• 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: 77 45.3%

  • Out

    Votes: 93 54.7%
  • Total voters
    170
Jordinho said:
The football under Ange is horrible to watch. Just chucking everyone forward doesn't make it attacking football, it just means the team is unbalanced and vulnerable.
Click to expand...

Add in the almost guaranteed conceding of at least one goal, and endless sideways and backwards passing, and there’s little enjoyment to be gained from watching us at the moment.
 
I think it is a great conversation to hear what football style Spurs fans want from the club. I've heard Ange talk as if he justifies the way he plays because it's our club's way. I'm not totally aligned with him.

Of course, we all want entertaining, front foot football and our genesis will always be Arthur Rowe's "push and run" football that Bill Nich (the player) adopted before heading into management . Way before our time, but I've always felt at our low points that there is not enough running off the ball. Under Jose and Conte we became static. Poch had us passing like crazy, but never really got to the running off the ball that I felt we needed to as we looked to get through the parked bus.

So for me, that pass and move football is a must. One touch, two touch football is great.

Then you come onto my second main theme. That came to me because my idol was Hoddle. Left foot or right foot, that Spurs legend could ping balls around the pitch effortlessly. That is why I've never believed that the ball should just be played on the deck. I love to see a medium to long pass and it's also because they are so effective.

Third and fourth for me is having players that can take a man on at "pace". Even if you have pass-and-move and mid/long range passers in your team you still need the flair players that have the skill. Pace is important for those guys, but also throughout the team especially defenders nowadays.

Lastly for me, is the ability to defend as a team. My other favourite player was Ledders. I love to see great defending. The reading of the game and the positional sense is imperative. Making it look easy because you don't need the blood and thunder, last ditch defending because you're stretched. A DNA of the entire team that a clean sheet is the be all and end of your performance.

It is obviously the last item here where I'm mostly at odds with Ange. For me, he has never put clean sheets as a high enough priority in his tactical system. Of course he likes them, but I'm not convinced he loves them. I'd also like to see more passes from back to front. I miss those raking balls from Toby, who was always will to take a risk and get the opposition thinking. With Ange's system, I haven't yet seen our opposition worry about these balls coming in the way they set up.

It's why I still feel the direction of travel is right with the club. We have so many raw ingredients that could see us play some amazing, winning football. I'm not sure it will be with Ange though.
 
veryoldspur said:
Nobody should be intentionally abusive towards another person regardless of colour or race. That also means a white person to a white person. For example, I don't believe it is any worse calling a fat person a fat c... than calling a black person a black c..., they are both abusive and unnecessary. That doesn't mean anyone should tread on egg shells either, and should have the right to like or dislike anyone they wish for what ever reason they wish. That's the difference between racism and racialism
Click to expand...
They are not equivalents. A person's weight unless caused by medical reasons is something that is conditional and adjustable by the person. My skin colour is not. If I'm a clam I'm a clam, what does my skin colour have to do with it? Why would someone mention a person's skin colour in an unrelated description.
 
Bishop said:
They are not equivalents. A person's weight unless caused by medical reasons is something that is conditional and adjustable by the person. My skin colour is not. If I'm a clam I'm a clam, what does my skin colour have to do with it? Why would someone mention a person's skin colour in an unrelated description.
Click to expand...

What about having ginger hair? Or having a big nose or being ugly?

Abuse is abuse. Discrimination is discrimination.

Treating racism as a higher crime than other abuse is discriminatory and racist in itself.
 
Bishop said:
They are not equivalents. A person's weight unless caused by medical reasons is something that is conditional and adjustable by the person. My skin colour is not. If I'm a clam I'm a clam, what does my skin colour have to do with it? Why would someone mention a person's skin colour in an unrelated description.
Click to expand...
Your arguing with a Troll
This is the guy who said women and children are what’s killed the game FFS
 
Lilbaz said:
What about having ginger hair? Or having a big nose or being ugly?

Abuse is abuse. Discrimination is discrimination.

Treating racism as a higher crime than other abuse is discriminatory and racist in itself.
Click to expand...
Offence is taken by the receiver
That’s the key
If someone isn’t offended by what is said, it isn’t offensive, and vice versa. It’s why I’ve really stopped singing Yid Army for example.
 
Gutter Boy said:
One is illegal and one isnt. Race is a protected characteristic under law. Whereas the other is just a lifestyle choice.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that, but it's my opinion that both are as bad as each other, and it could be argued that insulting somebody because of their weight is more hurtful than insulting someone because of their colour. For example, if I were called a white snowflake it wouldn't bother me at all, if someone said I was fat and ugly I may be a little offended, although I'm getting used to it now:p
Bishop said:
They are not equivalents. A person's weight unless caused by medical reasons is something that is conditional and adjustable by the person. My skin colour is not. If I'm a clam I'm a clam, what does my skin colour have to do with it? Why would someone mention a person's skin colour in an unrelated description.
Click to expand...
In a way you are agreeing with me. In no way would I ever be offended by someone insulting my skin colour, honestly it just wouldn't bother me. If I were to live in a predominantly black country and a person made a negative remark about me being white it would be water off a ducks back. However, if someone remarked on the fact I had a big nose or skinny arms I may be offended.

