***OMT Tottenham Hotspur v Brighton, White Hart Lane, Sat April 18th, 5.30pm***

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Because whatever Ange was doing was deemed to be an absolute disaster long term and we needed to do something different. Rightly or wrongly, I can see that reasoning and so did a lot of others on here at the time.

I will hold my hand up and say that I was absolutely delighted with the Frank appointment. Two of my friends are Brentford fans and they were both telling me how great he would be, how they were surprised he wasn't poached by one of the bigger teams earlier, etc. I was definitely not the only Spurs fan thinking that at the time. In hindsight, I couldn't have been more wrong.

But if I've got to apply hindsight to the Frank decision, I have to do the same for Ange. The Europa League win was an incredible throw of the dice, for which I absolutely thank Ange, but it couldn't paper over the gaping cracks. Kipling puts it best:

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

I know people are sick of the Ange debate so I’ll try to steer around it and focus on the decision makers. What exactly gave them the confidence that what he was doing was a long term disaster? How did they arrive at that conclusion? Why did their judgement not include wider context? Who was really driving the decision?

I think it’s right what what you’re saying, and my biggest frustration with the whole thing is, if you’re gonna sack Ange, it is the worst possible thing to hire his polar opposite. Ange was the polar opposite of Conte, and it worked because the squad wanted to get back to playing a more proactive form of football. But I don’t think the squad necessarily wanted to move away from being proactive when letting Ange go. It wasn’t as if they’d completely lost faith.

So if we accept that, why was the decision made to go with Frank rather than someone who felt at least stylistically similar and could continue on some of the good work? There simply had to have been another manager out there who would have taken the team on better, would have transitioned them better and held their respect. How was it possible that Vinai talks about the top candidate out of 30 on 10 key metrics, and it ends up being Frank?

That is the core of it for me. I don’t hate Frank. I can accept Ange was moving on at some point. But I think at some point, when the decision makers needed to show careful judgement, real insight, and a deft hand in navigating a transition with a squad that had just achieved something historic, they were found completely wanting. That is the original sin that explains this whole season in my view.

 

[Muttley]

I know people are sick of the Ange debate so I’ll try to steer around it and focus on the decision makers. What exactly gave them the confidence that what he was doing was a long term disaster? How did they arrive at that conclusion? Why did their judgement not include wider context? Who was really driving the decision?

I think it’s right what what you’re saying, and my biggest frustration with the whole thing is, if you’re gonna sack Ange, it is the worst possible thing to hire his polar opposite. Ange was the polar opposite of Conte, and it worked because the squad wanted to get back to playing a more proactive form of football. But I don’t think the squad necessarily wanted to move away from being proactive when letting Ange go. It wasn’t as if they’d completely lost faith.

So if we accept that, why was the decision made to go with Frank rather than someone who felt at least stylistically similar and could continue on some of the good work? There simply had to have been another manager out there who would have taken the team on better, would have transitioned them better and held their respect. How was it possible that Vinai talks about the top candidate out of 30 on 10 key metrics, and it ends up being Frank?

That is the core of it for me. I don’t hate Frank. I can accept Ange was moving on at some point. But I think at some point, when the decision makers needed to show careful judgement, real insight, and a deft hand in navigating a transition with a squad that had just achieved something historic, they were found completely wanting. That is the original sin that explains this whole season in my view.

It's easy for me. Ange talks the talk but he doesn't follow up with the level of detail it takes to walk that talk. He is not in the minutia you need to be at this incredibly high level. He can only be successful if he has other coaches around him who can manage that detail for him. I'm sure he can motivate and give a great team talk but his own coaching was lacking.

I still prefer a tracksuit coach who could run training all on his own and get tactics across even if he or she had no other coaches around him. Ange is definitely not that. I'm hoping RDZ is a real coach.

No problem if these guys step away a little once they've embedded their philosophy. However, you have to be present in every part of the initial build. I personally don't think Ange was, and his coaches kept jumping ship. You could tell there was a problem there.

 

[tommysvr]

his coaches kept jumping ship. You could tell there was a problem there.

