• 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

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

FatBloke said:
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;
Click to expand...

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.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
That's a bold claim. Care to back it up?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Muttley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tommysvr said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.....
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
It’s beyond pathetic that we’re on the wrong side of one of these things again. The way we think about officiating and the use of technology needs to be massively shaken up. It is insane that brick like this keeps happening.
Click to expand...

The panel was 3-2 in favour of it being a second yellow, I'm not sure if it's insane as you say, just that things aren't clearcut even with time to analyse during the game, and even still post match forensically mulling it over. I do wonder if they're able to watch these incidents with the kits / faces blurred out so there's absolutely no bias - arguably you could have people subconsciously thinking Romero "deserves it" for dishing it out / celebrating in people's faces / general brickhousery.
 
spurspinter1 said:
The panel was 3-2 in favour of it being a second yellow, I'm not sure if it's insane as you say, just that things aren't clearcut even with time to analyse during the game, and even still post match forensically mulling it over. I do wonder if they're able to watch these incidents with the kits / faces blurred out so there's absolutely no bias - arguably you could have people subconsciously thinking Romero "deserves it" for dishing it out / celebrating in people's faces / general brickhousery.
Click to expand...

The fact that with time and hindsight 3 people can look at that and say it should have been a second yellow tells you something.

But my point is more…I know the game is subjective but it’s the sheer amount of time we’re on the wrong end of these decisions that could actually swing the games. When something is judged a foul if it’s our player, but not if it’s the opposition. It’s just getting ridiculous now. And it doesn’t need to be like this with the tech that is available.
 
tommysvr said:
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.
Click to expand...

It does in my mind. Perhaps I should have used the term "loose in the saddle". I don't think the coaches were creating stability and had their eyes focused on their next career moves. It looks like we had 4 guys on staff at the same time that wanted to be a 1st team manager somewhere. What we really need is 4 or 5 guys (or gals) who want to stick to their current role for a 5 year period. we didn't. We had 3 guys loose in the saddle who eventually jumped ship. Not all on Ange, but I don't think that helps the equation personally.
 
Muttley said:
It does in my mind. Perhaps I should have used the term "loose in the saddle". I don't think the coaches were creating stability and had their eyes focused on their next career moves. It looks like we had 4 guys on staff at the same time that wanted to be a 1st team manager somewhere. What we really need is 4 or 5 guys (or gals) who want to stick to their current role for a 5 year period. we didn't. We had 3 guys loose in the saddle who eventually jumped ship. Not all on Ange, but I don't think that helps the equation personally.
Click to expand...

Haha, ok mate.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
The fact that with time and hindsight 3 people can look at that and say it should have been a second yellow tells you something.

But my point is more…I know the game is subjective but it’s the sheer amount of time we’re on the wrong end of these decisions that could actually swing the games. When something is judged a foul if it’s our player, but not if it’s the opposition. It’s just getting ridiculous now. And it doesn’t need to be like this with the tech that is available.
Click to expand...

And 2 people with time and hindsight said it wasn’t. So it's fine margins, not a complete fudge up like that offside goal we got against Liverpool that was entirely a miscommunication, not a grey area in the rules..

I don't like the challenge in question, along with any little sly pushes leading to players colliding with advertising boards or backing in to a player who has just jumped to throw them off balance. I'd also be handing out retrospective yellows to anyone who feigns a face / head injury when no contact was made.

I'm not sure what technology you're referring to, goal line stuff is helpful, but apart from that, we've got the ability to record footage and watch it back later, and then the ref now has a microphone to tell the crowd what the screen has already informed them of - It's hardly Q at MI6 stuff. We have words like "reckless" written into the rules, what one person thinks is reckless, another thinks is what the game should be about.

That said, times like the pushes in the back incidents this season, we can definitely feel hard done by, making a strongly worded statement isn't necessarily going to fix things and we've presumably communicated with the PGMOL to seek clarity. That clarity is probably "Oh yeah we did fudge that up, sorry about that", and hopefully leads to better implementation in the future. No VAR in the championship will be interesting if we go down that route, let's see if some people keep a consistent view if and when clearly incorrect decisions are made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back