colin fishwick
Reto Ziegler
Can't see him working well with Wenger, remember the "Carlos Kick a Ball " quote. May also have fallen out over Bergkamp
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
The Spurs Way
- Thread starter The Moonlit Knight
- Start date
I think that to state that Scholar was part of the death of Tottenham from the mid 90s would be pretty unfair. First of all, He was out of the picture by 1991 and cannot be held to account for decisions that took place thereafter. Secondly, I think in fairness, the main reason for his tenure coming to the conclusion that it did was in the main down to too many people within the boardroom with their own agendas. Scholar may well have been naive in some decisions that he allowed to take place but I certainly feel having read alot of accounts from numerous sources within the club at that time, that Scholar recieves quite a a lot of unwarranted flak compared to some of the other protagonists in the piece, ie Bobroff/Berry
Like with any major problem, it was a number of factors, of which the Scholar regime obviously plays a part, during the 90s that held us back and saw regression rather than standing still even. Ton single one thing/person out is not right at all imo.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
A really interesting read with some excellent points of discussion and debate...a couple of things if I can.
1) I think personally the best Burky side was 81/82...we went for four trophies, lost the "Milk" Cup final to the dippers in tragic circumstances as we will both remember, got literally kicked out of the CWC by the dirtiest Barca ever and yes, were absolutely odds on for the title. I remember leaving scumbury after a 3-1 easter Monday win thinking it was going to happen...then came the fixture pile-up...what was it? 8 games in 16 days or something really stupid like that? In the end we did win the Cup at least. Robbo was in there alongside Maxi, Hoddle/Ardiles/Galvin/Villa or Hazard was a fine midfield (though point taken, no enforcer as Robbo was at the back) but that was a special side IMO.
2) Yes, that Goon game at Easter in 83 was wonderful, and further amplified the fact that Falco was monsterously underrated, monsterously...
3) Whilst not as attractive YET as those sides, there are genuine signs IMO that this squad could be every bit as entertaining.
Good post.
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
Ask Perryman or Burkinshaw about Scholar! To be fair to Scholar I genuinely believe he had the clubs best interests at heart, but by the time he was removed financially we were a mess. It took 10 years, even with the creation of the Premiership, to get out of it and unfortunately for us those 10 years were a boom time in English and European football.
People credit Levy for stabilising us financially, but it was Sugar that did that. What Sugar didn't do, primarily after being burned by the Klinsmann situation, was take enough risks in the transfer market when we had the Premiership windfall. He purchased Ferdinand and Ginola, but by then Sheringham had left so it was too late. But had Spurs not been in such financial **** in the first place we would never have had Sugar in charge, so ultimately the blame always goes back to the very beginning.
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
1) I find it hard to argue with that. But we were too much of a pushover sometimes. Ardiles was such a great player as well, and he would have thrived alongside an enforcer also.
2) I always found it bemusing how the likes of Falco and Perryman were so overlooked by the England set up. Falco was a real toughie but he also had a lot of footballing ability. When you look back at that era it does make you realise that we had quite a strong squad back then too. Crooks, Archibald, Falco and Brazil all as forward options is pretty tasty!
3) I don't think we ever will be under AVB. He is a very tactical manager, and falls more in line with the Liverpool philosophy under Paisley than the "Spurs Way". We'll score some beautiful goals though, because we do have some very technically gifted players, but I don't think we'll be playing fast tempo passing on a regular basis or committing men forward beyond Soldado in almost every attack. They call Walker and attacking full back, but he is ultra defensive compared to Chrissie Hughton!
If you look back the squad was not that strong, clubs used to get through a season using only 16 players at most, our cover for the back four was abysmal also our midfield cover was limited as well, what made it look far worse was the quality of the players they were replacing.
I think people nit pick stuff endlessly.
I'm not going to talk about the 80's/90's, while I am old enough and was following Spurs then, my opinion is once you start going there, it's mostly revisionist history and what we remember is what we want to remember.
