Micky van de Ven

[harr1984]

I hear what you're saying in terms of a possible development from Ange and truthfully that's all I wanted to see from him. Some degree of him understanding the limitations of his squad and taking that into account but he never did. So for me I had no belief that Ange would have have actually used the EL as a stepping stone to evolve his style further.

Again I'll say if that was his intention you would expect to see some movement towards this in the league games that remember he's subsequently said he basically through away anyway. That was his moment to freely experiment as playing his way we were losing week after week after week anyway.

I get that you're a bit of a romantic, but you need to divorce the emotions from the reality. Words are one thing actions tell you everything you need to actually know about a person. I don't know how the way he handled the latter part of the season can give you any confidence he intended on continuing this evolution. The man was stubborn, he said so himself. Why wouldn't he try out this evolved style in those games when for him they no longer were a priority? Why not begin the process of making the subtle evolution a permanent style? He never did because he had no intention of doing so. This season would have just been more of the same unless VDV and Romero once again decided that "somethings need to change"

Frank might be over correcting but frankly we were a shambles defensively and we need to be more solid. Whether Frank can balance some defensive solidity and attacking play remains to be seen and that is what he will be judged on, just like every other manager.

Sadly this season is more of the same, if that and Frank doesn't have us any more solid. At the same stage we'd conceded 2 less goals and scored 11 more last season....

 

[thfcsteff]

I hear what you're saying in terms of a possible development from Ange and truthfully that's all I wanted to see from him. Some degree of him understanding the limitations of his squad and taking that into account but he never did. So for me I had no belief that Ange would have have actually used the EL as a stepping stone to evolve his style further.

Again I'll say if that was his intention you would expect to see some movement towards this in the league games that remember he's subsequently said he basically through away anyway. That was his moment to freely experiment as playing his way we were losing week after week after week anyway.

I get that you're a bit of a romantic, but you need to divorce the emotions from the reality. Words are one thing actions tell you everything you need to actually know about a person. I don't know how the way he handled the latter part of the season can give you any confidence he intended on continuing this evolution. The man was stubborn, he said so himself. Why wouldn't he try out this evolved style in those games when for him they no longer were a priority? Why not begin the process of making the subtle evolution a permanent style? He never did because he had no intention of doing so. This season would have just been more of the same unless VDV and Romero once again decided that "somethings need to change"

Frank might be over correcting but frankly we were a shambles defensively and we need to be more solid. Whether Frank can balance some defensive solidity and attacking play remains to be seen and that is what he will be judged on, just like every other manager.

He was so stubborn that he didn't listen to anyone, right? So stubborn that we didn't grind that trophy out with opposite action? Words and actions indeed. The fact he did it in a competition we won is undeniable. And you tell me I 'need to divorce emotions from reality'? My view is a hypothesis. Based on having won a trophy adapting. Not emotion. Fact. FWIW I'd already let go of him staying before the parade,

You want to talk emotions and reality, words and actions?
Here's Thomas on taking risks, back in August ...

"I'm a big believer, I always say this one liner, if you don't take risk, you also take risk. So I think it's important that we take risks. A risk is, for example, if we play a man to man, in some situations, the risk is you need to play forward. If you don't risk the ball, you can't create anything. So I'm a big, big believer of that. We need to be brave. The players need to be brave when we play, and they need to trust themselves. So I will do my very best to install that trust and the players need to be brave."
Words...that don't match the actions we're seeing.
It's all good, managers -especially new ones- say 'good' things. But those actions amigo, oof!!!

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

TBH I think too much is made of stuff like this as much as it is when Frank does an interview and people turn into Spurs Jordan Peterson on his mental state.

This is not a dig, but I just don't think people understand what its like at top level Sports, this is not teacher student levels of management, there is more to it. So when I see "they are only doing what they are told" or "the manager had to be told" its makes me chuckle.

There will always be dialogue between senior players and managers, watching a few manager podcasts they all talk about frank manager/captain meetings

 

[Bishop]

He was so stubborn that he didn't listen to anyone, right? So stubborn that we didn't grind that trophy out with opposite action? Words and actions indeed. The fact he did it in a competition we won is undeniable. And you tell me I 'need to divorce emotions from reality'? My view is a hypothesis. Based on having won a trophy adapting. Not emotion. Fact. FWIW I'd already let go of him staying before the parade,

You want to talk emotions and reality, words and actions?
Here's Thomas on taking risks, back in August ...

