***OMT - Spurs vs Liverpool***

[glasgowspur]

That reminds me of an interview with Sheringham I saw on TV a few years back. The question he was asked was who was the best player he had ever played with? Sheringham said without hesitation that it was Roy Keane, which threw the presenter a little. Sheringham qualified his response by describing Keane's will to win as something almost palpable. For his Keane's teammates it was something that they either measured up to or withered away from, and that to me was the real secret to Utd's success. To leave the pitch defeated was not something that ever entered their minds.

This is the winning ethos we need to truly compete for a title. The belief that it is your right to win every single match irrespective of the opposition. I think we are getting there but still have a ways to go and that is why players like Lamela and Janssen (yep him) will be given more time than fans would expect. Lamela has turned around a Spurs career that was in a nosedive and that me shows his character. Janssen is having a very rough time of it in front of goal but never hides or fails to take responsibility.

Totally agree.
Compare keane with dembelle for instance in Saturday's game.
There's no doubt dembelle is a better footballer but if we had keane playing instead he would have dragged somebody over to that left hand side and told them to defend with their life. Don't fear what the opponent will do to you if you do, fear what I will do to you if you don't!.
We miss that, we miss badly. We get bullied in the midfield against the big teams. We dont foul when we should and they have momentum, but foul when we shouldn't and allow them to run the game out.

 

[Spur of the moment]

I just dont think that winning the first trophy is going to turn the team into commited winners.
Some will settle, some will get distracted and some greedy and lazy.
Not saying any of our players definitely would but you can't be sure.
To my mind you either have that or you don't.
We have a core of determined players who are going to give everything to make the best of themselves, but I would think the odds are that there's at least one or two that aren't.
Some of what I see is poch giving players the chance to prove they have that desire, if they don't they will be gone.
The replacements, should the need arise, may not even be as technically superior but will have the winning mentality that can make the difference.

Yep.

Different times, maybe, but after our Worthington League Cup win in February 2008 Juanda Ramos won just two of this remaining 21 PL games in charge before being sacked in October 2008.

In other words, serious relegation fears following a trophy win.

P21 W2 D8 L11 Pts14

 

[parklane1]

That would be fantastic. A trophy to send the old girl off (WHL).

I see a clear split on this board as to what actually defines a successful club. So a question to the floor- in the last say decade say, who would say has been a more successful club, Arsenal or Sevilla FC?

Only one winner in that choice and it has to be Sevilla, they have 8 trophys compered to 2 for the Arse.

 

[billyiddo]

That would be fantastic. A trophy to send the old girl off (WHL).

I see a clear split on this board as to what actually defines a successful club. So a question to the floor- in the last say decade say, who would say has been a more successful club, Arsenal or Sevilla FC?

Well Sevilla of course - a question in return, which club do you think is best set up for the medium/long term future?

 

[Pirate55]

Yep.

Different times, maybe, but after our Worthington League Cup win in February 2008 Juanda Ramos won just two of this remaining 21 PL games in charge before being sacked in October 2008.

In other words, serious relegation fears following a trophy win.

P21 W2 D8 L11 Pts14

Ramos wanted to get sacked though, so it isn't a fair comparison . That is the only explanation that makes any sense given his bizarre team selections.

 

[Yermiyahu]

Ramos wanted to get sacked though, so it isn't a fair comparison . That is the only explanation that makes any sense given his bizarre team selections.

I agree completely. His body language spoke of a man who simply didn't want to be there.

 

[Spur of the moment]

Ramos wanted to get sacked though, so it isn't a fair comparison . That is the only explanation that makes any sense given his bizarre team selections.

Okay then so let's look at our record since day one to see how many times a major trophy win led to more:

1901 (1)
1921 (1)
1951 (1)
1961-1963 (4)
1967 (1)
1971-1973 (3)
1981-1984 (3)
1991 (1)
1999 (1)
2007 (1)

So on three occasions winning a trophy proved to be the first of more but on the other seven it proved to be merely a one off.

 

[Hemant]

Okay then so let's look at our record since day one to see how many times a major trophy win led to more:

1901 (1)
1921 (1)
1951 (1)
1961-1963 (4)
1967 (1)
1971-1973 (3)
1981-1984 (3)
1991 (1)
1999 (1)
2007 (1)

So on three occasions winning a trophy proved to be the first of more but on the other seven it proved to be merely a one off.

Let's win one and then we can all be disappointed we didn't follow up with 2 or 3 others.

"Every long march starts with one step." M. Zeodung.

 

[billyiddo]

Let's win one and then we can all be disappointed we didn't follow up with 2 or 3 others.

"Every long march starts with one step." M. Zeodung.

Or look at what the difference was in the years we won several and try see if there's a pattern? Were we perhaps a more consistent top end of the league side in those years?

 

[Hemant]

Or look at what the difference was in the years we won several and try see if there's a pattern? Were we perhaps a more consistent top end of the league side in those years?

Of course, we should look for trends and learn lessons from history, with the proviso that attitudes and circumstances may have changed. However, We should seek the timeless, universal truths.
For me the common trends in the early 60s, 70s and 80s, when we were at our best were:

1. We had outstanding team and squad. Even in the 60s when squads were smaller, we boasted internationals playing in the reserves.
Imo there is no substitute for quality and top players on the pitch.
2. We had a top manager, Bill Nick and Keith Burkinshaw.
3. We bought the best players available, as the aim was "glory and style". Greaves, Chivers, Peters, Archibald, Ardiles and Villa.
Players at peak of their powers.
4. Expectations were to win every trophy, even though in this pursuit we perhaps neglected the league in the 70s.

