drop off from the last 20 years straight didn't begin when Ange decided the league was nothing more than an inconvenience.

I take another view mate.

I think that what really put the boot in, was essentially telling these players this past summer that winning the Europa League -winning a trophy- essentially wasn't a big deal, and that what they'd achieved could not ever measure with the league season we'd just had. In one swoop we essentially told the squad that it all needed to be scrapped and rebooted.

I don't think anyone would disagree there were some very necessary improvements needed at the club. League form of course, I'd argue having adult physios in the building, I'd further argue getting a few proper signings in early as might befit a CL qualified club who had just won a trophy, that sort of thing. Of course given there was a Levy coup being planned in the background that very, very few people knew about, the whole place was a bubbling brick-show despite the success. BTW, I won't forget in a hurry how few people were prepared to give Postecoglu a break for injuries (blaming him solely) that gave Frank a pass (in some cases blaming Postecoglu for THIS season's injuries - I obviously don't mean you mate because, well, you didn't do that).

 

[thfcsteff]

May be we didn’t “bin off” the league, perhaps we were just not good enough. Ange knew it so focussed on the EL. There are a so many different permutations we’ll never know. But I was sure, even with the EL success Ange had not built either a team or a system that would use that success as a platform for continuing it. We were not even playing his preferred style to win it. I said it at the time, the win was a one off like the Ramos and Graham wins rather than heralding a new era of success. In many ways he’s been lucky - he got out while the going was good (unlike Ramos and Graham); this season would have been a disaster for him imho.

Edit: I agree with you that the league form mattered last season even when we supposedly had nothing left to play for and it’s not just about the unacceptable final position or number of games lost. We had been struggling so to change that, Ange should have been using those games to test and tweak his system, getting the squad ready for this season. That he didn’t, did us a huge disservice and meant that Frank basically had to pick up a squad that was not acclimatised to winning in the league. Now Frank didn’t have enough in his locker to change that but he started the season with one hand tied behind his back. Given how Frank just continued the pattern of losing, even if we are not relegated, I think next season is going to be tough for a new manager again.

What squad mate? It was decimated. Repeatedly. He went into the last three games of our EL run with no creative midfielders (not even a Simons available). He was treading water not to injure more players! Respectfully, I think if you take a step back from that thought you'll apreciate how impossible it was in real time (unless you're saying he should've given up on the El in order to try and scrape European football via the league???)

Frank picked up a side which had just won a trophy, and literally one of the first things he said was that he could 100% guarantee we would lose football matches. I suppose some people's honesty is other people's foolishness. I still cannot fathom WHY you'd say that so early? Between that, stating that we weren't really a CL side because we got in via winning a trophy and not league placement, and then starting to roll out the 'we finished 17th last season' when the going got tougher was sending a negative message to everyone, from players to fans. So I think he screwed himself from the start there.

I do agree that to an extent he was hampered at the start, and for me, that was by the absurd boardroom shuffle which took place after the window closed.
I was aghast when we did it, simply because any one (even the idiot writing these words LOL) knows that you CANNOT undo 25 years of micro-managing/virtually mono-leadership at the click of fingers, especially when the season has started with a new manager.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think it's not really about "don't mind losing". Nobody likes losing at that level. It's more about how much it hurts and what you're prepared to do about it. That is what diminishes. It's all about the grey space this one.

I do like the idea of having a thread soon about what are the must-haves and nice-to-haves when selecting a Spurs manager. Frank was always identified as not having a stylistic fit with the football club. That's a really obvious one. The one we've spoken about above is more subtle. It's clearly more important to me than others, as is the fear of going 4 seasons conceding over 60 goals in the PL. Another key theme is appearing on the other thread when we're comparing and contrasting people management skills and looking at what it takes to be a good leader for this next generation. What does it take to get the best out of them as good old fashioned Cloughie or Fergie style doesn't seem to work. We saw that with Jose and Dele right?

Too soon for the thread yet though. Let's have a look at Tudor first.

I think it is a massively important question. Sadly, I feel increasingly out of step with the world given what my answers would be!