The Moonlit Knight
Banned
"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." - Danny Blanchflower
I'm not often lost for words, but on another thread it became clearly apparent to me that even some of our most passionate fans do not understand what the Spurs way is. It was described as tippy-tappy by one person which, ironically, is more what we play now that what the Spurs way actually is. This revelation kicked off a conversation last night involving three generations of Spurs fans and what the Spurs way actually means.
Due to our early 80's side, the popular media impression (born in a lot of ways by the cynicism from the Liverpool camp during that era, and then three of them become well known pundits) of the Spurs way is a soft underbelly. Spurs would always find a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That, of course, is bull**** and was at the time. At the time I took it as flattery, because they came up with this psychological nonsense as we were one of the few teams who could challenge them on our day.
The Spurs way has nothing to do with lack of steel, or style over substance. It's not about short passing either, or only utilising a certain style of player. And yet on this very forum that seems to be the impression of certain posters which astounded me. After discussion the somewhat awful truth dawned on us. The reason why these posters didn't understand it is probably because they've only ever rarely seen us play it!! We've been that underwhelming for that long. It occurred to me that it's almost been 30 years since we last consistently played the Spurs way, and most of the posters on this forum probably aren't even 30 years old yet.
The incorrect perception now is that the Spurs way is old fashioned and cannot work in the modern game. This is nonsense, simply because other teams do employ the Spurs way and have done with great success. More of that below.
The last team to successfully employ the Spurs way throughout a season was the 1983/84 side. I say successfully because we won the UEFA Cup so actually obtained silverware. The last team to successfully try and employ it throughout an entire season, without winning a trophy, was the 1984/85 team under Peter Shreeve.
Since then we've had smatterings of it here and there. We've had glimpses of it under every Manager in the odd game here and there, even George Graham but consistently? Pleat's 86/87 side played it in the odd game, but in hindsight that was more down to existing players natural instincts than any grand design. Indeed Pleat tried to actually stop us playing that way and adopt a more "Liverpool" style of approach. Venables is a Spurs man through and through but he was also a very shrewd and pragmatic Manager and his teams definitely didn't adopt a "Spurs Way" style on a regular basis although in one particular game he did and it was probably his finest hour (90 minutes) as Spurs Manager (1991 FA Cup Semi Final!). Ossie tried to take it to ridiculous extremes in 94/95 and failed miserably. Francis, Gross and Graham didn't employ it. Hoddle actually had us playing it for maybe three months during the 01/02 season and he was probably the right man at the wrong time. For three months we were a thing of beauty. We rarely played it under Jol. Strangely Ramos was more in line with the ethos, but his team was more Ossie than Burkinshaw. We played it under Redknapp on and off over his final two seasons (but not during the season we actually qualified for the Champion's League!) but it was more off than on. We don't try and play it under AVB.
We may, or may not, have pioneered the "Spurs Way" in terms of style. If so it is Arthur Rowe that should really get the credit, not Bill Nick. But the truth is the "Spurs Way" existed a long time before either of these times. If anything in football's dawning days almost all teams played the "Spurs Way" in mindset.
Can the Spurs way work? And if so why didn't work, in terms of league championships, during our last "golden age" of the early to mid 80's? In answer to the first question, yes it can work. This has been proven by other teams, especially in the English game, in recent times let alone times past. Why weren't we more successful in the early 80's with it? All teams, of all styles, require balance within the first team.
In the early 80's we lacked that primarily due to the fact we had both Hoddle and Ossie in the midfield, and played two up top. Even though we didn't win any silverware, in my opinion the season we performed best under Burkinshaw was 82/83 and that was probably due to Ossie being on loan at PSG allowing us to play an enforcer alongside Hoddle in midfield. We should have won the league that year but injuries to Hoddle couple with an inconsistent period over the winter put paid to that. But when we clicked, we really did have the Wow! factor. The end of the season was so fantastic (drubbing Arsenal 5-0 at home and also obtaining a 2-0 win over Liverpool being the highlights) that many of us were sure that 83/84 would be our season. Alas injuries put paid to that too.
People talk about Tottenham players, but there is no such thing. Sure we love our flair, but the likes of Graham Roberts were every bit a Spurs player in the Spurs mould as a Glenn Hoddle. Someone tried to point out Bobby Smith on the other thread as an example of why the Spurs way is a bit of a myth, but he could have easily tried to point out Chivers or to a lesser extent Falco. The truth is, there has always been room for brute force in the Spurs way. It's never been tippy tappy soft underbelly.