"I'm a big believer, I always say this one liner, if you don't take risk, you also take risk. So I think it's important that we take risks. A risk is, for example, if we play a man to man, in some situations, the risk is you need to play forward. If you don't risk the ball, you can't create anything. So I'm a big, big believer of that. We need to be brave. The players need to be brave when we play, and they need to trust themselves. So I will do my very best to install that trust and the players need to be brave."
Words...that don't match the actions we're seeing.
It's all good, managers -especially new ones- say 'good' things. But those actions amigo, oof!!!

You seem to be trying to turn this into a Ange Vs Frank thing. I'll evaluate Frank in exactly the same way. He can say what he likes but his actions will speak far louder, just like was the case with Ange.

 

[Bishop]

Sadly this season is more of the same, if that and Frank doesn't have us any more solid. At the same stage we'd conceded 2 less goals and scored 11 more last season....

I personally would take some brick attacking play if and it is a caveat it meant we were building a solid defensive structure. We absolutely need some fudging stability in a defensive sense. Conceding 60 fudging goals every season is ridiculous and we can never progress doing this.

Now of course the question is if what we are sacrificing in terms of progressive play is worth it for what we gain defensively. So far it hasn't been, but I'm happy enough to give him the season to see if he can progress and adapt.

I say the same brick with every coach we appoint, I want someone who can see our flaws and can address them directly. I want someone who is adaptable, someone who proactive rather than reactive. Whether Frank is that guy or not time will tell.

I see some clear ways to progress which for me is bringing in the right profile of player and even then using the players we do have of some quality correctly which obviously hasn't been the case so far, but again in willing to see if he can adapt and adapt in an Intelligent manner.

I'm willing to accept some brick attacking play if we look competent defensively. I want balance, I don't hari kari all out attack not do I want backs to the trench fudging warfare. I am happy enough with the idea of building upon a defensive foundation with the progressive play to come later in stages but fudge me I can't deal with watching us continually conceding these fudging ridiculously sloppy goals constantly.

Again with Frank time will tell. I'll give any coach or player a season before I'll evaluate them critically, but that's me. I have the patience of a season at least.

 

[harr1984]

I personally would take some brick attacking play if and it is a caveat it meant we were building a solid defensive structure. We absolutely need some fudging stability in a defensive sense. Conceding 60 fudging goals every season is ridiculous and we can never progress doing this.

Now of course the question is if what we are sacrificing in terms of progressive play is worth it for what we gain defensively. So far it hasn't been, but I'm happy enough to give him the season to see if he can progress and adapt.

I say the same brick with every coach we appoint, I want someone who can see our flaws and can address them directly. I want someone who is adaptable, someone who proactive rather than reactive. Whether Frank is that guy or not time will tell.

I see some clear ways to progress which for me is bringing in the right profile of player and even then using the players we do have of some quality correctly which obviously hasn't been the case so far, but again in willing to see if he can adapt and adapt in an Intelligent manner.

I'm willing to accept some brick attacking play if we look competent defensively. I want balance, I don't hari kari all out attack not do I want backs to the trench fudging warfare. I am happy enough with the idea of building upon a defensive foundation with the progressive play to come later in stages but fudge me I can't deal with watching us continually conceding these fudging ridiculously sloppy goals constantly.

Again with Frank time will tell. I'll give any coach or player a season before I'll evaluate them critically, but that's me. I have the patience of a season at least.

Yeah agree, time will tell and ripping up the playbook yet again at this stage is not going to achieve anything. Right now for me, its a case of Frank needing to do better and answering the questions that are being asked. He's an intelligent guy, there's nothing to say he can't come up with the answers....

 

[thfcsteff]

You seem to be trying to turn this into a Ange Vs Frank thing. I'll evaluate Frank in exactly the same way. He can say what he likes but his actions will speak far louder, just like was the case with Ange.

I commented on MVDV's observations.
You patronised me with, among other things, being too emotional, and then told me why Ange would've failed when modification ended up with a trophy and whole squad buy-in. We have no idea what would've happened.

You then went on about 'actions v words'.
I then pointed out an example with Frank.

I just don't think the facts here are convenient for you, thus you're trying to turn this into something else.

 

[Bishop]

I commented on MVDV's observations.
You patronised me with, among other things, being too emotional, and then told me why Ange would've failed when modification ended up with a trophy and whole squad buy-in. We have no idea what would've happened.