To me the Spurs way is two things
- Playing to win, and playing to win with flair players. i.e. not playing "don't lose first, everything else second" and leveraging players like VDV/Modric/Eriksen/etc.
- How the club conducts itself off the field, pride in our work with charity/community, no policy of cheating, no whining/lying/embarrassing managers
In my opinion, for the last few years (since MJ) we are striving for the Tottenham Way
- Berbatov/VDV/Modric/Bale/Eriksen/Paulinho/Holtby/Vert amongst others are all players that show that technique/flair that I associate with Tottenham.
Where people get confused in my view is the fact that nobody has 11 flair players and modern midfields win games, so your midfield has to have strength. Just because we are building steel there, doesn't mean we can't play a certain way.
Work calls, comment more later ...
I'm not going to talk about the 80's/90's, while I am old enough and was following Spurs then, my opinion is once you start going there, it's mostly revisionist history and what we remember is what we want to remember.
To me the Spurs way is two things
- Playing to win, and playing to win with flair players. i.e. not playing "don't lose first, everything else second" and leveraging players like VDV/Modric/Eriksen/etc.
- How the club conducts itself off the field, pride in our work with charity/community, no policy of cheating, no whining/lying/embarrassing managers
In my opinion, for the last few years (since MJ) we are striving for the Tottenham Way
- Berbatov/VDV/Modric/Bale/Eriksen/Paulinho/Holtby/Vert amongst others are all players that show that technique/flair that I associate with Tottenham.
Where people get confused in my view is the fact that nobody has 11 flair players and modern midfields win games, so your midfield has to have strength. Just because we are building steel there, doesn't mean we can't play a certain way.
Work calls, comment more later ...
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Ian Walker
Blimey I can't believe it an other Spurs fans who though Falco was a very good player. I always felt he suffered more than most for not being a big money buy. Give it time and somebody will remember how good John Duncan was in a poor team.
Your right on both counts IMO.
Crab.C.Nesbitt
Bobby Mimms
I'd say they were an excellent example. They certainly dared to dream! They should have won the title too, but Keegan completely changed the formation for some reason when they were 12pts clear and started playing Ginola as a wing back
To accomodate tino asprilla
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
Not under Mourinho they didnt.
Nice one!!!
About the only entertaining thing said in this thread.
Who cares about the olden days?
This thread is like getting trapped in a lift by an OAP who just ****ed himself. The only Spurs games that matter are the next ones.
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Ian Walker
Arrogant childish rubbish. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
Oooh, get you.
I love Spurs. I have supported Spurs for many, many years.
We do not cheat, we rarely foul, we play attacking football.
That is why I support Spurs.
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
Good contribution to the thread and I can't speak for other posters on the thread but thanks for labelling every post on this thread as not being entertaining.
Oh, and I care about the "golden" days. And history is merely a line of perception. Using your logic, you could argue that as soon as a game has finished it doesn't matter anymore and isn't worth being excited over, sad over or worth discussing if the only Spurs game that matters is the next one.
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
Robbie Keane? Gareth Bale? Zokora? Townsend so far this season? A lot of our players have cheated on a semi regular basis over the last decade or so. I don't agree with it, but let's not try and get on some pedal stool that we are better than other teams now because we are not.
And please define what you regard as attacking football. I'd love to actually read a footballing opinion from you for once that demonstrates your footballing acumen, rather than a snide remark or inane comment.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
To decide whether we actually play the Spurs way, it's important to understand it. And this is far more difficult than you might expect for relatively new fans like me, given that all we have to go on is Blanchflower's famous quote, the scorelines of our sides under Bill Nicholson (10-4 against Everton, for example), the players the 1961 side contained, and grainy black-and-white footage from British Pathe's Youtube channel and a few assorted Jimmy Greaves videos.