As is often the case with pioneers, someone else comes along and imitates it and takes it further. We may have brought style and glamour to the world (yes, the world. Foreign football, even Brazil, didn't adopt so much flair until well into the 60's) but other British clubs soon imitated it. Celtic had a great 60's side, but one team in particular adopted it and nicked our chant as well. Manchester United.
Since the early 70's success in English football has been monopolised by two English giants, both with very different footballing ethos. At their peak Liverpool were probably the greatest club side of all time. People talk about the continental style of play. Liverpool invented it. They brought serious tactics to the game. In fact, the way we play under AVB is very similar to the Liverpool sides of the 70's & 80's. Liverpool were all about control. Controlling the tempo, possession, remaining tight at the back, defending through possession and not over committing people forward. The Italians learned their defensive tactics from Liverpool. The Germans adopted their possession and organised style of play. Teams around the world, including national sides (but ironically not England!) copied the Liverpool way. Personally, I found it boring but no one can deny it's effectiveness. They'd choke teams out of games. They were so bloody good most teams couldn't get the ball off of them and they'd just pass it around as the opposition wore themselves out. Sometimes it seemed like they'd spend ages not even trying to attack and just move the ball around at ease whilst the opposition chased shadows. And when they did lose the ball they pressed and pressed until they got it back. They were efficient, but they were so as a team. They were capable of flair but rarely exhibited it. They were ultra disciplined and professional.
George Graham took the Liverpool style and turned it even more defensive. Strangely under Dalglish Liverpool tried to change a bit and become a more entertaining attacking team and that was probably the beginning of the end for them and a dour boring Arsenal side beat them to the title by outscoring this more creative attacking Liverpool side which I found ironic at the time, even if it was gutting. Liverpool got their revenge with arguably their most entertaining title winning team in 1990 but by then the winds of change were well in effect.
Liverpool's mantle was taken over by Man Utd. Spurs and Man Utd had similar ethos since the 60's. We both had been in the shadows too often of our hated rivals, but we both played football the way we believe it should be played which is the Spurs way. Even in the 80's Utd probably improved on it. Their 66/67 title winning team is regarded as the single greatest English team over a season in some quarters. I'll always argue for Hoddle as being the best British player of all time but it's also hard to argue against George Best. George Best was an outstanding talent, who I'd rate comfortably higher than Ronaldo today for example, but Utd were so much more than him.
Fast forward to the 90's and Alex Ferguson. Man Utd under Ferguson played the Spurs way. What Fergie did that Burkinshaw failed to do was add that midfield steel. Since the dawn of the Premiership it has been the Spurs Way that has dominated more often than not. Even our hated rivals adopted it under Wenger to great success in his early years. The more pragmatic tactical Liverpool approach from the past did come back to some success under Mourinho and Mancini but only after those clubs were bankrolled and spanked a fortune (and in my opinion bored their way to the title, especially Mourinho's Chelsea). There was no great advocate of a "Spurs Way" than Fergie. That's why he was our first choice in the 80's after his excellent attractive Aberdeen sides were so successful. Unfortunately he turned us down and ended up at Utd. Oh what might have been!
So what exactly is the Spurs way? It's pretty simple. Entertainment. High tempo attacking football. It can be direct, it can be short one passing, it can be 40 yard over the top passes whilst three or four Spurs players chase down the ball etc. It's about throwing caution to the wind, it's not about humiliating the opposition by taking the **** but it is about trying to put them to the sword when we're on top. It's about being 1-0 up with 5 minutes to go and STILL pouring men forward looking for that second goal even if it risks us conceding on the break. It's not being gung ho, but it's about scoring more than the opposition rather than trying to concede less goals than the opposition (and yes, there is a difference!) to win games. Is the Spurs way dead? No. It's very much alive. Real Madrid play it. Barcelona have created a system that's a blend of the Spurs and Liverpool way and possibly taken it to the next level again. Man Utd played it until last season (remains to be seen what Moyes does) and the scum down the road will always play it as long as Wenger is in charge.
Now of course any style will have individual games where it isn't followed (either by design or circumstance) and we're talking about a general rule of thumb. Even the most Spurs of Spurs teams didn't always play attractive football and even they had to grind out results now and then, just like dull teams can have great games where they thrill the crowd. But generally that is the Spurs way to me. It doesn't always work, even when it does work (I am specifically thinking back to the League Cup final against Liverpool where we ****ed all over them for 80 minutes, 1-0 up still trying to get a 2nd. They equalise then **** all over us in extra time to take the trophy because we were knackered) but it's the reason I became a Spurs fan.
Will Spurs ever play it consistently again? I hope so, even if it's just so that anyone currently under the age of 35 can actually begin to understand what us old timers really mean by the Spurs Way and so that you can really experience it for yourselves on a regular basis and not just the odd game.