That's a bold claim. Care to back it up?

 

[Muttley]

That's a bold claim. Care to back it up?

I was mostly talking about Davies and then obviously the constant chatter about Mason who eventually departed. Whether Ange stayed or departed Ryan would have gone in my opinion.

One of the problems I had with Ange was that he never had the coaching staff stability of someone like Poch. We knew Poch's crew were Perez, Jiminez and D'Agostino. They came as one complete quartet everywhere Poch went and you never felt a risk that that would be destabilised by one of them leaving. I think he's even added his son now to the crew since Spurs days.

With Ange, you always felt he needed to build this coaching cohesion. He seemed to come hans solo and had to put together an entirely new crew. I don't think that helped him and I do think Davies was his massive loss.

I think it's worth keeping this same lens with RDZ who seems to be very hands on with training. Ange seemed to set a loose plan together and tried to give the players freedom to work within it. There was clear gaps on things like set piece defending in season 1. He got pulled apart by the analysts for that as he did for a lot of the conceded goals especially when midfields were bypassed, getting beaten down the channel or defenders too focused on "the line" rather than mark and defend properly. Unlike Ange, RDZ may not need other coaches to instil some of his philosophies, or at least as much. He seems the type to do it himself and get his coaches to follow his lead. Might be wrong though.

You have to have the entire machine working in coaching. I don't thinks Spurs have had that right connection from medical expertise to physical conditioning to tactical coaching with player for a long time. I don't think the player's individual plans have been as big a consideration as they needed to have been over multiple managers. Guys like Jose clearly didn't care for them. Frank over rotated and didn't even have a fit squad who could play with intensity.

 

[tommysvr]

I was mostly talking about Davies and then obviously the constant chatter about Mason who eventually departed. Whether Ange stayed or departed Ryan would have gone in my opinion.

One of the problems I had with Ange was that he never had the coaching staff stability of someone like Poch. We knew Poch's crew were Perez, Jiminez and D'Agostino. They came as one complete quartet everywhere Poch went and you never felt a risk that that would be destabilised by one of them leaving. I think he's even added his son now to the crew since Spurs days.

With Ange, you always felt he needed to build this coaching cohesion. He seemed to come hans solo and had to put together an entirely new crew. I don't think that helped him and I do think Davies was his massive loss.

I think it's worth keeping this same lens with RDZ who seems to be very hands on with training. Ange seemed to set a loose plan together and tried to give the players freedom to work within it. There was clear gaps on things like set piece defending in season 1. He got pulled apart by the analysts for that as he did for a lot of the conceded goals especially when midfields were bypassed, getting beaten down the channel or defenders too focused on "the line" rather than mark and defend properly. Unlike Ange, RDZ may not need other coaches to instil some of his philosophies, or at least as much. He seems the type to do it himself and get his coaches to follow his lead. Might be wrong though.

You have to have the entire machine working in coaching. I don't thinks Spurs have had that right connection from medical expertise to physical conditioning to tactical coaching with player for a long time. I don't think the player's individual plans have been as big a consideration as they needed to have been over multiple managers. Guys like Jose clearly didn't care for them. Frank over rotated and didn't even have a fit squad who could play with intensity.

From my memory, 2 coaches left during his time: Chris Davies became Birmingham manager and Ryan Mason became West Brom manager. A few months after he left, Matt Wells became Colorado manager. I reckon that's a pretty good sign of your ability to surround yourself with talented coaches. Your comment about coaches "jumping ship" does not reflect that whatsoever.

 

[harr1984]

From my memory, 2 coaches left during his time: Chris Davies became Birmingham manager and Ryan Mason became West Brom manager. A few months after he left, Matt Wells became Colorado manager. I reckon that's a pretty good sign of your ability to surround yourself with talented coaches. Your comment about coaches "jumping ship" does not reflect that whatsoever.

Not to mention it's not 'jumping ship' if they are going to become a football manager which is a clear promotion and aspiration of theirs. If they were leaving to another coaching role that is a different matter.....