Finney Is Back
Colin Calderwood
Lol... Now I've heard it all....
-
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?
- Thread starter Yiddo
- Start date
parklane1
Vivian Woodward
I would agree with much of that, there is still a lot of work to do but when/if we get most of our missing players back added to the progress of our younger players i would think our side will be in a posistion to achieve.
thfcsteff
Vic Buckingham
You have to be trolling, right?
Robspur12
Frederic Kanoute
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Silly McSilly Face
Tony Parks
For me:
- The squad has had significant investment. But it is also clear the club has prioritised strategic investments in the club squad over what could have given Ange the best chance of succeeding now.
- Porro isn't a right-back for me. He wasn't bought as one either, he was a huge investment in a player to play right wing back in Conte's system. Ange has been asked to try and make the investment work for the club and while Porro's attacking instincts do suit "Angeball" his lack of natural positional instincts and defensive nous do contribute to the mess of a shape we get ourselves into easily and our openness to the easy counter - teams often attack us down that side and find acres of space. Villa's opening goal the other night was a great example and a total joke at that: first minute of a cup tie and it's like "i'll just have absolutely nobody in a white shirt in the bottom right third of the pitch shall I? Fill yer boots lads!"
- I think Ange would prefer a better holding midfielder. Bissouma nor Bentancur are that player but again they're opportunistic signings bought for a different manager that Ange is being asked to make work. Again, neither have a natural defensive or positional sense to play as the deepest midfielder in a system with both forging a career further forward at previous clubs.
In this respect I don't think Ange was a good fit for Spurs as a club, more in terms of club philosophy in terms of transfers and squad building. Postecoglu is a "system manager". He has his system that he plays everywhere he goes and to attempt to make it work you've got to give him XI round pegs for XI round holes. Spurs are never really ever going to do thar in the transfer market and so philosophy wise we'd be much better with a flexible manager that will build tactics and formations around whatever waifs and strays ENIC have found in the "18 months left on his contract won't sign a new one" bargain basement transfer bingo.
- The squad has had significant investment. But it is also clear the club has prioritised strategic investments in the club squad over what could have given Ange the best chance of succeeding now.
- Porro isn't a right-back for me. He wasn't bought as one either, he was a huge investment in a player to play right wing back in Conte's system. Ange has been asked to try and make the investment work for the club and while Porro's attacking instincts do suit "Angeball" his lack of natural positional instincts and defensive nous do contribute to the mess of a shape we get ourselves into easily and our openness to the easy counter - teams often attack us down that side and find acres of space. Villa's opening goal the other night was a great example and a total joke at that: first minute of a cup tie and it's like "i'll just have absolutely nobody in a white shirt in the bottom right third of the pitch shall I? Fill yer boots lads!"
- I think Ange would prefer a better holding midfielder. Bissouma nor Bentancur are that player but again they're opportunistic signings bought for a different manager that Ange is being asked to make work. Again, neither have a natural defensive or positional sense to play as the deepest midfielder in a system with both forging a career further forward at previous clubs.
In this respect I don't think Ange was a good fit for Spurs as a club, more in terms of club philosophy in terms of transfers and squad building. Postecoglu is a "system manager". He has his system that he plays everywhere he goes and to attempt to make it work you've got to give him XI round pegs for XI round holes. Spurs are never really ever going to do thar in the transfer market and so philosophy wise we'd be much better with a flexible manager that will build tactics and formations around whatever waifs and strays ENIC have found in the "18 months left on his contract won't sign a new one" bargain basement transfer bingo.
braineclipse
Terry Dyson
We need a manager willing and able to work with younger players and develop them. Ange is that.
I don't think the "system manager" thing is a problem, unless the expectation was for relatively short term success.
I think Porro is a fine full back when not exhausted and playing in an exhausted team.
I don't see how our transfer business in recent years can be described as you do in your final sentence.
Gazza
Jimmy Neighbour
No. Ange has shown he is a one dimensional manager who has let managers get the better of his teams with ease, by playing hoods stupid tactics over and over. He’s been out foxed so easily it’s rather comical
tommysvr
Dean Richards
He has a defined system but it hasn't always been the same one. His past squads also didn't need world class players well versed in their specific roles.
Kyogo Furuhashi vs Dominic Solanke is a good example of how he gets different types of players to function well within the confines of the style he wants (attacking, high press, overload the opposition, run them into the ground etc.)
demotw
Nico Claesen
From a certain perspective I would actually agree with this. I think at one point it could be argued we had the strongest team/squad in the league and player for player it would be hard to think who we would switch out.