From what I can tell, the ‘Tottenham Way’ formulated by Nicholson, and earlier by Rowe’s pass-and-move philosophy, relies on four things: a fast passing tempo, constant movement into attacking areas, quick transitions from defence to attack, and unexpected and persistent sources of vertical penetration. The emphasis seemed not to be on trying to secure the majority of possession in a game, ‘flairing’ the other side to death, or even being particularly solid. What it did apparently emphasize was aggression, a constant focus on producing as much forward play as possible, on scoring as many goals as possible, and on ‘entertaining’ the fans as much as possible. Now, did this mean a tippy-tappy approach? For me, definitely not: if the team scored goals by repeatedly lofting direct balls forward, that would be a perfectly viable application of the Tottenham way. Similarly, this did not mean a ‘controlling’ approach, passing the opponents into oblivion: like Jumpers mentions, that was probably more a hallmark of 80’s Liverpool (of whom much more footage is available) than it was of 1960’s Spurs. All it demanded was an approach that allowed for as much attacking and goal-scoring as was expedient for a trophy-chasing team, and then some more to please the fans on top of that even if it meant compromising their trophy chances somewhat. That is where the flaw of Stoke-style long ball approaches becomes evident: sure, it is a perfectly valid attacking approach, but it relies too much on scoring a goal and then sitting back and soaking up pressure, hoping to eventually hit with another long punt from the back. This is what makes it incompatible with the attacking philosophy supposedly espoused by our club, not the directness itself. A similar argument can be applied to the ’control’ philosophy: by relying on protecting possession first and foremost, it to some extent is incompatible with the old Spurs ethos. The sum of the Spurs way, then, was this: score as many goals as possible, as quickly as possible, for as long as possible. The method did not matter. The goal-scoring did.
Having a ’hard-man’ in the team solely to retrieve possession is not, was not and I suspect never has been an anathema to that philosophy. There is a perfectly valid, and indeed vital role for the destroyer in our philosophy: retrieve the ball as quickly as possible so another attack can begin, and if that also prevents an opposition goal, all the better. Quick ball retrieval is absolutely vital to an attacking philosophy: without it, once the opponents get the ball you are reduced to waiting for them to either get it out of play, make a mistake or score a goal before you get it back. In that respect, Dave Mackay actually perfectly espoused our ethos: from what I can tell, he excelled at Sandro-style recovery tackles and intimidated opponents often enough that they would sometimes give up possession far more easily than they otherwise would have because Mackay was steaming towards them. In the old Spurs sides, then, this role was necessary. In modern Spurs sides, the viability of this role in the Spurs Way does not diminish: if anything, it increases. The technical ability of almost every top-level modern footballer allows for something not widely practiced in the 60’s: vertical penetration from unexpected sources. AVB said as much in an interview with the now-Spurs opposition scout Daniel Sousa, emphasizing the potential surprise that could be provided by the water-carrier in a team by exclaiming "Let's say, first he passes horizontally and then, suddenly, vertical penetration? " In the modern era, the role of a Sandro, a Parker and a Davids has changed, but is still relevant: he is expected to retrieve the ball quickly, but additionally also send it forward quickly and accurately, to maximize the pressure on the opposition. Therefore, why we persisted for so long without one in the modern era is a mystery to me: they are quite clearly vital to any goalscoring we could have hoped to achieve, and are vital to the very functioning of a high-tempo Spurs approach. As I will point out later, the lack of a dedicated, skillful defensive player has cost us very dearly for most of the PL era.
Now that we have hopefully provided a fair description of the Spurs way, it remains to be determined whether we have actually seen it in action in the years after I started supporting the club for the first-time (i.e, post 1999).
In my time supporting Spurs, I saw the tail end of George Graham’s time here, Hoddle’s short and fairly disappointing reign, Pleat’s attempt to reform the side, Santini’s 13-odd games, Jol’s gradual restoration of our pride, Ramos’ Jekyll-and-Hyde style of play, Harry’s swashbucklers and finally AVB’s measured, utterly controlling side, whose approach currently appears to be squeezing opponents lifeless. Not counting Clive Allen, of course.
