Ange in or out?

[braineclipse]

Not nitpicking mate, but think Pool took 2 windows to close on VVD

It may be a nitpick, but it's also true. And I think it's an example worth following and an example we are following.

I know the example most often taken from that signing is pay big for a top class player and there's certainly a place for that.

To me the example is that it's better to spend some time getting the right player. Be that waiting a window or even two. Or be that signing a younger player and develop him into the right player.

 

[braineclipse]

When a player has to leave the pitch 15 minutes into his comeback game with a muscle injury, to me, that means that he's been rushed in or that he didn't train properly. In both cases, he had no business being on the pitch. If he had taken a knock, that would be a different story.

While injuries are part of the game, it's the coaching staff's responsability to keep the risk as low as possible. It's not just bad luck and we've had too many of these over the past 18 months.

Also, it's important to adapt your pre-season training to the manager's style. That's why a lot of managers prefer working with their own team. Postecoglou's willingness to work with the people already at the club is commendable but I'm not sure it's the most efficient way of doing things. Goes without saying that I don't have access to any special information, it's just my take on it though.

When players have been out injured for a while I think they will be more at risk for injuries because of a lack of match fitness.

These things will happen. If it's a recurring problem over and beyond what happens at other clubs we have an issue. I don't think we do and in general I think Ange is quite careful about bringing players back in too quickly, certainly has spoken about that.

 

[Grays_1890]

My point was that the stature of player you have mentioned there is the same as the stature we have been signing, ok not the window just gone but we have built our defence,including a cover player, on that calibre of signing.

As you are comparing us to Arsenal it may be worth reminding ourselves of who they were signing in Artetas first two summer windows (by way of comparison to Ange's first two summer windows) They weren't buying your Timbers & Califoris to supplement their first XI back then, they were signing the likes of Pablo Mari, Runarrson, Soares, Lokonga and Tavares for nominal fees.

But the point is to get to the team they are now, the team people seemingly aspire to be they have depth and quality beyond what we have and its taken a journey along with the manager to get there. A manger who also lost as many games in the first couple of years to get there till he got that depth. For me the parallels are clear.

Ultimately whoever gets the job, yes I sound like a broken record, needs time and money to get anywhere near the teams people are expecting us to compete with

 

[tommysvr]

So many fans are living in fear of alternatives to either Enic or postecoglu with rationally the alternative being unpalatable or worse … we surely couldn’t possibly do better. This is a mindset. Then bring in obscure counters like the only alternatives are what we are seeing at West Ham or some other drivel

What type of owner would you like, and which other Premier League teams have someone similar?

 

[Grays_1890]

Agreed. And, although we lack those game changing players that might mean we compete with the top 4 as they are currently, we are surely as good if not better than the teams 5-10 in the table. I think we need to be careful not to put Ange's shortcomings down to just squad depth.

Lack of real top level quality does not help either, neither does brainless Bissouma

 

[Bishop]

I am actually increasingly disgusted at the way Chelsea are effectively getting away with Sunday.
They're a squad assembled against all the principles of football (bought for a huge amount of money - stockpiled), and they can thus have two first 11s each week. People talking about what we spend, etc, should look at Chelsea's expenditure and how much their first 11 on Sunday cost versus ours. It is what it is, but let's not ignore it.
BTW, I have noticed the press have been relatively quiet with regards to the Caicedo 'red'. If it had been one of ours, it'd still be headline news!

The only principle in football is to win.

Everything else is just contextual or personal bias.

 

[fernadez]

This is how the manager has the team shaped and pressing the ball. This why I say it doesn't matter what DM you have in there when you leave him exposed like this. Sarr stepping up like that is nonsensical. He should have been told to sit alongside Bissouma.

This isn't managing a team. It wasn't a one of, it was the repeat pattern of the game. How are you setting up a team to leave your defence so exposed, and as usual we're having to defend by sprinting back towards our own goal.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

When players have been out injured for a while I think they will be more at risk for injuries because of a lack of match fitness.

These things will happen. If it's a recurring problem over and beyond what happens at other clubs we have an issue. I don't think we do and in general I think Ange is quite careful about bringing players back in too quickly, certainly has spoken about that.

That's where we disagree. What happens is 'impact injuries', when two players collide and yours, for whatever reason, ends up with a knock. What shouldn't happen are muscular injuries without any contact (just like cramps, by the way) because it means the player's body is unprepared (or poorly prepared) to the kind of effort required.

Of course, there are (a lot of) mitigating factors: number of games played, individual player's medical record and lifestyle, players lying in order to get back in the team quicker, inability to implement an adequate pre-season training for fear of alienating the players... It's impossible to go through a whole season without missing key players at some point. I'm not denying any of that but, in my opinion, there are two things pointing to a problem here:

1/ We can't complain about injuries all the time and then say it's part of the game when questions are asked. If they're part of the game and everybody has to deal with it, then they're irrelevant to our performances and shouldn't be mentioned.

2/ I haven't checked but I get the impression that a lot (a vast majority actually) of top coaches bring their own coaching staff with them. There might be a reason for that that goes beyond friendship or trust.