Personally I don't take little notice of colour, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't share a bit of banter (big deal). In actual fact one of my close friends is Anglo Indian, and the banter either way is great fun. He often says all white people look the same and we smell of p155, guess what, nobody gets offended. He eats little but spicy food, albeit he is as British as I am and shares the same culture. Sometimes I believe people see prejudice where it doesn't exist.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Offence is taken by the receiver
That’s the key
If someone isn’t offended by what is said, it isn’t offensive, and vice versa. It’s why I’ve really stopped singing Yid Army for example.
Click to expand...
You just contradicted yourself. Yid actually means "friend or pal" in Yiddish, and is not an offensive term. The only people who take offence are those who choose to. The vast majority of Spurs supporters who are Jewish are fine with it because it is about intent, and it's the same when a black person calls another black person the "N" word
 
Lilbaz said:
What about having ginger hair? Or having a big nose or being ugly?

Abuse is abuse. Discrimination is discrimination.

Treating racism as a higher crime than other abuse is discriminatory and racist in itself.
Click to expand...
You don't actually understand what racism is or means.

This isn't the place for this discussion to be honest so I'll leave it there.
 
The justifiable counter argument to abuse is abuse is that is much easier to define it as such if you, your family and generations haven't suffered by people now saying that all abuse is the same.

It's also harder to accept if right before your eyes you see tangible evidence that all abuse isn't the same, that when it's directed at a certain demographic it is dealt with and responded to very differently then when it's towards your demographic.

It's like someone cheating, going 10-0 up and then saying let's start from now, we'll play by the same rules but we'll keep our 10 goal advantage.

Personally I don't care what's said towards me racially, however to class it all as one without context towards history and what certain groups have suffered, and continue to suffer is a bit narrow sighted. Especially when that abuse has and continues to have the threat and actual violence attracted to it.
 
fernadez said:
The justifiable counter argument to abuse is abuse is that is much easier to define it as such if you, your family and generations haven't suffered by people now saying that all abuse is the same.

It's also harder to accept if right before your eyes you see tangible evidence that all abuse isn't the same, that when it's directed at a certain demographic it is dealt with and responded to very differently then when it's towards your demographic.

It's like someone cheating, going 10-0 up and then saying let's start from now, we'll play by the same rules but we'll keep our 10 goal advantage.

Personally I don't care what's said towards me racially, however to class it all as one without context towards history and what certain groups have suffered, and continue to suffer is a bit narrow sighted. Especially when that abuse has and continues to have the threat and actual violence attracted to it.
Click to expand...

So you know what another person or their family have suffered because of the colour of their skin? My mothers family were roma. They didn't suffer? The irish didn't suffer?

People of colour do not have a monopoly on suffering.
 
Lilbaz said:
So you know what another person or their family have suffered because of the colour of their skin? My mothers family were roma. They didn't suffer? The irish didn't suffer?

People of colour do not have a monopoly on suffering.
Click to expand...
Didn't mention skin colour did I?
 
Baleforce said:
Yes, I can imagine a scenario in which Moura starts and we win


It was a penalty by the laws of the game at the time.

Which they quickly changed.
Click to expand...

Here's the quote of the law at that time.

"When the arm is totally out of the body above the shoulder it should be penalised.

"If the defender is making the body bigger in order to block the ball it is not fair. It is different if the defender is challenging or playing the ball and it rebounds.

"But if he is looking to block a cross or a shot on goal and the player is trying to spread his body then it is a handball."

Watch the pen again. The arm is not 'above the shoulder' in any sense when the ball hits Sissoko's side. He is clearly not trying to make himself bigger to block anything. VAR was disgraceful in letting what was an obvious error go. I've watched it dozens of times and it is not a penalty even by those laws.
 
Lilbaz said:
So you know what another person or their family have suffered because of the colour of their skin? My mothers family were roma. They didn't suffer? The irish didn't suffer?

People of colour do not have a monopoly on suffering.
Click to expand...
I agree.
There is a old saying which goes like this [ sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me]
 
parklane1 said:
There is a old saying which goes like this [ sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me]
Click to expand...
Ahhh I said I was going to leave this alone. But the notion that racism is just a set of inconsequential words is a load of fudging flimflam. Again let's just say you don't actually understand and leave it at that.
 
parklane1 said:
Never said it was inconsequential did i.
Click to expand...
The saying sticks and stones suggests that it's ultimately just words that, yeah just suck it up. They can't hurt you.

If that's what you think then cool that's you're prerogative but it just shows that you haven't actually experienced it, or been moulded by it whereas many of us have been and are so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back