Out of all those people, I think AVB and Harry are the only two managers who attempted to play the Spurs Way with success. Harry’s team were all about attacking from the first minute and scoring, tactics and strategy be damned. The free reign he gave our lads resulted in some of the most swashbuckling play I’ve ever seen at Spurs, and following the code, we never looked to see out games, preferring to try to score another. True, that was mainly because our lack of defensive solidity warranted a cavalier approach, but it was indubitably the Spurs way, and only failed in the end because of our manager hungrily winking his eyes at the England job while his team collapsed around him.
But what of AVB? His approach, by contrast, seems methodical and considered, focused on retaining possession over fashioning chances. Surely that disqualifies him from the running somewhat?
Well, I’d argue not. AVB’s thoughts on vertical penetration correspond exactly with the Spurs ethos: get it forward from unexpected sources, even defensive mainstays, when the opposition aren’t expecting it. His preference for quick transitions and a far more direct style of play than most believe to be the case (see Porto) are pretty much exactly what I think the Nicholson side were like: quick, intelligent, strong and constantly moving. He hasn’t implemented that fully yet (didn’t have the personnel previously, so resorted to defense first and give it to Bale second), but after our Bale-fuelled splurge he’s bought enough quality to be able to start fashioning his own side, with his own distinctive stamp. After our 4-0 drubbing of Villa, where three of our goals came from open play and incisive, lightning-quick through and lofted passes over the defense, I think the beginnings of the team he had at Porto are showing. And if given time, I feel he will recreate that side here at Spurs, with perhaps even more quality than available to him at Porto. And then we’ll hear the old Lane roar.
Over our recent history, our managers have tended to show an amazing blindness as to the role of the tough DM when talking about the Spurs way. And we have paid for it, with our soft underbelly becoming legendary among our fellow league clubs. Southern softies, we were called. And that, more than anything, doomed our days under most post 2000 managers. We neglected the vital function the DM had to perform in the Spurs way in our rush to implement a purely-flair based system, and we paid for it dearly. It is only now, when Harry had access to a 2009-prime Wilson Palacios, a 2010-prime Tom Huddlestone and 2012-prime Parker, and AVB has Capoue, Sandro, Paulinho and Dembele at his disposal, that we are starting to see how vital a water-carrier is to Bill Nicholson’s approach, and how important he is to both our defensive solidity and our attacking potency. Hopefully, we won’t make the same mistake ever again, because I firmly believe that the lack of a skilled defensive midfielder was the single biggest contributor to our post 1991 downfall.
Overall, the portents are promising. We play good football, we have an outrageously talented team, we have a young, determined manager in charge who looks set to recreate his old free-scoring Porto side at the Lane, and our players are playing with the confidence only wins can give you. And all this will hopefully see us once again adopt the Spurs way, scoring bucketfuls and annihilating the opposition, possession be damned, and see us once again adopt the mantle of the great entertainers of English football. And if we can grab a few trophies in the process, all the better.
First and foremost, after all.......
