• 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

Ange in or out?

Ange in or out?

  • In

    Votes: 84 51.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 78 48.1%

  • Total voters
    162
It's a rhethorical question. As for the youngsters, there are basically two philosophies: some people think they should be introduced sparingly and only when the team is doing well; others believe that if you're good enough, you're old enough. From my point of view, giving more minutes to younger players would have been beneficial for all parties.

Now, if you're talking about the results themselves, I'd be tempted to say that they couldn't possibly have been worse.

But let's look at it differently: I keep hearing that our poor results and performances are due to fatigue and a lack of rotation. How could rotating the players - event if that means losing a few games we lost anyway - make the situation any worse? You really think we'be in the relegation zone if Reguilon or Lankshear had played half a dozen more games?

Thanks, perhaps not so different from my thinking to be fair.

Reggie - will finish our most ever injury impacted season with somewhere between the equivalent of the minutes of 2-3 games only when he's been fully fit and available. He's also played OK when he's cameo'd. I don't back the manager on this. Reggie has been a model pro in my mind.

Spence -this guy didn't go through a personality transplant and suddenly become better in the last 12 months. Such a shame he had to be exiled on loan because we needed to work through the Emerson transition. As for this season, he may not have been available due to injury when fans have been screaming for him earlier in the season. However, the EL exclusion wasn't the best call in my opinion.

The kids - every one of them that have been on that pitch have contributed something, even goals, and our senior players are most in the red zone in the later stages of games. I felt that they could have cameo'd more but in a way that still protects them from too much heavy exposure. It was also the Ange/Burnett collaboration that picked the 16/17 year olds when there were 19-21 year olds available in our U21's. I found that intriguing.

As for the results. the amount of games that have been decided by the odd goal suggests just a couple of good moments may have got us an extra couple of points, perhaps more. I don't think it would have changed anything drastically though.

It could be argued that Ange has put learning experiences ahead of pragmatism, and it is very possible he is right. Every time a tired body and mind has made a bad call, it means they will have less chance of making that decision wrong again next time. I sort of get the philosophy but think Ange may have over rotated on it.

There is no right or wrong here.
 
Was watching the Merseyside derby last night and couldn’t help but admire the way Everton made life really difficult for Liverpool. Granted it was the last derby at Goodison, but they turned the game into a fight, a battle, a scrap. Why don’t we ever do that when we play our rivals? Do we think it’s beneath us? Saudi Sportswashing Machine wound up the gooners something chronic in the league cup, Trippier in particular. Not only are we one of the easiest teams in the league to get at and play against because we give so many chances away, we rarely make life hard for the opposition.
 
Was watching the Merseyside derby last night and couldn’t help but admire the way Everton made life really difficult for Liverpool. Granted it was the last derby at Goodison, but they turned the game into a fight, a battle, a scrap. Why don’t we ever do that when we play our rivals? Do we think it’s beneath us? Saudi Sportswashing Machine wound up the gooners something chronic in the league cup, Trippier in particular. Not only are we one of the easiest teams in the league to get at and play against because we give so many chances away, we rarely make life hard for the opposition.

Been like that for decades, aside from a short deviation from the norm under Poch.
 
Thanks, perhaps not so different from my thinking to be fair.

Reggie - will finish our most ever injury impacted season with somewhere between the equivalent of the minutes of 2-3 games only when he's been fully fit and available. He's also played OK when he's cameo'd. I don't back the manager on this. Reggie has been a model pro in my mind.

Spence -this guy didn't go through a personality transplant and suddenly become better in the last 12 months. Such a shame he had to be exiled on loan because we needed to work through the Emerson transition. As for this season, he may not have been available due to injury when fans have been screaming for him earlier in the season. However, the EL exclusion wasn't the best call in my opinion.

The kids - every one of them that have been on that pitch have contributed something, even goals, and our senior players are most in the red zone in the later stages of games. I felt that they could have cameo'd more but in a way that still protects them from too much heavy exposure. It was also the Ange/Burnett collaboration that picked the 16/17 year olds when there were 19-21 year olds available in our U21's. I found that intriguing.