I wouldn't necessarily say Poch underachieved, rather the whole team did - they regularly collapsed under pressure or when expectation was placed on them. But I would also add the Poch inherited most of the best parts of that team (the spine of LLoris/Eriksen/Kane/Rose/Walker/Verts/Dembele/Lamela all pre-dated Poch) so I think any manager would have done well with the talent we had. I also think his selections at times such as Kane in the CL final rather then an impact sub or worse selling Dembele mid season, personally I would have kept him on like Ledley, only playing him in the key games like the CL final and let his contract expire.
I loved Poch, but do think some fans over did it with him painting him out to be some sort of messiah/magician despite not winning a single thing. However, we only had such a strong team because Poch had developed the likes of Kane/Dele/Son plus others you had mentioned pre Poch - they might have been at the club before hand, but these guys were nowhere near what they became until Poch got hold of them....
Muttley
Steve Hodge
Your last sentence is definitely what Ange needs to become famous for. He needs to nurture like crazy with our young squad. If you are a system manager like Poch and Ange are then you need to get the players through those gears.
afsoc4life
Michael Carrick
For me the problem in Poch's time was squad depth. Once some members of the first 11 got injured, that was it. Spurs needed a better and stronger squad to win the title especially with playing and going far in cup games.
We didn't help by suggesting that no other player was good enough to make the first 11 or join the squad.
We didn't help by suggesting that no other player was good enough to make the first 11 or join the squad.
We had a good XI, that was greater than the sum of it's parts due to the setup, but a weak squad in terms of depth
Currently we have a good XI, that's playing less than the sum of it's parts and good/strong squad depth.
Agreed, and it was clearly in his remit to do so. I think he has been doing ok with it so far, we will see the long term benefits to the experience Gray has got being played in various positions this season, Bergvall being given more and more game time, Odobert used when fit, Moore being integrated without real pressure, now Tel, and I'd argue even Spence he did not involve until he thought was ready but of course they will be those that just say he was just forced into playing him. This season has been more of a bedding in season, you would really be wanting to see next season some of these players kicking on which I believe they are capable of whether Ange is here or not....
Muttley
Steve Hodge
Everything you say above is spot on, especially them finding an even higher gear next season. However, you've then got the 2 centre halves, Vuskovic and Phillips, pre-season. We have the 3 midfielders in Abbott, Donley and Devine, not to mention Yang as well.
It's easy to see the dilemma where, on one hand, you want these players put back in under Ange's (or other ) nurturing with the 1st team. However, you also want them playing and only having league and domestic cups doesn't present that opportunity.
Yiddo
Tom Huddlestone
But still won fudge all. He gets the award for trying the hardest but he had plenty of chances to win something and him and his team bottled it, its ok though because its all Levy’s fault.
Most people agree that our first 11 was arguably the best in the league at that time yet couldn’t win anything, surely thats underachieving?
Daisuk
Luka Modric
He moulded that team. We deserved to win more. We were the best team in the league the season Leicester won and the season after, in my opinion. We were also the best team in the CL final, in my opinion. The fact that we didn't win more was not down to him, he made that team the sexy powerhouse that it was, we were only margins and unlucky circumstances away from winning what we deserved. Retrospectively looking at that team and saying we should have won more and placing the blame of that on Poch just seems like looking for a negative angle that isn't really there, in my opinion. Bottom line for me: we would not have been that good in the first place without Poch.
monkeybarry
Steffen Freund
I'm with you on that - and it's the reason I'm Ange Out.
However - there is an element of allowing him to develop and learn (ready made EPL managers are few and far between - even fewer when we were hiring. The three we tried before Ange weren't what we needed).
The injury period should have taught him a lot; he now has a squad very close to being in a "normal EPL state" - I'll judge him between now and the end of the season.
If it's back to kamakaze tactics irrespective of the situation, he still needs to go.
If he's learnt how to adapt and tighten up - great. There is a lot to be said for consistency - as long as it's moving in the right direction (is that an oxymoron?!)
Underachieved in terms of trophies won (nil) for sure. I think the players have to take some of the blame for that e.g. FA Cup 2018. But regarding the league, the Leicester season came a year too early in our development (we would’ve walked it one year later), and our peak season 16/17 unfortunately coincided with Chelsea being out of Europe.
Bedfordspurs
Terry Naylor
Leicester season had a lot of things that year
City being brick
Teams bending over for Leicester
Us always playing after them and on Monday nights
Other teams faltering despite being top
Diving for penalties