http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Tottenham-Hotspur-v-Saudi Sportswashing Machine-United-Premier-League-161127830-1360739080.jpg
From what I can tell, the ‘Tottenham Way’ formulated by Nicholson, and earlier by Rowe’s pass-and-move philosophy, relies on four things: a fast passing tempo, constant movement into attacking areas, quick transitions from defence to attack, and unexpected and persistent sources of vertical penetration. The emphasis seemed not to be on trying to secure the majority of possession in a game, ‘flairing’ the other side to death, or even being particularly solid. What it did apparently emphasize was aggression, a constant focus on producing as much forward play as possible, on scoring as many goals as possible, and on ‘entertaining’ the fans as much as possible. Now, did this mean a tippy-tappy approach? For me, definitely not: if the team scored goals by repeatedly lofting direct balls forward, that would be a perfectly viable application of the Tottenham way. Similarly, this did not mean a ‘controlling’ approach, passing the opponents into oblivion: like Jumpers mentions, that was probably more a hallmark of 80’s Liverpool (of whom much more footage is available) than it was of 1960’s Spurs. All it demanded was an approach that allowed for as much attacking and goal-scoring as was expedient for a trophy-chasing team, and then some more to please the fans on top of that even if it meant compromising their trophy chances somewhat. That is where the flaw of Stoke-style long ball approaches becomes evident: sure, it is a perfectly valid attacking approach, but it relies too much on scoring a goal and then sitting back and soaking up pressure, hoping to eventually hit with another long punt from the back. This is what makes it incompatible with the attacking philosophy supposedly espoused by our club, not the directness itself. A similar argument can be applied to the ’control’ philosophy: by relying on protecting possession first and foremost, it to some extent is incompatible with the old Spurs ethos. The sum of the Spurs way, then, was this: score as many goals as possible, as quickly as possible, for as long as possible. The method did not matter. The goal-scoring did.
Having a ’hard-man’ in the team solely to retrieve possession is not, was not and I suspect never has been an anathema to that philosophy. There is a perfectly valid, and indeed vital role for the destroyer in our philosophy: retrieve the ball as quickly as possible so another attack can begin, and if that also prevents an opposition goal, all the better. Quick ball retrieval is absolutely vital to an attacking philosophy: without it, once the opponents get the ball you are reduced to waiting for them to either get it out of play, make a mistake or score a goal before you get it back. In that respect, Dave Mackay actually perfectly espoused our ethos: from what I can tell, he excelled at Sandro-style recovery tackles and intimidated opponents often enough that they would sometimes give up possession far more easily than they otherwise would have because Mackay was steaming towards them. In the old Spurs sides, then, this role was necessary. In modern Spurs sides, the viability of this role in the Spurs Way does not diminish: if anything, it increases. The technical ability of almost every top-level modern footballer allows for something not widely practiced in the 60’s: vertical penetration from unexpected sources. AVB said as much in an interview with the now-Spurs opposition scout Daniel Sousa, emphasizing the potential surprise that could be provided by the water-carrier in a team by exclaiming "Let's say, first he passes horizontally and then, suddenly, vertical penetration? " In the modern era, the role of a Sandro, a Parker and a Davids has changed, but is still relevant: he is expected to retrieve the ball quickly, but additionally also send it forward quickly and accurately, to maximize the pressure on the opposition. Therefore, why we persisted for so long without one in the modern era is a mystery to me: they are quite clearly vital to any goalscoring we could have hoped to achieve, and are vital to the very functioning of a high-tempo Spurs approach. As I will point out later, the lack of a dedicated, skillful defensive player has cost us very dearly for most of the PL era.
Now that we have hopefully provided a fair description of the Spurs way, it remains to be determined whether we have actually seen it in action in the years after I started supporting the club for the first-time (i.e, post 1999).
In my time supporting Spurs, I saw the tail end of George Graham’s time here, Hoddle’s short and fairly disappointing reign, Pleat’s attempt to reform the side, Santini’s 13-odd games, Jol’s gradual restoration of our pride, Ramos’ Jekyll-and-Hyde style of play, Harry’s swashbucklers and finally AVB’s measured, utterly controlling side, whose approach currently appears to be squeezing opponents lifeless. Not counting Clive Allen, of course.
Out of all those people, I think AVB and Harry are the only two managers who attempted to play the Spurs Way with success. Harry’s team were all about attacking from the first minute and scoring, tactics and strategy be damned. The free reign he gave our lads resulted in some of the most swashbuckling play I’ve ever seen at Spurs, and following the code, we never looked to see out games, preferring to try to score another. True, that was mainly because our lack of defensive solidity warranted a cavalier approach, but it was indubitably the Spurs way, and only failed in the end because of our manager hungrily winking his eyes at the England job while his team collapsed around him.
