Answers within the post my friend (great discussion BTW)...
I want a second apology in blood...
You won't even get it in digital ink!!!!
I actually don't really dislike Ange. He's annoyed me lately by confronting fans and biting at stupid stuff in press conferences but, despite my misgivings about his tactics from early on, I've always liked him, admired his principles and wanted him to succeed as I think if a manager can succeed playing balls-out attacking football, it'd be good for the game.
Gotcha.
All I'm seeing is excuses above Steff. How has the "mess our academy was in" negatively impacted Ange any more than Jose, Nuno or Conte? He has some really good players coming through in Scarlett, Dorrington, Donley, Moore and so on. His immediate predecessors didn't really have that.
No mate, not excuses, facts.
The job description he came into included dealing with that situation. Mourinho and Conte were brought in for short-term deliveries and given no responsibilities to deal with any of that structure. Nuno? I think he was woefully unlucky and left hanging by everyone. Scarlett, meanwhile, has been around since Jose days, Dorrington has been injured until recently and is not a great fit pace-wise for the club right now, Donely has been excellently managed as seen with the Orient loan, Moore was thrown in too quickly for proper development but has been managed well given the emergencies. In fact, the way we've developed Donely and Moore in particular will benefit the next incoming hugely.
If I take when Harry came in - the whole football structure was ripped up and he came in and managed through it with a very good first season and qualified for CL in the second season. He had a lot of brick in the squad initially but he dealt with it without dragging us down. You could argue Martin Jol did the same. The player turnover in his early reign was huge. When Poch came in, he had to deal with senior players phoning it in and he had to gamble on unproven youth. When Jose came in, he had a massive injury crisis too. He dealt with it much better than Ange. When Conte came in, he inherited a club in a lot of turmoil, he had to get Kane re-engaged and he got us top 4. All these guys were dealt bricky hands to an extent and they all dealt with it much, much better than Ange.
No mate, I disagree. He came into a side which had lost 52 goals in Berbatov and Keane, and was famously in the relegation zone. Harry was a desperate punt. Kelmsey told Levy to get Redknapp because he could get us out of it. He did. He made safe, short-term purchases. He got a few duds too. He nearly fudged Bale off. He was fun. But to say the football structure was ripped up when he came in? Only in the sense that Harry operates old-school and any of Levy's DOF stuff got parked because of it.
Jol certainly kick-started a lot for us. Arnesen, had he stuck around, would've been an excellent foil for Jol. He managed to implement some great younger players with experienced teachers on-field (Naybet, Davids...BTW, that might be one issue with the current system, that we didn't strategise enough to have one or two of those i.e. pay big for a Kimmich to teach teach teach!)...Poch speaks for himself - generational and we were blessed...Jose lied to get the gig (told Levy no rebuild was necessary as he could win with what was there)...Conte did superbly to get that CL spot, my big issue with him has always been that I felt he wouold walk if he felt unsupported, instead he stuck around despite feeling that and proceeded to c -unt out the entire club!
I know what Ange was referring to in his analogy but I'm using his words to articulate my opinion on him. When you've been mediocre to poor for 18 months, there are no excuses. Not injuries, not internal politics, not club structures. At some point, you have to accept that you're responsible. You look at Sunday - as MOTD2 highlighted, that was down to a poorly coached team and unprofessionalism. Not doing the basics.
For me it is not black and white across the time. Of course he has to accept responsibility - he's the manager - and there are reasons. You call them excuses.
I'd have loved for Ange to succeed, I really would. I'd have been happy to hold my hands up and say I got him wrong and watch him say "told you I win things in my second year maties". But it's not going to happen. It's reached the point of untenable.
And I think if you've paid close attention to what I've been saying in recent weeks, I agree, it has become untenable. Where we disagree is why.
BTW, why is everyone so hung up on this 'second year' rubbish? He was asked a question. He replied. Until post-Frankfurt or a knock-out in the Europa, it remains a factual truth.
For anyone still defending Ange, I'd ask this. In the circumstances he's had to manage through, what would he have had to do to be sacked or would you have given him a pass because of the injuries no matter what? If it's not a free pass, I don't know how anyone can still be in his corner.
Again, I wish you'd back away from the 'how anyone can still be in his corner' rhetoric. I am in his corner as a human being who has been doing the very best he can with a deck which has been incredibly lop-sided for long periods of his tenure. Does it feel like he's at the end of his road with us? Put it this way, the Spurs satnav suggests that is
exactly the case. But because I refuse (steadfastly in fact) to get into some of the IMO OTT rhetoric regarding him as a manager, does that mean I am 'in his corner'? Come on.
I'll add this as a closer. I watched the clips of our 'supporters' at Fulham, berating Ange and going off at Tel. I have n o time for it whatsoever, and frankly, given the bollox Postecoglu has been facing all season, I found hios reaction absolutely acceptable and (if anything) mellow. This perpetual idea that just because they're highly paid professionals they should accept being abused in public situations is IMO wrong. As much as I dislike Mourinho, I would never ever have abused him in person (all employees of ours get my benefit of doubt). My POV on abusing players in person has been noted before and has not changed.