You then went on about 'actions v words'.
I then pointed out an example with Frank.

I just don't think the facts here are convenient for you, thus you're trying to turn this into something else.

I told you I had no belief that he would have adapted and gave you my reasoning, ie. him not using that modification in any other match when he both had ample opportunity to and the rationale to evolve his system giving the dead nature of the remaining PL matches it would have made perfect sense to get as you say that squad buy in for this evolution.

You don't have to agree, you can have this belief based on nothing that Ange would have changed but the actual evidence suggests otherwise. I haven't even mentioned his play style at Forest which was again more of the same even with a team that already had a good defensive stricture, a perfect opportunity to develop a balanced play style.

You mentioned Frank's actions Vs his words as some sort of gotcha. I hadn't commented on Frank at all but you brought him into it, hence me wondering the relevance. I'll judge Frank on his actions and not his words, it's not sme sort of dilemma or co fusion for me.

Im not sure what facts you think are inconvenient for me? The only fact we have are the claims VDV made and the lack of change of approach in the remaining PL matches.

 

[thfcsteff]

I told you I had no belief that he would have adapted and gave you my reasoning, ie. him not using that modification in any other match when he both had ample opportunity to and the rationale to evolve his system giving the dead nature of the remaining PL matches it would have made perfect sense to get as you say that squad buy in for this evolution.

You don't have to agree, you can have this belief based on nothing that Ange would have changed but the actual evidence suggests otherwise. I haven't even mentioned his play style at Forest which was again more of the same even with a team that already had a good defensive stricture, a perfect opportunity to develop a balanced play style.

You mentioned Frank's actions Vs his words as some sort of gotcha. I hadn't commented on Frank at all but you brought him into it, hence me wondering the relevance. I'll judge Frank on his actions and not his words, it's not sme sort of dilemma or co fusion for me.

Im not sure what facts you think are inconvenient for me? The only fact we have are the claims VDV made and the lack of change of approach in the remaining PL matches.

You have forgotten the switch in approach to win the Europa League. He changed his approach based on senior player input, and we won a trophy. Fact. Whether that would've translated to the Prem this season is the unknown. It appears you would rather ignore the above fact, and focus on the league performances (also facts but facts which also require some context). It could well have been a disaster, equally, we might well have seen an accelerated level from a winning squad with squad-liked-manager.

I brought Frank into it based solely in your 'actions v words' metric. It was not a 'gotcha' I was simply providing a present example of your metric.

Your dismissiveness of the viewpoint on Postecoglu rests on repeatedly saying that the 'belief rests on nothing'. The whole point of commenting on the VdV piece is to point out that even if the Europa League eyetest isn't proof enough, here's a player telling you! Whether you then believe he'd have been stubborn enough to ignore senior players in the following season is your opinion to hold. The evidence is there, in tangible form, that he certainly wasn't stubborn enough when the moments mattered.

p.s. sadly, and I have said this before including late last season, he knew his card was marked at the end of January. That, plus the real possibility of winning the Europa, plus managing the fit players he had became the mission. As for Forest, one of the most bizarre managerial switches in recent times. Ridiculous. He was certainly naive to even go there IMO...

 

[Bishop]

Err

You have forgotten the switch in approach to win the Europa League. He changed his approach based on senior player input, and we won a trophy. Fact. Whether that would've translated to the Prem this season is the unknown. It appears you would rather ignore the above fact, and focus on the league performances (also facts but facts which also require some context). It could well have been a disaster, equally, we might well have seen an accelerated level from a winning squad with squad-liked-manager.

I brought Frank into it based solely in your 'actions v words' metric. It was not a 'gotcha' I was simply providing a present example of your metric.

Your dismissiveness of the viewpoint on Postecoglu rests on repeatedly saying that the 'belief rests on nothing'. The whole point of commenting on the VdV piece is to point out that even if the Europa League eyetest isn't proof enough, here's a player telling you! Whether you then believe he'd have been stubborn enough to ignore senior players in the following season is your opinion to hold. The evidence is there, in tangible form, that he certainly wasn't stubborn enough when the moments mattered.

p.s. sadly, and I have said this before including late last season, he knew his card was marked at the end of January. That, plus the real possibility of winning the Europa, plus managing the fit players he had became the mission. As for Forest, one of the most bizarre managerial switches in recent times. Ridiculous. He was certainly naive to even go there IMO...