But what of AVB? His approach, by contrast, seems methodical and considered, focused on retaining possession over fashioning chances. Surely that disqualifies him from the running somewhat?
Well, I’d argue not. AVB’s thoughts on vertical penetration correspond exactly with the Spurs ethos: get it forward from unexpected sources, even defensive mainstays, when the opposition aren’t expecting it. His preference for quick transitions and a far more direct style of play than most believe to be the case (see Porto) are pretty much exactly what I think the Nicholson side were like: quick, intelligent, strong and constantly moving. He hasn’t implemented that fully yet (didn’t have the personnel previously, so resorted to defense first and give it to Bale second), but after our Bale-fuelled splurge he’s bought enough quality to be able to start fashioning his own side, with his own distinctive stamp. After our 4-0 drubbing of Villa, where three of our goals came from open play and incisive, lightning-quick through and lofted passes over the defense, I think the beginnings of the team he had at Porto are showing. And if given time, I feel he will recreate that side here at Spurs, with perhaps even more quality than available to him at Porto. And then we’ll hear the old Lane roar.
Over our recent history, our managers have tended to show an amazing blindness as to the role of the tough DM when talking about the Spurs way. And we have paid for it, with our soft underbelly becoming legendary among our fellow league clubs. Southern softies, we were called. And that, more than anything, doomed our days under most post 2000 managers. We neglected the vital function the DM had to perform in the Spurs way in our rush to implement a purely-flair based system, and we paid for it dearly. It is only now, when Harry had access to a 2009-prime Wilson Palacios, a 2010-prime Tom Huddlestone and 2012-prime Parker, and AVB has Capoue, Sandro, Paulinho and Dembele at his disposal, that we are starting to see how vital a water-carrier is to Bill Nicholson’s approach, and how important he is to both our defensive solidity and our attacking potency. Hopefully, we won’t make the same mistake ever again, because I firmly believe that the lack of a skilled defensive midfielder was the single biggest contributor to our post 1991 downfall.
Overall, the portents are promising. We play good football, we have an outrageously talented team, we have a young, determined manager in charge who looks set to recreate his old free-scoring Porto side at the Lane, and our players are playing with the confidence only wins can give you. And all this will hopefully see us once again adopt the Spurs way, scoring bucketfuls and annihilating the opposition, possession be damned, and see us once again adopt the mantle of the great entertainers of English football. And if we can grab a few trophies in the process, all the better.
First and foremost, after all.......
http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Tottenham-Hotspur-v-Saudi Sportswashing Machine-United-Premier-League-161127830-1360739080.jpg
Last edited:
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
Nice post Dubai.
Couple of things:
MacKay was so much more than a hard man, and it's a bit of a pity that he is often remembered by Spurs fans that way. MacKay was incredibly gifted on the ball and was also creative.
A defensive midfielder is crucial to the balance of any side. It's not a modern thing, it's always been that way. That's why in my opening post I mentioned Hoddle/Ardiles not being an ideal pair in a 4-4-2 formation. We often looked far better when one of them didn't play and someone like Roberts partnered them instead. Even in the Premiership era, we looked so much better when David Howells (a very under rated player by Spurs and non-Spurs fans alike) came back into the side under Francis.
The best defensive midfielder in the Premiership is Michael Carrick. Has been for the last 8 or 9 years. It's criminal that he has so few caps and it's a shame he left us.
In the Premiership era three Managers have played the Spurs way. Ardiles, Hoddle and Redknapp. Redknapp I am not really sure it happened by design, although his teams have always tended towards attractive football. Ardiles was just too over the top and didn't play that holder. Under Hoddle we had a few months of brilliance, but the reserve team players simply couldn't match the excellence provided by Sheringham, Poyet, Ziege and Anderton when one was missing. Ironically it was the injury to Freund that ended Hoddle's brilliant run of performances though, again demonstrating that how critical the water carrier role is to the team.
