• 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

Contingency planning : When Ange is sacked, who should replace him?

Who do you want as the next Tottenham Hotspur manager?

  • Andoni Iraola

    Votes: 14 12.8%

  • Marco Silva

    Votes: 10 9.2%

  • Thomas Frank

    Votes: 5 4.6%

  • Kieran McKenna

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Mauricio Pochettino

    Votes: 49 45.0%

  • Edin Tersic

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • A.N. Other

    Votes: 29 26.6%
  • Total voters
    109
Raziel said:
Honestly, I don't fudging know

- I would have fired him in Nov/Dec, incoming manager would have probably recovered our league position, we might have finished 6th/7th with zero cup
- The club/Levy against all odds/precedent/logic, stuck with him and we got a night most will not forget, and to your point, got the monkey off our back.

That said, almost feels like when you do something extremely risky/stupid and get away with it, take the 1 in a thousand shot at something and actually win, bet all on one hand and it plays out .. do you really just do the same stupid brick again? or do you take your winnings and just be a little more sensible building from that position?
Click to expand...

What continues to confuse me is why some people (not you I must clarify) seem to think that IF Ange were retained he would play the same game/take the same shot? Why are people so hellbent on feeling this guy is not about to change anything for anyone and would do it all the same way again even if the squad had a higher levels of availability? I really don't get it.
 
DubaiSpur said:
To offer another perspective, Crystal Palace and Saudi Sportswashing Machine each played 48 games this season on the way to their respective trophies.

We played 60. That's a full 25% more games, while having the 2nd-worst injury crisis in the league.

I wouldn't call a back five of Kinsky, Spence, Davies, Gray and Porro an 'incredibly strong' lineup mate - but that (plus Danso) is what we had to rely on for large and crucial parts of the season.

For context - We had the 2nd-highest minutes lost to injury in the PL this year, at 1553. Palace sit 9th, at 1041. Chelsea 15th, at 828. Saudi Sportswashing Machine 17th, at 779.

We had 41 separate injuries this year, second only to Brighton with 43. Chelsea and Saudi Sportswashing Machine are 14th and 15th, with 24 each. Palace are 17th, with 23.

Some of that, you can probably put down to Ange's tactics causing muscle injuries (haring around after the ball - we had the most distance covered of any side this season). But there's enough there to argue we faced challenges almost no other team did.
Click to expand...

I think you know I have been as accepting of the injury / fatigue conversation as anyone. It is totally legitimate. We did have a crazy season with injuries and had we finished lower mid-table then I sort of get it. We finished 17th on 38 points.

I think it is worth remembering that even though the club played 60 games, our top contributor Porro only played the equivalent minutes of 45 games. Him, Kulu and Solanke definitely had a period of extreme intensity whereas most had it OK. It's also forgotten that a lot of our players could finish the season strong because of the natural gaps they had in their schedules (e.g. Bents/Biss). Whilst we had the most minutes lost to injury, my guess is probably had the highest distribution of minutes shared across an entire squad. So it is never as black and white as some are making out, especially beyond mid Feb and the first phase of the season.

I also think it is easy to use a weakish line-up like Kinsky, Spence, Davies, Gray and Porro. Was that an outlier though across 60 games or did those guys take the field together regularly? Otherwise it moots that argument somewhat, at least for me. I mostly saw line-ups that were comparable or better than our opposition in the latter part of the season.

Anyway, let's look forward. The squad gets deeper again and I guess we find out whether it's player durability, game intensity or training techniques that mean we never seem to have an optimal squad.
 
DubaiSpur said:
But if you have to do both, why was no manager sacked for finishing 4th/5th but trophyless?

AVB wasn't, Poch wasn't, Conte wasn't, even Ange wasn't after finishing 5th.

It's because we don't prioritize the cups as much as the league.

Fair point that others won trophies without throwing the league. I'm not defending him finishing 17th - it's unacceptable and can never happen again.

But he did something that our incentive structure actively discourages, in throwing the league to win a cup - which has happened too rarely at Spurs for us to demand perfection at the first go
Click to expand...

He is getting a bigger bonus for winning this cup because he gets a CL bonus too
 
thfcsteff said:
What continues to confuse me is why some people (not you I must clarify) seem to think that IF Ange were retained he would play the same game/take the same shot? Why are people so hellbent on feeling this guy is not about to change anything for anyone and would do it all the same way again even if the squad had a higher levels of availability? I really don't get it.
Click to expand...
One thing I’ve argued with my mates is that maybe Ange would adapt if he had more options in the squad
the low block set up only came when he had his first choice defence
 
DubaiSpur said:
I wouldn't call a back five of Kinsky, Spence, Davies, Gray and Porro an 'incredibly strong' lineup mate - but that (plus Danso) is what we had to rely on for large and crucial parts of the season.
Click to expand...