As for the results. the amount of games that have been decided by the odd goal suggests just a couple of good moments may have got us an extra couple of points, perhaps more. I don't think it would have changed anything drastically though.

It could be argued that Ange has put learning experiences ahead of pragmatism, and it is very possible he is right. Every time a tired body and mind has made a bad call, it means they will have less chance of making that decision wrong again next time. I sort of get the philosophy but think Ange may have over rotated on it.

There is no right or wrong here.
Agreed.
To put it more simply, would you rather have seen
Fit Solanke for 70 mins, then fit Lankshear for 20 mins. Every game.
OR
Fit Solanke for 90 mins for 10 games, then no Solanke at all for 10 games?

For me it has to be the former. Fit Solanke for 70 then Fit someone else for 20 whether that is Lankshear or Richie or Ajayi or Zangalo Zaaanga Zangalo or Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink
 
Was watching the Merseyside derby last night and couldn’t help but admire the way Everton made life really difficult for Liverpool. Granted it was the last derby at Goodison, but they turned the game into a fight, a battle, a scrap. Why don’t we ever do that when we play our rivals? Do we think it’s beneath us? Saudi Sportswashing Machine wound up the gooners something chronic in the league cup, Trippier in particular. Not only are we one of the easiest teams in the league to get at and play against because we give so many chances away, we rarely make life hard for the opposition.

Yeah, infuriating that Legohead has taken 9 points from WHL over these past 3 seasons which is the Woolwich Wanderers best run at our gaff since the 1970s.

Hopefully we’ll have a few more homegrown players getting game time next season so they can ensure the whole squad know how important it is to not lose to those noisy nomads.
 
That's 3 players. And playing 90-100 odd minutes more than the likes of Fernandes, Haaland etc is not necessarily abnormal when you consider we got to the league cup semi therefore that run meant extra fixtures compared to other PL teams. That's my point. 3 players playing a bit more but still within tolerance of "normal" does not explain the poor performances we are seeing by itself.
Just guessing here, but I think they've played close to as much football as its possible during this period. Kulusevski rested for some of the Tamworth game, Porro for the Liverpool game.

We use words differently, but if close to the maximum possible is still within "normal" (however or defines it) then as a term for describing this it becomes more or less useless. If anything is X, then X is no longer descriptive of anything.

3 players, that's 30% of our outfield players. If you add that we've probably had other players for most of our games that weren't quite ready for 90 minutes (or however long they've played), Son seems like an obvious example that's a significant portion of our outfield players most likely affected quite a bit by fatigue.

Mix in key players missing, regularly starting quite a few inexperienced teenagers, little to no time on the training ground, form and confidence and I think that explains a lot of what's been going on.
 
Was watching the Merseyside derby last night and couldn’t help but admire the way Everton made life really difficult for Liverpool. Granted it was the last derby at Goodison, but they turned the game into a fight, a battle, a scrap. Why don’t we ever do that when we play our rivals? Do we think it’s beneath us? Saudi Sportswashing Machine wound up the gooners something chronic in the league cup, Trippier in particular. Not only are we one of the easiest teams in the league to get at and play against because we give so many chances away, we rarely make life hard for the opposition.
We had a bit of that for a time, under Mourinho, but some fans (at least, on here) didn't enjoy it. I can also think of a couple of more cynical performances under Conte. The Manchester United will forever remain a blur on Moyes' CV, but you have to admire his work at Everton. It's not pretty, but it's exactly what they need.
 
Answers below...

Thanks, perhaps not so different from my thinking to be fair.

Reggie - will finish our most ever injury impacted season with somewhere between the equivalent of the minutes of 2-3 games only when he's been fully fit and available. He's also played OK when he's cameo'd. I don't back the manager on this. Reggie has been a model pro in my mind.

Ange played him more than Nuno, Mason, and Conte. He is not up to it for us IMO.

Spence -this guy didn't go through a personality transplant and suddenly become better in the last 12 months. Such a shame he had to be exiled on loan because we needed to work through the Emerson transition. As for this season, he may not have been available due to injury when fans have been screaming for him earlier in the season. However, the EL exclusion wasn't the best call in my opinion.