Errr I haven't forgotten the switch to win the EL. That's exactly my point we did switch, as we now know due to player influence but he did not use that switch as a guide for the failing league campaign. If he intended to evolve his philosophy the remaining PL games were the perfect time to do so. We were losing game after game playing his way. Why wouldn't he try to integrate this new way of playing if that was indeed his intention? What you're suggesting doesn't really following any logic.

I am using a system that is diametrically opposed to my traditional philosophy so that I can more likely guarantee a desperately needed tournament win. At the same time I have some league games remaining that I am not completely focused on winning, but I'm not going to try to mesh the cup system with my usual system even those these are essentially dead rubber games and the perfect opportunity to try it out with little at risk. Instead I'm going to keep doing the same thing in the league that keeps failing and next season I promise I will mesh the two together. Is that seriously what you believe was going to happen?

In what scenario do we think it's healthy for us to want to wait for the manager to keep trying his non working system in the league and then what 5, 7, 10 games into the season the players have to go to him again and say "hey this isn't working again"? Wouldn't you want this manager to be proactive and to evolve his system as soon as it's apparent his primary system A. Isn't working and B. There is an alternative that can work?

Given all of that you still think yes he would have evolved it? Based on what? This reads like a lot of hopium and not actually based on real world activities that we all saw with our own eyes.

 

[tommysvr]

FMD it's like Ange had never changed tactics in his life until the miracle of Micky van de Ven and Cristian Romero walked through his door to enlighten him.

 

[Bishop]

To be honest I think revisiting the Ange conservation is kind of tedious so I apologise for making the observation however true I think it might be. I'll it leave there because it will go on forever as the the view on his time is so split.

 

[thfcsteff]

Err

Errr I haven't forgotten the switch to win the EL. That's exactly my point we did switch, as we now know due to player influence but he did not use that switch as a guide for the failing league campaign. If he intended to evolve his philosophy the remaining PL games were the perfect time to do so. We were losing game after game playing his way. Why wouldn't he try to integrate this new way of playing if that was indeed his intention? What you're suggesting doesn't really following any logic.

I am using a system that is diametrically opposed to my traditional philosophy so that I can more likely guarantee a desperately needed tournament win. At the same time I have some league games remaining that I am not completely focused on winning, but I'm not going to try to mesh the cup system with my usual system even those these are essentially dead rubber games and the perfect opportunity to try it out with little at risk. Instead I'm going to keep doing the same thing in the league that keeps failing and next season I promise I will mesh the two together. Is that seriously what you believe was going to happen?

In what scenario do we think it's healthy for us to want to wait for the manager to keep trying his non working system in the league and then what 5, 7, 10 games into the season the players have to go to him again and say "hey this isn't working again"? Wouldn't you want this manager to be proactive and to evolve his system as soon as it's apparent his primary system A. Isn't working and B. There is an alternative that can work?

Given all of that you still think yes he would have evolved it? Based on what? This reads like a lot of hopium and not actually based on real world activities that we all saw with our own eyes.

OK mate, that's your opinion.
No issues there obviously.
I DO have issues with ANYONE who tries to tell me why an unproven possibility is wrong.
I see little point in continuing the conversation; you won't be remotely interested in contexts such as injuries, managing injuries, his knowing what was happening behind the scenes (particularly with Munn and the board) and all the other attendant subtexts. That's fine. I can accept you have no interest in going there, especially given this is ALL academic.

Here's the difference I see between us in this regard. I am happy to admit that the gamble might well have been wrong. You are refusing to admit the gamble might well have been right.
You say 'hopium'...OK. Your perogative. The 'real world activities' I saw extend further than the ones you saw. Again, your perogative to process as you feel. But enough of this 'emotional' and 'hopium' garbage, please. I have provided plenty of evidence to support a hypothesis, it just doesn't fit your perspective.

One day I'll ask you about Poch...THAT will be interesting as I genuinely cannot remember your take and I don't want to assume.

In the meantime, here's hoping Frank both justifies your faith and deliver me the style of football I want this club to be playing.

 

[thfcsteff]

To be honest I think revisiting the Ange conservation is kind of tedious so I apologise for making the observation however true I think it might be. I'll it leave there because it will go on forever as the the view on his time is so split.

I'll take a route too and apologise for my part in this thread's current downfall.