A lot stronger than the Ipswich team that we lost to at home. A lot stronger than Tamworth, who took us to extra time. A lot stronger than Leicester, who also beat us at home. A lot stronger than AZ. A lot stronger than…
 
Bedfordspurs said:
One thing I’ve argued with my mates is that maybe Ange would adapt if he had more options in the squad
the low block set up only came when he had his first choice defence
Click to expand...

I guess the contra question is which members of the squad don't enable this versatility of tactical system? I think we can see that Davies is no VDV but I don't really see other obvious candidates. I also read that Ange's system isn't suiting some of our existing players like Son or Johnson. So we're also seeing the counter argument.
 
It could easily be the right decision to replace him now. But obviously it's impossible to know if he really has an approach for next season other than park the bus or high line inverted FBs insanity
 
LutonSpurs said:
It could easily be the right decision to replace him now. But obviously it's impossible to know if he really has an approach for next season other than park the bus or high line inverted FBs insanity
Click to expand...
Agreed; which probably means that the two years of evidence we already have has to hold a lot of weight.
 
Muttley said:
I guess the contra question is which members of the squad don't enable this versatility of tactical system? I think we can see that Davies is no VDV but I don't really see other obvious candidates. I also read that Ange's system isn't suiting some of our existing players like Son or Johnson. So we're also seeing the counter argument.
Click to expand...
It’s not that IMO
It’s plan B maybe is the low block and he thinks for that to succeed we need certain players
 
I'd forgotten that Ange will have won himself a CL bonus, I was just thinking about the EL Cup bonus- and I did have the sneaky thought that maybe Ange prioritised the Cup because he thought he wanted to earn that EL Cup bonus. Well never know how much financial ambition drove Ange down that path....
 
thfcsteff said:
What continues to confuse me is why some people (not you I must clarify) seem to think that IF Ange were retained he would play the same game/take the same shot? Why are people so hellbent on feeling this guy is not about to change anything for anyone and would do it all the same way again even if the squad had a higher levels of availability? I really don't get it.
Click to expand...
Because he persisted with it for 90 games, averaging 1 point a game. Usually 4-5 games of something failing is enough to make someone think again
 
Muttley said:
I think you know I have been as accepting of the injury / fatigue conversation as anyone. It is totally legitimate. We did have a crazy season with injuries and had we finished lower mid-table then I sort of get it. We finished 17th on 38 points.

I think it is worth remembering that even though the club played 60 games, our top contributor Porro only played the equivalent minutes of 45 games. Him, Kulu and Solanke definitely had a period of extreme intensity whereas most had it OK. It's also forgotten that a lot of our players could finish the season strong because of the natural gaps they had in their schedules (e.g. Bents/Biss). Whilst we had the most minutes lost to injury, my guess is probably had the highest distribution of minutes shared across an entire squad. So it is never as black and white as some are making out, especially beyond mid Feb and the first phase of the season.

I also think it is easy to use a weakish line-up like Kinsky, Spence, Davies, Gray and Porro. Was that an outlier though across 60 games or did those guys take the field together regularly? Otherwise it moots that argument somewhat, at least for me. I mostly saw line-ups that were comparable or better than our opposition in the latter part of the season.

Anyway, let's look forward. The squad gets deeper again and I guess we find out whether it's player durability, game intensity or training techniques that mean we never seem to have an optimal squad.
Click to expand...
What about Dragu? I recall him playing a lot before his injury. It's like we don't or didn't have a squad. But the range of options in each are/were the best I've known in recent times. Palace have a small squad in comparison, the loss of key players is more keenly felt. So a simple comparison of games played is lacking context.
 
I've said this before but beyond the romanticism of a fairly fortunate cup win in a tournament we were faves for shouldn't be driving massive decisions. All of the results in the season have to be considered. And on that basis his position is probably only tenable because he wasn't as unlucky as others in cups.

Spurs cannot go in to the season thinking we will give him till Xmas. It has to be full commitment or the dressing room struggles.

So that means new contract for Ange and full expression of support

Or move on.

The in behween thing will be an unmitigated disaster
 
LutonSpurs said:
I've said this before but beyond the romanticism of a fairly fortunate cup win in a tournament we were faves for shouldn't be driving massive decisions. All of the results in the season have to be considered. And on that basis his position is probably only tenable because he wasn't as unlucky as others in cups.

Spurs cannot go in to the season thinking we will give him till Xmas. It has to be full commitment or the dressing room struggles.

So that means new contract for Ange and full expression of support

Or move on.