As for AVB? I haven't seen much indication that we'll adopt a Spurs way under him. He is very measured in his approach, and today against Chelsea we saw it again. Even though Chelsea were down to 10 men, we settled for a draw and simply retained possession by passing it around in front of their defence. AVB is extremely pragmatic, so the decision to settle for a home point against a weakened rival (rather than risk defeat to a breakaway goal) may well end up proving to be an excellent decision by the end of the season. AVB's tactical and pragmatic approach to the game is more like a chess game than a flair game.
I think we'll go on to be very successful under AVB and I hope Levy doesn't pull the trigger if we fail top four this season and also fail to win a cup, but I am not expecting us ever to try and play fast tempo seat of the pants attacking football under him for a large portion of a match. I think we'll adopt the Liverpool strategy of controlling possession, drawing teams out, wearing them out as they chase the ball, wearing them down to concede a goal, settling for a 1 goal victory and if in the last 10 minutes the opposition are completely knackered after chasing shadows all match maybe grab another goal or two. We'll be incredibly efficient, and hopefully incredibly successful with it. Let's be honest Man Utd (under Fergie) and Arsenal may well play the "Spurs Way" but how successful have either team been in Europe over the last 20 years? For Europe especially AVB's cautious pragmatic approach may well be the optimum strategy.
Couple of things:
MacKay was so much more than a hard man, and it's a bit of a pity that he is often remembered by Spurs fans that way. MacKay was incredibly gifted on the ball and was also creative.
A defensive midfielder is crucial to the balance of any side. It's not a modern thing, it's always been that way. That's why in my opening post I mentioned Hoddle/Ardiles not being an ideal pair in a 4-4-2 formation. We often looked far better when one of them didn't play and someone like Roberts partnered them instead. Even in the Premiership era, we looked so much better when David Howells (a very under rated player by Spurs and non-Spurs fans alike) came back into the side under Francis.
The best defensive midfielder in the Premiership is Michael Carrick. Has been for the last 8 or 9 years. It's criminal that he has so few caps and it's a shame he left us.
In the Premiership era three Managers have played the Spurs way. Ardiles, Hoddle and Redknapp. Redknapp I am not really sure it happened by design, although his teams have always tended towards attractive football. Ardiles was just too over the top and didn't play that holder. Under Hoddle we had a few months of brilliance, but the reserve team players simply couldn't match the excellence provided by Sheringham, Poyet, Ziege and Anderton when one was missing. Ironically it was the injury to Freund that ended Hoddle's brilliant run of performances though, again demonstrating that how critical the water carrier role is to the team.
As for AVB? I haven't seen much indication that we'll adopt a Spurs way under him. He is very measured in his approach, and today against Chelsea we saw it again. Even though Chelsea were down to 10 men, we settled for a draw and simply retained possession by passing it around in front of their defence. AVB is extremely pragmatic, so the decision to settle for a home point against a weakened rival (rather than risk defeat to a breakaway goal) may well end up proving to be an excellent decision by the end of the season. AVB's tactical and pragmatic approach to the game is more like a chess game than a flair game.
I think we'll go on to be very successful under AVB and I hope Levy doesn't pull the trigger if we fail top four this season and also fail to win a cup, but I am not expecting us ever to try and play fast tempo seat of the pants attacking football under him for a large portion of a match. I think we'll adopt the Liverpool strategy of controlling possession, drawing teams out, wearing them out as they chase the ball, wearing them down to concede a goal, settling for a 1 goal victory and if in the last 10 minutes the opposition are completely knackered after chasing shadows all match maybe grab another goal or two. We'll be incredibly efficient, and hopefully incredibly successful with it. Let's be honest Man Utd (under Fergie) and Arsenal may well play the "Spurs Way" but how successful have either team been in Europe over the last 20 years? For Europe especially AVB's cautious pragmatic approach may well be the optimum strategy.