BTW, it was a really intertesing intertvierw though, right?

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Err

Errr I haven't forgotten the switch to win the EL. That's exactly my point we did switch, as we now know due to player influence but he did not use that switch as a guide for the failing league campaign. If he intended to evolve his philosophy the remaining PL games were the perfect time to do so. We were losing game after game playing his way. Why wouldn't he try to integrate this new way of playing if that was indeed his intention? What you're suggesting doesn't really following any logic.

I am using a system that is diametrically opposed to my traditional philosophy so that I can more likely guarantee a desperately needed tournament win. At the same time I have some league games remaining that I am not completely focused on winning, but I'm not going to try to mesh the cup system with my usual system even those these are essentially dead rubber games and the perfect opportunity to try it out with little at risk. Instead I'm going to keep doing the same thing in the league that keeps failing and next season I promise I will mesh the two together. Is that seriously what you believe was going to happen?

In what scenario do we think it's healthy for us to want to wait for the manager to keep trying his non working system in the league and then what 5, 7, 10 games into the season the players have to go to him again and say "hey this isn't working again"? Wouldn't you want this manager to be proactive and to evolve his system as soon as it's apparent his primary system A. Isn't working and B. There is an alternative that can work?

Given all of that you still think yes he would have evolved it? Based on what? This reads like a lot of hopium and not actually based on real world activities that we all saw with our own eyes.

I think the point about why didn’t he adapt more in the league is actually a really interesting question. I don’t know the answer for sure but in these situations when discussing elite level leaders I always try and think from their perspective and what it might teach me, rather than assume some fundamental failing on their part as if it’s obvious to me and not them.

And I think Micky’s interview gives some interesting additional clues. If Ange’s entire reason for being at Spurs, entire way he motivated his players, and convinced them to join the club was ‘we are going to play the football you’ve always dreamed of, and I’m going to trust you to be brave to play it, always’ then you can understand why he wouldn’t suddenly want to become Mr. Pragmatic to salvage a league season that was meaningless anyway. So one hypothesis is, he was fine adapting in the Europa to win something, not fine to throw out the philosophy completely when he’d want to get back to building that ideal state next season.

Second and linked hypothesis is that, if as Micky says Ange’s view was ‘ok, I’ll adapt, but I need you two to really drive this through on the field’ then he probably only trusted that a completely different philosophy could truly be executed well if led by the two world class players in the squad who commanded the respected of all of the other players. And if those two players were only playing in the Europa, then that’s when we would see this adapted game plan best work. Otherwise, we saw away to Everton what happened when he made a fundamental change to the shape in terms of just changing something, so again he wasn’t going to require inexperienced people like Gray who are learning themselves to lead an execution of a whole new strategy on the pitch, which was completely opposed to the system he had implemented over the last two years.

Thirdly, and linked again to points 1 and 2. The league games were simply about managing fitness. We played with less intensity, and we rested our best players. Personally I continue to be befuddled as to why anyone puts much stock in the league results when it was so obvious that it wasn’t ideal Angeball, first 11, intensity, fitness, anything. It was about managing through. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it was right for Ange to go all in on the EL rather than spread the risk between the EL and PL, but at the end of the day he rolled the dice and won. He made his decision and was vindicated. I’m surprised that more people don’t see that the PL results are because of a greater priority, and not some proof that he can’t cut it in the league, or only adapts in Europe. If we weren’t in the Europa League, the PL results would have been better. It’s that simple.

Or he’s just a stubborn man who can’t cut it. Who knows.

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't necessarily have faith in Frank per se it's more than I'm just willing to wait out a season before I really critically analyse his processes and the decisions he will make.

With regards to Poch, I felt the club let him down by allowing the squad to stagnate and I wouldn't have sacked him at that stage considering we had finally bloody freshened up the midfield and it was going to some time to evolve (ha, I see a pattern) especially not for the completely unsuited Mourinho.

It's the holiday season!
We have found total agreement on something here.
Onwards my friend!

p.s. I will say that if ever a modern manager deserved a second chance based on what they'd done, it was him. He had us three years ahead of anywhere anyone thought we'd be on the pitch. I still believe if we'd been able to stay at the Lane one more season we'd have won the title, and I still think getting us to that CL Final was enormous. I don't think we'll get to one again while I'm around anyway (hope I am wrong obviously). Plus...I loved what he did with us as a side and style. I always thought he was actually looking to develop a 4-3-3 which had Liverpool's power combined with our flair and artistry. Annnnnnnyway...