Unlike tactics, where Postecoglou's ways seem very set, that's something he has some measure of control over and that I feel could help him do a lot better. A lot of people claim injuries ruined his first season at the club. If it happens every season, around the same time period, maybe there's something to be done about it.

 

[Grays_1890]

When players have been out injured for a while I think they will be more at risk for injuries because of a lack of match fitness.

These things will happen. If it's a recurring problem over and beyond what happens at other clubs we have an issue. I don't think we do and in general I think Ange is quite careful about bringing players back in too quickly, certainly has spoken about that.

Its also compounded when players try crazy things in their own box and injure themselves

 

[Muttley]

Personally, I'm not worried about low salary levels at Spurs. It was always going to come down because our squad was incredibly sub-optimal and we offloaded high wage earners like Kane. We're almost through that phase now and you'll see wages go up again as new contracts are signed. Salary budgets is not the reason we buy young either. We buy young as it makes sense.

Ange needs perspective where he finds himself now. He knows he hasn't got a small squad or a lack of depth. He has the same size squad as every other club. What he needs to ask himself is can a normal sized squad stay healthy and perform in his tactical system for a 60 game season? They couldn't for a 41 game season, so what's changed? Then he'll realise that it is himself that needs to change. He needs to stop making this squad smaller than it actually is. He needs to trust more players, especially from the bench. He also needs to tweak his tactics slightly to manage the player workload better. That is why he earns the big bucks.

 

[Bishop]

Do I think Ange could be doing better with the squad yes, I think his defence structure is lacking and relies too much on pressing and dominating possession as a means of resting with the ball. We don't have the players who can truly keep possession well. In the games we have dominated possession we often lack cutting edge and meander in creating clean quality chances but still lose the ball in awkward and dangerous positions and ways. Against the better sides we've tended to not be able to dominate possession suggesting that the side is not as capable as those we are emulating in this key area.

I however do like his playing principles and I do believe it's a system that can work (with some obvious adjustments) with a better calibre of player. I don't know if I believe that ENIC have the stomach for that so it's going to need to be done via very clever scouting and patience.

I'm not sure if Ange is the one to do it but I feel like sacking him is pointless and just resets the clock. The limitations we have are the limitations that we have and no matter the manager that will be the case. He'd have to really show a lack of suitability for me to think he should go. I'm talking bottom half or no progress on the defensive framework.

 

[braineclipse]

View attachment 18219

This is how the manager has the team shaped and pressing the ball. This why I say it doesn't matter what DM you have in there when you leave him exposed like this. Sarr stepping up like that is nonsensical. He should have been told to sit alongside Bissouma.

This isn't managing a team. It wasn't a one of, it was the repeat pattern of the game. How are you setting up a team to leave your defence so exposed, and as usual we're having to defend by sprinting back towards our own goal.

Pretty much 100% confident that this isn't how Ange wants us to press our defend. It's not how we've pressed when successful at it, including earlier in the game.

Tired legs, tired heads. Lack of leadership. And yes, perhaps Ange could have done more to change/prevent it.

 

[Grays_1890]

Do I think Ange could be doing better with the squad yes, I think his defence structure is lacking and relies too much on pressing and dominating possession as a means of resting with the ball. We don't have the players who can truly keep possession well. In the games we have dominated possession we often lack cutting edge and meander in creating clean quality chances but still lose the ball in awkward and dangerous positions and ways. Against the better sides we've tended to not be able to dominate possession suggesting that the side is not as capable as those we are emulating in this key area.

I however do like his playing principles and I do believe it's a system that can work (with some obvious adjustments) with a better calibre of player. I don't know if I believe that ENIC have the stomach for that so it's going to need to be done via very clever scouting and patience.

I'm not sure if Ange is the one to do it but I feel like sacking him is pointless and just resets the clock. The limitations we have are the limitations that we have and no matter the manager that will be the case. He'd have to really show a lack of suitability for me to think he should go. I'm talking bottom half or no progress on the defensive framework.

Its where I am with it

Is Ange faultless, absolutely not

Do we have a squad with significant depth and or depth of quality, no

Is it a squad built with a longer term vision of youth for tomorrow, yes

Therefore should the view on management be one of a longer term........logically yes

I have also reflected on myself and my times as a supporter of Spurs supporter and despite the FA Cup its been, frankly, 30+ years of failure so am I now going to stamp my feet and demand yet another change when we are not 2/3 places this season better off than we should be, given that every other plan we have had has failed. I am on all in Ange this time, what is there to lose that 30 years has not lost already.

COYFS

 

[billyiddo]

But the point is to get to the team they are now, the team people seemingly aspire to be they have depth and quality beyond what we have and its taken a journey along with the manager to get there. A manger who also lost as many games in the first couple of years to get there till he got that depth. For me the parallels are clear.

Ultimately whoever gets the job, yes I sound like a broken record, needs time and money to get anywhere near the teams people are expecting us to compete with

My point was that as a comparison of squad building you were comparing us to where Arsenal are now, 5 (?) years in to their project, having seen incremental progress along the way to that point. Or did I misunderstand your referencing of the Caliafori & Timber signings?