I am not sure how you definitively know this about Spence. My view? The loans helped develop him into what we're now seeing. The Europa debacle? Agreed (club fault more than manager fault). Once again, another player that Conte not only didn't play, but actively distanced himself from when he signed.



The kids - every one of them that have been on that pitch have contributed something, even goals, and our senior players are most in the red zone in the later stages of games. I felt that they could have cameo'd more but in a way that still protects them from too much heavy exposure. It was also the Ange/Burnett collaboration that picked the 16/17 year olds when there were 19-21 year olds available in our U21's. I found that intriguing.

Interested to hear what your methodology would've been. And I'm not sure there's anything too interesting other than that Mikey Moore is a rare talent, and the likes of Scarlett, Donley, and Devine were developing on loan. Youth football is fine margins. Look at Tyrese Hall, a gifted and lovely to watch player but who apparently is considered to not have enough zip/pep/dynamism in his play.


As for the results. the amount of games that have been decided by the odd goal suggests just a couple of good moments may have got us an extra couple of points, perhaps more. I don't think it would have changed anything drastically though.

It could be argued that Ange has put learning experiences ahead of pragmatism, and it is very possible he is right. Every time a tired body and mind has made a bad call, it means they will have less chance of making that decision wrong again next time. I sort of get the philosophy but think Ange may have over rotated on it.

There is no right or wrong here.

There are no absolutes, agreed.
 
Thanks, perhaps not so different from my thinking to be fair.

Reggie - will finish our most ever injury impacted season with somewhere between the equivalent of the minutes of 2-3 games only when he's been fully fit and available. He's also played OK when he's cameo'd. I don't back the manager on this. Reggie has been a model pro in my mind.

Spence -this guy didn't go through a personality transplant and suddenly become better in the last 12 months. Such a shame he had to be exiled on loan because we needed to work through the Emerson transition. As for this season, he may not have been available due to injury when fans have been screaming for him earlier in the season. However, the EL exclusion wasn't the best call in my opinion.

The kids - every one of them that have been on that pitch have contributed something, even goals, and our senior players are most in the red zone in the later stages of games. I felt that they could have cameo'd more but in a way that still protects them from too much heavy exposure. It was also the Ange/Burnett collaboration that picked the 16/17 year olds when there were 19-21 year olds available in our U21's. I found that intriguing.

As for the results. the amount of games that have been decided by the odd goal suggests just a couple of good moments may have got us an extra couple of points, perhaps more. I don't think it would have changed anything drastically though.

It could be argued that Ange has put learning experiences ahead of pragmatism, and it is very possible he is right. Every time a tired body and mind has made a bad call, it means they will have less chance of making that decision wrong again next time. I sort of get the philosophy but think Ange may have over rotated on it.

There is no right or wrong here.
I think we're not that far and @Bullet's post has it in a nutshell. Being a manager at a club like Spurs (also) means working with resources available. If you want to send a player to Coventry (figuratively or literally), it's fine so long as you get the results, but don't be surprised if some people start asking questions when things go South. Likewise, I don't see how you can complain about players' fatigue when you don't use every tool at your disposal.

I can perfectly understand why people don't rate Reguillon, for instance. But honestly, the worst he could have done is being useless on the pitch. If we have a look at the match threads from the past couple of months, I've got a feeling he wouldn't be the only one. So, yes, sometimes, you have to use stop-gap solutions. Sometimes, you have to play someone who has no future at the club. It's nice to have grand plans and ideals, but you also have to manage the actual situations. If you won't, write a book instead.
 
I think we're not that far and @Bullet's post has it in a nutshell. Being a manager at a club like Spurs (also) means working with resources available. If you want to send a player to Coventry (figuratively or literally), it's fine so long as you get the results, but don't be surprised if some people start asking questions when things go South. Likewise, I don't see how you can complain about players' fatigue when you don't use every tool at your disposal.

I can perfectly understand why people don't rate Reguillon, for instance. But honestly, the worst he could have done is being useless on the pitch. If we have a look at the match threads from the past couple of months, I've got a feeling he wouldn't be the only one. So, yes, sometimes, you have to use stop-gap solutions. Sometimes, you have to play someone who has no future at the club. It's nice to have grand plans and ideals, but you also have to manage the actual situations. If you won't, write a book instead.