I'm not often lost for words, but on another thread it became clearly apparent to me that even some of our most passionate fans do not understand what the Spurs way is. It was described as tippy-tappy by one person which, ironically, is more what we play now that what the Spurs way actually is. This revelation kicked off a conversation last night involving three generations of Spurs fans and what the Spurs way actually means.
Due to our early 80's side, the popular media impression (born in a lot of ways by the cynicism from the Liverpool camp during that era, and then three of them become well known pundits) of the Spurs way is a soft underbelly. Spurs would always find a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That, of course, is bull**** and was at the time. At the time I took it as flattery, because they came up with this psychological nonsense as we were one of the few teams who could challenge them on our day.
The Spurs way has nothing to do with lack of steel, or style over substance. It's not about short passing either, or only utilising a certain style of player. And yet on this very forum that seems to be the impression of certain posters which astounded me. After discussion the somewhat awful truth dawned on us. The reason why these posters didn't understand it is probably because they've only ever rarely seen us play it!! We've been that underwhelming for that long. It occurred to me that it's almost been 30 years since we last consistently played the Spurs way, and most of the posters on this forum probably aren't even 30 years old yet.
The incorrect perception now is that the Spurs way is old fashioned and cannot work in the modern game. This is nonsense, simply because other teams do employ the Spurs way and have done with great success. More of that below.
The last team to successfully employ the Spurs way throughout a season was the 1983/84 side. I say successfully because we won the UEFA Cup so actually obtained silverware. The last team to successfully try and employ it throughout an entire season, without winning a trophy, was the 1984/85 team under Peter Shreeve.
Since then we've had smatterings of it here and there. We've had glimpses of it under every Manager in the odd game here and there, even George Graham but consistently? Pleat's 86/87 side played it in the odd game, but in hindsight that was more down to existing players natural instincts than any grand design. Indeed Pleat tried to actually stop us playing that way and adopt a more "Liverpool" style of approach. Venables is a Spurs man through and through but he was also a very shrewd and pragmatic Manager and his teams definitely didn't adopt a "Spurs Way" style on a regular basis although in one particular game he did and it was probably his finest hour (90 minutes) as Spurs Manager (1991 FA Cup Semi Final!). Ossie tried to take it to ridiculous extremes in 94/95 and failed miserably. Francis, Gross and Graham didn't employ it. Hoddle actually had us playing it for maybe three months during the 01/02 season and he was probably the right man at the wrong time. For three months we were a thing of beauty. We rarely played it under Jol. Strangely Ramos was more in line with the ethos, but his team was more Ossie than Burkinshaw. We played it under Redknapp on and off over his final two seasons (but not during the season we actually qualified for the Champion's League!) but it was more off than on. We don't try and play it under AVB.
We may, or may not, have pioneered the "Spurs Way" in terms of style. If so it is Arthur Rowe that should really get the credit, not Bill Nick. But the truth is the "Spurs Way" existed a long time before either of these times. If anything in football's dawning days almost all teams played the "Spurs Way" in mindset.
Can the Spurs way work? And if so why didn't work, in terms of league championships, during our last "golden age" of the early to mid 80's? In answer to the first question, yes it can work. This has been proven by other teams, especially in the English game, in recent times let alone times past. Why weren't we more successful in the early 80's with it? All teams, of all styles, require balance within the first team.
In the early 80's we lacked that primarily due to the fact we had both Hoddle and Ossie in the midfield, and played two up top. Even though we didn't win any silverware, in my opinion the season we performed best under Burkinshaw was 82/83 and that was probably due to Ossie being on loan at PSG allowing us to play an enforcer alongside Hoddle in midfield. We should have won the league that year but injuries to Hoddle couple with an inconsistent period over the winter put paid to that. But when we clicked, we really did have the Wow! factor. The end of the season was so fantastic (drubbing Arsenal 5-0 at home and also obtaining a 2-0 win over Liverpool being the highlights) that many of us were sure that 83/84 would be our season. Alas injuries put paid to that too.
People talk about Tottenham players, but there is no such thing. Sure we love our flair, but the likes of Graham Roberts were every bit a Spurs player in the Spurs mould as a Glenn Hoddle. Someone tried to point out Bobby Smith on the other thread as an example of why the Spurs way is a bit of a myth, but he could have easily tried to point out Chivers or to a lesser extent Falco. The truth is, there has always been room for brute force in the Spurs way. It's never been tippy tappy soft underbelly.
As is often the case with pioneers, someone else comes along and imitates it and takes it further. We may have brought style and glamour to the world (yes, the world. Foreign football, even Brazil, didn't adopt so much flair until well into the 60's) but other British clubs soon imitated it. Celtic had a great 60's side, but one team in particular adopted it and nicked our chant as well. Manchester United.