In order to get to a level that we are competing with title challengers of course we need time and money, with increased quality in the starting XI and a deeper squad - however for our immediate goals I feel the squad is sufficient/strong enough.

 

[Grays_1890]

My point was that as a comparison of squad building you were comparing us to where Arsenal are now, 5 (?) years in to their project, having seen incremental progress along the way to that point. Or did I misunderstand your referencing of the Caliafori & Timber signings?

In order to get to a level that we are competing with title challengers of course we need time and money, with increased quality in the starting XI and a deeper squad - however for our immediate goals I feel the squad is sufficient/strong enough.

My point was that Arteta was as equally rancid with games lost as Ange but was afforded time and money, they are now more consistent given they have increased quality and depth, something we should be aspiring to achieve which would benefit our manager too IMO

What in your opinion are our goals?

 

[glorygloryeze]

Yes they were. Sherwood had done a good job in decreasing the average age of the team while improving THFCs league position from 7th to 6th after taking over from AVB (not to mention making the football a thousand times more watchable)

So you would have preferred Sherwood to stay instead of hiring either Poch or Van Gaal??

 

[Muttley]

Do I think Ange could be doing better with the squad yes, I think his defence structure is lacking and relies too much on pressing and dominating possession as a means of resting with the ball. We don't have the players who can truly keep possession well. In the games we have dominated possession we often lack cutting edge and meander in creating clean quality chances but still lose the ball in awkward and dangerous positions and ways. Against the better sides we've tended to not be able to dominate possession suggesting that the side is not as capable as those we are emulating in this key area.

I however do like his playing principles and I do believe it's a system that can work (with some obvious adjustments) with a better calibre of player. I don't know if I believe that ENIC have the stomach for that so it's going to need to be done via very clever scouting and patience.

I'm not sure if Ange is the one to do it but I feel like sacking him is pointless and just resets the clock. The limitations we have are the limitations that we have and no matter the manager that will be the case. He'd have to really show a lack of suitability for me to think he should go. I'm talking bottom half or no progress on the defensive framework.

I've asked myself what would happen if Ange had at his disposal the Pep 22/23 squad that had perceived depth, fitness and immense quality on the ball? Would that squad deal with the demands that Ange's tactical system requires versus Pep's tactics that won a treble?

I genuinely don't know the answer to this question. The optimist in me really wants to believe that Ange's system has what it takes. The realist in me has serious doubts. Even when Pep won the treble, he didn't really have 2 players for every position e.g. LB. He barely used Kalvin Phillips and Laporte all season and 2 of the kids, Lewis and Palmer, had to grow up really quickly. He had six U21's in that squad. What Pep did fantastically is adapt his tactical system based on the players, and mostly only 16-18 of them.

It does get you wondering whether we'll always have a reason that Ange's system isn't optimal.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Sounds like you want to go back to Mourinho and Conte’s low blocks (I have no idea whether or not that is what you actually want…. Maybe I’ll trawl back through yoir posts back then and find out)

Eh? So being defensively sound equals "low block" football??
I suppose in that case you don't think Poch or Redknapp's sides were defensively sound?
Maybe time to realise football tactics aren't so black and white?

 

[Mikey10]

I'm talking bottom half or no progress on the defensive framework.

We are bottom half.

How log on the defensive framework? He's had 18 months; how much longer do you feel he needs to get players doing the defensive basics? (Genuine question.)

 

[DeanoAustin]

So many fans are living in fear of alternatives to either Enic or postecoglu with rationally the alternative being unpalatable or worse … we surely couldn’t possibly do better. This is a mindset. Then bring in obscure counters like the only alternatives are what we are seeing at West Ham or some other drivel

I don't think it's that straightforward. On the owner issue, I've said it a million times, ENIC have probably taken us pretty much as far as their model allows. However, there are only a handful or prospective owners who can take us forward and many multiples of that who can take us backwards. Just saying "ENIC/Levy Out" is not a credible argument. It's who comes in to replace them that is the important part of that equation.

I'm "Ange in" but I do believe there are many managers out there who are better managers all other things being equal. But being successful at a club isn't just down to a manager's ability - there are a lot of variables at play. The reason I want us to stick with Ange is that by giving him more time, his style and tactics may become more embedded, we may get a better quality of player and we'll start to see the fruits of his labour.

We fire him and there is a re-set of sorts no matter who you bring in. We bring in a different style of coach even if he's "better" than Ange, then we really are ripping it up and starting again. That means new style and new players. Even if we bring in a similar style coach, he may not fancy some of our players and they'll have to learn a different way of playing even if it is similar to Ange. So the risk is that we take several steps back even if the manager is a "better" manager than Ange.

The potential downside of sacking him outweighs the potential upside of retaining Ange IMO. And that's not because we can't get a "better" manager. It's because of all the circumstances of where we are.

Have some patience and let's see where Ange can bring us. I'd give him this season and next but he should get this season minimum. Sack him now and the season will be more likely to be a write off anyway.