Err...he has played Reguillon. And define 'every tool'...I'd say using Reguillon is absolutely using the bottom end of the 'tool' drawer. And before the leap to defend him comes, how has he managed to avoid being selected by two or three managers in a row? Could it possiblt be because he isn't showing up in training well enough? Repeatedly? Again, I hear this 'should've used squad more' a lot, well who should he have been using that he hasn't?
 
Err...he has played Reguillon. And define 'every tool'...I'd say using Reguillon is absolutely using the bottom end of the 'tool' drawer. And before the leap to defend him comes, how has he managed to avoid being selected by two or three managers in a row? Could it possiblt be because he isn't showing up in training well enough? Repeatedly? Again, I hear this 'should've used squad more' a lot, well who should he have been using that he hasn't?
In Reggie’s case maybe at the club they feel we are better off limping on without him
There is a reason managers here don’t want him and other clubs didn’t buy him
But we as fans see a body there willing of not able so think we know best
 
Err...he has played Reguillon. And define 'every tool'...I'd say using Reguillon is absolutely using the bottom end of the 'tool' drawer. And before the leap to defend him comes, how has he managed to avoid being selected by two or three managers in a row? Could it possiblt be because he isn't showing up in training well enough? Repeatedly? Again, I hear this 'should've used squad more' a lot, well who should he have been using that he hasn't?
I don't care if he's crap or if he was slacking off in training! As for playing him, come on! He played 200 minutes of football in six months. I think a better argument against him is that playing him wouldn't have helped much in terms of injuries.

As for 'every tool', I have no problem defining it: young players at the club. Again, I understand it's a fairly common view in England that young players should be 'protected' and introduced into the team only when the results are good. That's one point of view but in other parts of the world, when a young player is considered as talented (and sometimes, even when they're not but an opportunity arises) they're thrown in at the deep end and you get to see who sinks and who swims.

It's perfectly understandable that you use different standards in the use of youngsters but, then again, you can't really ask me to make my opinion based on yours when you won't use mine yourself, can you?

Regardless, i think my overarching point stands: he's here until the end of the season. In football, you can hardly be safer than that. If we know it, there's a good chance that he knows it too. By that logic, if he'd given more game time to people like Lankshear, Dorrington, Olusesi or even Werner what's the worst that could have happened? We would have lost the games they played in? Playing Sarr through injury didn't work that well either, though.

In my opinion - and, yes, it's just my opinion -, since he had the luxury of knowing he would be there until the end of the season, he would have done a better job if he had used these players, even as substitutes. You can't complain all the time about injuries and fatigue and keep players on the bench / or simply not use them at all. We wouldn't be in the Top 6 if had done that, of course, but we wouldn't be worse off either and, at this point, managing fatigue and injuries should be a priority - otherwise, that means it's not that big of a problem.
 
I don't care if he's crap or if he was slacking off in training! As for playing him, come on! He played 200 minutes of football in six months. I think a better argument against him is that playing him wouldn't have helped much in terms of injuries.

As for 'every tool', I have no problem defining it: young players at the club. Again, I understand it's a fairly common view in England that young players should be 'protected' and introduced into the team only when the results are good. That's one point of view but in other parts of the world, when a young player is considered as talented (and sometimes, even when they're not but an opportunity arises) they're thrown in at the deep end and you get to see who sinks and who swims.

It's perfectly understandable that you use different standards in the use of youngsters but, then again, you can't really ask me to make my opinion based on yours when you won't use mine yourself, can you?

Regardless, i think my overarching point stands: he's here until the end of the season. In football, you can hardly be safer than that. If we know it, there's a good chance that he knows it too. By that logic, if he'd given more game time to people like Lankshear, Dorrington, Olusesi or even Werner what's the worst that could have happened? We would have lost the games they played in? Playing Sarr through injury didn't work that well either, though.