 

[billyiddo]

Err

Errr I haven't forgotten the switch to win the EL. That's exactly my point we did switch, as we now know due to player influence but he did not use that switch as a guide for the failing league campaign. If he intended to evolve his philosophy the remaining PL games were the perfect time to do so. We were losing game after game playing his way. Why wouldn't he try to integrate this new way of playing if that was indeed his intention? What you're suggesting doesn't really following any logic.

I am using a system that is diametrically opposed to my traditional philosophy so that I can more likely guarantee a desperately needed tournament win. At the same time I have some league games remaining that I am not completely focused on winning, but I'm not going to try to mesh the cup system with my usual system even those these are essentially dead rubber games and the perfect opportunity to try it out with little at risk. Instead I'm going to keep doing the same thing in the league that keeps failing and next season I promise I will mesh the two together. Is that seriously what you believe was going to happen?

In what scenario do we think it's healthy for us to want to wait for the manager to keep trying his non working system in the league and then what 5, 7, 10 games into the season the players have to go to him again and say "hey this isn't working again"? Wouldn't you want this manager to be proactive and to evolve his system as soon as it's apparent his primary system A. Isn't working and B. There is an alternative that can work?

Given all of that you still think yes he would have evolved it? Based on what? This reads like a lot of hopium and not actually based on real world activities that we all saw with our own eyes.

The quotes from Mickey explain this - Romero & VDV were told to implement the tactics they wanted how they saw fit - they weren't Ange's changes so without them on the pitch in the league games there was no one to carry it out so we just carried on playing the way the manager had us playing.

Credit for listening to the players but it's not really the positive reflection of the manager and his adaptability that people are trying to spin it as.

 

[Lemonade Money]

The quotes from Mickey explain this - Romero & VDV were told to implement the tactics they wanted how they saw fit - they weren't Ange's changes so without them on the pitch in the league games there was no one to carry it out so we just carried on playing the way the manager had us playing.

Credit for listening to the players but it's not really the positive reflection of the manager and his adaptability that people are trying to spin it as.

As far as I'm concerned, a manager manages the players, gets them in the right frame of mind, keeps everything together. The coaches do the tactics, and work on the training field. There will obviously be some who do both.
I think it is a positive reflection, you could quite easily get an ego who says my way or the highway. In fact, I would say it's a negative reflection if a manager doesn't take on board input from coaches and players.
As soon as they said that to Ange, he would have known he's got buy in from the two leaders on the pitch.
At the end of the day, if you are going to win something, it is by any means necessary.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

The quotes from Mickey explain this - Romero & VDV were told to implement the tactics they wanted how they saw fit - they weren't Ange's changes so without them on the pitch in the league games there was no one to carry it out so we just carried on playing the way the manager had us playing.

Credit for listening to the players but it's not really the positive reflection of the manager and his adaptability that people are trying to spin it as.

I completely agree with this.

My bull case for an Ange third season was never that he’d ’learned to adapt’ because of the Europa win. Rather it was to see how we’d do with a deeper and less injured squad playing his way. But Ange was never going to completely change how he does things, it wasn’t why he was hired and it’s not what he is good at. So I wanted to see Ange get back to managing towards some ideal state that he is looking to build towards. But I make no bones about the fact that he was not suddenly a pragmatist. As to whether it will ultimately have worked, we just don’t know. But I think Steff’s point on this is completely correct. The people that wanted Ange out seem adamant he was bad and it would not work, where as the people willing to give him a chance seem very willing to acknowledge it might not have too.

I think last season, once it became clear what was possible to achieve, every decision was made with that in mind. So the willingness to adapt to win something is part of it. Having the players buy into this is a part of it. I think it’s overlooked how much of a managerial achievement it is to not lose the dressing room and to keep their eyes on a prize despite losing so many league games. Another manager wouldn’t have pulled it off, and another squad may have felt uneasy or embarrassed. And this is where I go back to the exceptional circumstances. The squad knew that they had been through something exceptional together, and I think the bond forged through that and the belief that the season could still be a success is what kept them united.

Ange made what ultimately proved correct decisions to win a trophy. But season 3 would have been different again. I think it would have been back to implementing his football. It would have been a different context, different objectives, dynamics, trade offs to manage. And no one knows how it would have gone.