The in behween thing will be an unmitigated disaster
Click to expand...
The board obviously won't keep him on thinking they will give him x amount of months, but the fact is if the league form looks anything like last season he would be gone within a couple of months. We have replaced both Ramos and Nuno early season and gone on to have good sesasons, it doesn't necessarily mean will be a disaster.

Also, in what way was it a 'fairly fortunate cup win'?
 
harr1984 said:
The board obviously won't keep him on thinking they will give him x amount of months, but the fact is if the league form looks anything like last season he would be gone within a couple of months. We have replaced both Ramos and Nuno early season and gone on to have good sesasons, it doesn't necessarily mean will be a disaster.

Also, in what way was it a 'fairly fortunate cup win'?
Click to expand...

It wasn't exactly a hard run in my view and the final was smash and grab. I've not watched it back once. Just the celebrations about 50 times.

In terms of manager. I'd always want a new manager to have pre season.
 
LutonSpurs said:
It wasn't exactly a hard run in my view and the final was smash and grab. I've not watched it back once. Just the celebrations about 50 times.

In terms of manager. I'd always want a new manager to have pre season.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, not sure I'd constitute any of that lucky but we all see things differently.

Sure, that would be ideal - just saying, its not necessarily a disaster and with the way our recruitment works any potential manager would/should be aligned with our transfer strategy so pretty happy with the squad (no doubt we will end up appointing a Conte type now :D)....
 
thfcsteff said:
What continues to confuse me is why some people (not you I must clarify) seem to think that IF Ange were retained he would play the same game/take the same shot? Why are people so hellbent on feeling this guy is not about to change anything for anyone and would do it all the same way again even if the squad had a higher levels of availability? I really don't get it.
Click to expand...

He said himself after the Chelsea slaughter that "if we went down to five we would still play the same"

Some fans with selective memories just don't see the man for what he is.
 
HarryBreadbap said:
He said himself after the Chelsea slaughter that "if we went down to five we would still play the same"

Some fans with selective memories just don't see the man for what he is.
Click to expand...

To be fair, he went against his entire philosophy in the EL Final. There was also little sign of 'Angeball' (not that I believe that realy exists) last season.
 
Robspur12 said:
What about Dragu? I recall him playing a lot before his injury. It's like we don't or didn't have a squad. But the range of options in each are/were the best I've known in recent times. Palace have a small squad in comparison, the loss of key players is more keenly felt. So a simple comparison of games played is lacking context.
Click to expand...

Agree, there are almost 4 phases of the centre half options broken into half seasons between transfer windows.

23/24 1H: Romero, VDV, Dier, Davies, Phillips, Emerson
23/24 2H: Romero, VDV, Dragusin, Davies, Dorrington, Emerson
24/25 1H: Romero, VDV, Dragusin, Davies, Gray, Dorrington
24/25 2H: Romero, VDV, Danso, Dragusin, Davies, Gray

I think we all see the transitions, and definitely remember the injuries. More bodies that previously throughout though.
 
thfcsteff said:
What continues to confuse me is why some people (not you I must clarify) seem to think that IF Ange were retained he would play the same game/take the same shot? Why are people so hellbent on feeling this guy is not about to change anything for anyone and would do it all the same way again even if the squad had a higher levels of availability? I really don't get it.
Click to expand...

It's the scale of change required, not sure how you don't see that.

As I've said, top 6 is status quo for the club for pretty much two decades (it's not overachieving at this point), so Ange's change would require -> cutting out 13 losses, reducing conceded goals by 14 in a 38 game season, earning 28 more points, just to meet par? That's not a tweak, it's a massive change.

DubaiSpur said:
To offer another perspective, Crystal Palace and Saudi Sportswashing Machine each played 48 games this season on the way to their respective trophies.

We played 60. That's a full 25% more games, while having the 2nd-worst injury crisis in the league.

I wouldn't call a back five of Kinsky, Spence, Davies, Gray and Porro an 'incredibly strong' lineup mate - but that (plus Danso) is what we had to rely on for large and crucial parts of the season.

For context - We had the 2nd-highest minutes lost to injury in the PL this year, at 1553. Palace sit 9th, at 1041. Chelsea 15th, at 828. Saudi Sportswashing Machine 17th, at 779.

We had 41 separate injuries this year, second only to Brighton with 43. Chelsea and Saudi Sportswashing Machine are 14th and 15th, with 24 each. Palace are 17th, with 23.

Some of that, you can probably put down to Ange's tactics causing muscle injuries (haring around after the ball - we had the most distance covered of any side this season). But there's enough there to argue we faced challenges almost no other team did.
Click to expand...

And those are all valid points, and would be much more credible context if we had won our home games against the dross of the PL and struggled against better sides, we just plain struggled against everyone.

Listen, I want to believe, but it feels like that call to give a relationship one more go when you "know" what's going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back