In my opinion - and, yes, it's just my opinion -, since he had the luxury of knowing he would be there until the end of the season, he would have done a better job if he had used these players, even as substitutes. You can't complain all the time about injuries and fatigue and keep players on the bench / or simply not use them at all. We wouldn't be in the Top 6 if had done that, of course, but we wouldn't be worse off either and, at this point, managing fatigue and injuries should be a priority - otherwise, that means it's not that big of a problem.

I didn't ask you to make your opinion based on mine, I simply asked you to clarify/detail yours in terms of players you feel he should've used. You said Reguillon again (we disagree regardless of the reasons/context), Lankshear, Dorrington, Olusessi and Werner. For a variety of reasons I won't get into right now, I can see why they have not been thrown in like a Gray or Bergvall. BTW, with regards to 'different standards in the use of youngsters' I'll be clear on my view. Certain youngsters are more 'ready' than others to take on being a first-team player when young. Gray is an absolute freak in that regard, as he is already a leader. Bergvall has also shown great character, as has Moore. Others simply might not have that in their lockers yet.
 
Ange played him more than Nuno, Mason, and Conte. He is not up to it for us IMO.
Err...he has played Reguillon. And define 'every tool'...I'd say using Reguillon is absolutely using the bottom end of the 'tool' drawer. And before the leap to defend him comes, how has he managed to avoid being selected by two or three managers in a row? Could it possiblt be because he isn't showing up in training well enough? Repeatedly? Again, I hear this 'should've used squad more' a lot, well who should he have been using that he hasn't?

Let me take both of these. I remember being on a forum where Dele was slated like crazy by a few for being a waste of money and totally overrated. Some of us tried to make a few of these posters accommodate the compounding effect on Dele of his soft tissue injuries over 2-3 seasons and the burnout. It was the biggest reason Dele couldn't perform at the levels we all wanted him to be.

So with Reggie, when I read the "Ange played him more than....." it is just the same thing to me. Reggie started well at Spurs under Jose but developed that groin issue that turned into pubalgia.

For those that don't know, Pubalgia, also known as athletic pubalgia or sports hernia, is a chronic condition that causes pain in the lower abdomen and groin. It's often caused by an imbalance of strength between the abdominal and hip muscles.

Reggie had some serious brick going on with his body and had a terrible time in Madrid when Spurs were trying to see if he could get back to full fitness. I actually thought we had another Sess on our hands, especially when the body imbalance became a hamstring. He was also rumoured to have a knee op in 2022. Fortunately though he got things back on track at OT and Brentford and entered this season as a 27 year old almost back to normal again.

Now I'm not the biggest Reggie fan myself, but can clearly see that a RM academy player that gets all the way to the Spain national team isn't a complete duffer. A player that Athletico were good to take on loan. Not a great technician or even a perfect fit for us ultimately, but could have been of more value to Ange this season if given the opportunity.
 
I didn't ask you to make your opinion based on mine, I simply asked you to clarify/detail yours in terms of players you feel he should've used. You said Reguillon again (we disagree regardless of the reasons/context), Lankshear, Dorrington, Olusessi and Werner. For a variety of reasons I won't get into right now, I can see why they have not been thrown in like a Gray or Bergvall. BTW, with regards to 'different standards in the use of youngsters' I'll be clear on my view. Certain youngsters are more 'ready' than others to take on being a first-team player when young. Gray is an absolute freak in that regard, as he is already a leader. Bergvall has also shown great character, as has Moore. Others simply might not have that in their lockers yet.
It's been constantly mentioned by those who know their youth football that the likes of Lankshesr and Dorrington are nowhere near ready for PL football. The 'just play the youngsters, they can't do any worse' comments just smack of armchair fans with a short sightedness that don't appreciate the reality of youngsters getting involved at PL level. Ange has played youngsters with the quality and suitable experience. That includes Moore who undoubtedly has the most hype from our youth setup, yet whilst you can see his potential he still looks a way off being truly ready.

Dorrington was thrown on for his debut at Southampton and within a minute had given the ball away and Soton scored, only for it to be luckily disallowed by VAR. It's not as simple as some on here like to think it is, regardless of situation and the long term consequences have to be considered. Hence why there's literally no coaches in the PL playing a load of youth team players with next to no men's football experience, it's not just an Ange thing....
 
Back