• 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

ITK Thread

Raziel said:
Good to see GG's fascination with Spurs players no longer in team continues

Caulker, Livermore, Hudd, Gomes, all no where near good enough for first team, absolutely no point in going back there
Click to expand...

Going back never works either

Hazard, Klinsmann, Sheringham, Defoe, Keane, Kaboul, Chimbonda - were all less successful in their second spells than their first ones.

Only Crouch and Ruddock are perhaps exceptions to that rule.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Going back never works either

Hazard, Klinsmann, Sheringham, Defoe, Keane, Kaboul, Chimbonda - were all less successful in their second spells than their first ones.

Only Crouch and Ruddock are perhaps exceptions to that rule.
Click to expand...

I'd say Kaboul was much better in his second spell until injuries got the better of him. Sheringham was 35 so never going to be the player he was
 
NWND said:
I'd say Kaboul was much better in his second spell until injuries got the better of him. Sheringham was 35 so never going to be the player he was
Click to expand...

Yeah - I forget that Kaboul was only with us for a year first time round.

I guess it's just the perception that he went from raw bright young thing, to a squad player who averages about 17 appearances a season.

It's telling that he's only played 89 times for us, compared to Dawson's 322, despite being virtual peers.
 
markysimmo said:
I dont think Mr Lewis would like him back after what he alledgedly said/did to Lewis's daughter in the Bahamas
Click to expand...
Made up rubbish (as about 90% of ITK seems to be).

Gutter Boy said:
Caulker left because he was frustrated at being 4th choice. He's still only good enough to be our 4th choice, so it makes no sense at all for him to come back. Plus there was his rumoured off-pitch issues.
Click to expand...
Personally I think Caulker is currently at a similar level to Dawson and already better than Kaboul (as well as being far less injury prone).

I would see Vertonghen first choice with Chiriches as his back up (although personally I'd hope to get a much better back-up than Chiriches) Caulker and Dawson would then fight it out for the other place. My thoughts are that with some good coaching (as I presume Pochettino will provide?) Caulker he would be the clear first choice ahead of Daws by the latter half of the season. He has all of the physical attributes required to be a commanding centre half and is also a very good athelete. The fact that he was a mainstay in Rogers Swansea team also indicates that he is comfortable on the ball. He also knows what the Premiership is all about (I don't think we should be taking a risk this season on a centre half that doesn't).

Gutter Boy said:
Going back never works either

Hazard, Klinsmann, Sheringham, Defoe, Keane, Kaboul, Chimbonda - were all less successful in their second spells than their first ones.

Only Crouch and Ruddock are perhaps exceptions to that rule.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm - I'm not sure that any of those cases are particularly comparable. In a majority of the cases you mention we went from having the players in their prime the first time round and then they came back later in their careers when clearly past their best....

Hazard, Sherringham, Chimbonda, Klinsmann and even Keane fell into this category. Even with this being the case both Sherringham and Klinsmann made decent contributions in their second spells.

Defoe and Kaboul were two who were both sold and rejoined at the peak of their careers. Personally I think that Kaboul's second spell at the club has been far better than his first (when he was a disaster) and I think that Defoe's second spell at the club was pretty much identical to his first spell.

We sold Caulker prior to him reaching his peak and we would be bringing him back still prior to him reaching his peak.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Personally I think that Kaboul's second spell at the club has been far better than his first (when he was a disaster)
Click to expand...

Depends how you measure success, he was part of the league cup winning side in 2008. But this logic also makes Justin Edinburgh the most successful Tottenham player in the last 25 years
 
Kaboul was widely written off as a flop signing and used as a stick to beat Comolli with. There were very few people who weren't pleased when we sold him to Portsmouth and there were A LOT of raised eyebrows when Harry brought him back. A few excellent performances at RB in the 2009/10 season, then by the 2011/12 season he'd become one of the best centre-backs in the country, forming an excellent partnership with King, and had even begun to start games for the French national side. Injuries have sadly ruined him, and they're also a big part of the reason Dawson has so many more appearances than he does.

Defoe I think was better the second time around. Not by much, granted, but he had his best goalscoring season with us the second time (24 goals, 18 in the league).
 
Gutter Boy said:
Going back never works either

Hazard, Klinsmann, Sheringham, Defoe, Keane, Kaboul, Chimbonda - were all less successful in their second spells than their first ones.

Only Crouch and Ruddock are perhaps exceptions to that rule.
Click to expand...

Not sure how relevant it is to compare players in their late twenties or early thirties returning to the club to a young player that never really had a proper run in the team with us.

The latter seems like standard operating procedure for Barca for example, with several success stories. The same for Carvajal at Real Madrid. I'm also quite sure that Bayern at one point wanted to bring Hummels back, but they couldn't complete the deal.
 
Who: Trix
Where: COYS
When: 5th June

Been told again, Lovren is without doubt interested and he is the most likely from Southampton depending on how many other players they let go before we can agree a price. They have set a limit on how many they will let go numbers wise, and are trying to stall everyone until they name their manager. We also want J Rod but his injury makes things difficult unless he comes very cheap. As far as my guy has been told they are the only two we are looking at as of this window, and the guy that has told him works at Lovren's Agency. He was bang on with all the Poch stuff very early on, so no reason to doubt this either.
 
Who: Grey Fox
Where: SC
When: June 5th

This was posted in the thread on both Andrija Balic and Nikola Vlasic from both of Hajduk Split. But it is only in regards to the former.

Grey Fox said:

Heard this morning this should be tidied up in the next few days :)
 
Full backs are just footballers too short to be centre halves and too **** to be midfielders. I know, I played RB all my life. We shouldn't waste too much money and effort trying to find a superstar. Just someone solid who doesn't **** it up half the time.
 
Superted said:
Full backs are just footballers too short to be centre halves and too **** to be midfielders. I know, I played RB all my life. We shouldn't waste too much money and effort trying to find a superstar. Just someone solid who doesn't **** it up half the time.
Click to expand...

Precisely our best two full backs of my spurs supporting memory = Vedran Corluka and Benoit Assou-Ekotto.

Both could defend and both could play the simple and intelligent ball out from the back.

Both also knew to play a supporting role without getting in the way of the wide players. So as a club what do we do? Yes, we sell one and send the other on loan to a Championship team!
 
Superted said:
Full backs are just footballers too short to be centre halves and too **** to be midfielders. I know, I played RB all my life. We shouldn't waste too much money and effort trying to find a superstar. Just someone solid who doesn't **** it up half the time.
Click to expand...

Very true. Or too young or old to be a CB. I played FB at both ends of my career when I wasn't good enough for my primary position.

Jonathan Wilson reckons it’s the most important position on the pitch though: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2009/mar/25/the-question-full-backs-football
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back