Since the early 70's success in English football has been monopolised by two English giants, both with very different footballing ethos. At their peak Liverpool were probably the greatest club side of all time. People talk about the continental style of play. Liverpool invented it. They brought serious tactics to the game. In fact, the way we play under AVB is very similar to the Liverpool sides of the 70's & 80's. Liverpool were all about control. Controlling the tempo, possession, remaining tight at the back, defending through possession and not over committing people forward. The Italians learned their defensive tactics from Liverpool. The Germans adopted their possession and organised style of play. Teams around the world, including national sides (but ironically not England!) copied the Liverpool way. Personally, I found it boring but no one can deny it's effectiveness. They'd choke teams out of games. They were so bloody good most teams couldn't get the ball off of them and they'd just pass it around as the opposition wore themselves out. Sometimes it seemed like they'd spend ages not even trying to attack and just move the ball around at ease whilst the opposition chased shadows. And when they did lose the ball they pressed and pressed until they got it back. They were efficient, but they were so as a team. They were capable of flair but rarely exhibited it. They were ultra disciplined and professional.
George Graham took the Liverpool style and turned it even more defensive. Strangely under Dalglish Liverpool tried to change a bit and become a more entertaining attacking team and that was probably the beginning of the end for them and a dour boring Arsenal side beat them to the title by outscoring this more creative attacking Liverpool side which I found ironic at the time, even if it was gutting. Liverpool got their revenge with arguably their most entertaining title winning team in 1990 but by then the winds of change were well in effect.
Liverpool's mantle was taken over by Man Utd. Spurs and Man Utd had similar ethos since the 60's. We both had been in the shadows too often of our hated rivals, but we both played football the way we believe it should be played which is the Spurs way. Even in the 80's Utd probably improved on it. Their 66/67 title winning team is regarded as the single greatest English team over a season in some quarters. I'll always argue for Hoddle as being the best British player of all time but it's also hard to argue against George Best. George Best was an outstanding talent, who I'd rate comfortably higher than Ronaldo today for example, but Utd were so much more than him.
Fast forward to the 90's and Alex Ferguson. Man Utd under Ferguson played the Spurs way. What Fergie did that Burkinshaw failed to do was add that midfield steel. Since the dawn of the Premiership it has been the Spurs Way that has dominated more often than not. Even our hated rivals adopted it under Wenger to great success in his early years. The more pragmatic tactical Liverpool approach from the past did come back to some success under Mourinho and Mancini but only after those clubs were bankrolled and spanked a fortune (and in my opinion bored their way to the title, especially Mourinho's Chelsea). There was no great advocate of a "Spurs Way" than Fergie. That's why he was our first choice in the 80's after his excellent attractive Aberdeen sides were so successful. Unfortunately he turned us down and ended up at Utd. Oh what might have been!
So what exactly is the Spurs way? It's pretty simple. Entertainment. High tempo attacking football. It can be direct, it can be short one passing, it can be 40 yard over the top passes whilst three or four Spurs players chase down the ball etc. It's about throwing caution to the wind, it's not about humiliating the opposition by taking the **** but it is about trying to put them to the sword when we're on top. It's about being 1-0 up with 5 minutes to go and STILL pouring men forward looking for that second goal even if it risks us conceding on the break. It's not being gung ho, but it's about scoring more than the opposition rather than trying to concede less goals than the opposition (and yes, there is a difference!) to win games. Is the Spurs way dead? No. It's very much alive. Real Madrid play it. Barcelona have created a system that's a blend of the Spurs and Liverpool way and possibly taken it to the next level again. Man Utd played it until last season (remains to be seen what Moyes does) and the scum down the road will always play it as long as Wenger is in charge.
Now of course any style will have individual games where it isn't followed (either by design or circumstance) and we're talking about a general rule of thumb. Even the most Spurs of Spurs teams didn't always play attractive football and even they had to grind out results now and then, just like dull teams can have great games where they thrill the crowd. But generally that is the Spurs way to me. It doesn't always work, even when it does work (I am specifically thinking back to the League Cup final against Liverpool where we ****ed all over them for 80 minutes, 1-0 up still trying to get a 2nd. They equalise then **** all over us in extra time to take the trophy because we were knackered) but it's the reason I became a Spurs fan.
Will Spurs ever play it consistently again? I hope so, even if it's just so that anyone currently under the age of 35 can actually begin to understand what us old timers really mean by the Spurs Way and so that you can really experience it for yourselves on a regular basis and not just the odd game.