I think the main difference between then and now is that we don't buy the very best but seek to buy potential with a view to gaining on sales. The business model now is different.
It may change with the new stadium?

What do you think?

 

[billyiddo]

Of course, we should look for trends and learn lessons from history, with the proviso that attitudes and circumstances may have changed. However, We should seek the timeless, universal truths.
For me the common trends in the early 60s, 70s and 80s, when we were at our best were:

1. We had outstanding team and squad. Even in the 60s when squads were smaller, we boasted internationals playing in the reserves.
Imo there is no substitute for quality and top players on the pitch.
2. We had a top manager, Bill Nick and Keith Burkinshaw.
3. We bought the best players available, as the aim was "glory and style". Greaves, Chivers, Peters, Archibald, Ardiles and Villa.
Players at peak of their powers.
4. Expectations were to win every trophy, even though in this pursuit we perhaps neglected the league in the 70s.

I think the main difference between then and now is that we don't buy the very best but seek to buy potential with a view to gaining on sales. The business model now is different.
It may change with the new stadium?

What do you think?

Im no Spurs historian so i don't have too much knowledge of the specific sides but id say that it seems the 3 periods we won several trophies were the years we had our best/most highly regarded teams/squads together for a few seasons, whether that is because they happened to be the most decorated so are looked back at more fondly or indeed they were the best groups of players we had i couldn't really say - id hazard a guess that they were on paper the best sides we had though.

What we have now is a set of young players and a young manager with potential, who if given time to develop that potential could become another great team (as opposed to potentially great) we aren't there yet which is why we come up short but time and experience will see this team improve, im sure - the fact our players are mostly 2/3/4 years away from the widely accepted peak level years for their respective positions is a good sign and im sure is no accident. We know we cant compete like for like with the 4 or 5 sides above us in the pecking order, which is probably the biggest difference between then and now, so we're playing the long game.

bit of a ramble that

 

[glasgowspur]

Of course, we should look for trends and learn lessons from history, with the proviso that attitudes and circumstances may have changed. However, We should seek the timeless, universal truths.
For me the common trends in the early 60s, 70s and 80s, when we were at our best were:

1. We had outstanding team and squad. Even in the 60s when squads were smaller, we boasted internationals playing in the reserves.
Imo there is no substitute for quality and top players on the pitch.
2. We had a top manager, Bill Nick and Keith Burkinshaw.
3. We bought the best players available, as the aim was "glory and style". Greaves, Chivers, Peters, Archibald, Ardiles and Villa.
Players at peak of their powers.
4. Expectations were to win every trophy, even though in this pursuit we perhaps neglected the league in the 70s.

I think the main difference between then and now is that we don't buy the very best but seek to buy potential with a view to gaining on sales. The business model now is different.
It may change with the new stadium?

What do you think?

I'm not sure that the main we buy potential isnt to make a profit on sales.
Pretty sure DL would have been happy to keep bale and modric and win titles.

 

[billyiddo]

I'm not sure that the main we buy potential isnt to make a profit on sales.
Pretty sure DL would have been happy to keep bale and modric and win titles.

Yeah I think we buy potential because we can't go out and buy a Bale or Modric if they are at their peak level so we need to get them before they reach that level - the pitfalls of that are if you have players that peak before the rest or only a couple develop how you intend then they will likely be targeted by others and want to leave

 

[Hemant]

I'm not sure that the main we buy potential isnt to make a profit on sales.
Pretty sure DL would have been happy to keep bale and modric and win titles.

As Billy says above it is difficult to keep top players if others and hence the team are not at the same level.
So how can DL manage to keep the likes of Bale and modric?

 

[glasgowspur]

As Billy says above it is difficult to keep top players if others and hence the team are not at the same level.
So how can DL manage to keep the likes of Bale and modric?

I'm not saying he could, I'm saying he would have liked to.
He would rather have the trophies they coukd/would win than the money.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Money has screwed the game so much from the 70's and 80's that what happened then bears no resemblance to what happens now.

Best we can do is bring through a core group of home grown players at the same time(we are doing this) and substituting it with clever signings(I do not think we are doing this)

 

[Spur of the moment]

Money has screwed the game so much from the 70's and 80's that what happened then bears no resemblance to what happens now.

Best we can do is bring through a core group of home grown players at the same time(we are doing this) and substituting it with clever signings(I do not think we are doing this)

Signed since Pochettino's arrival:
Dele, Dier, Aldereiweld, Son, Trippier, Wimmer, Davies, Nkoumou, Sissoko, Janssen, Vorm, N'Jie (currently on loan)
Come and gone: Fazio, Stambouli

One or two dodgy ones there but quite a few clever signings in amongst them too.

 

[Lemonade Money]

Signed since Pochettino's arrival:
Dele, Dier, Aldereiweld, Son, Trippier, Wimmer, Davies, Nkoumou, Sissoko, Janssen, Vorm, N'Jie (currently on loan)
Come and gone: Fazio, Stambouli

One or two dodgy ones there but quite a few clever signings in amongst them too.

You can't get much cleverer than Dele or Dier in terms of potential, or Alderweireld or Wanyama in terms of cheap PL ready.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

You can't get much cleverer than Dele or Dier in terms of potential, or Alderweireld or Wanyama in terms of cheap PL ready.

I also don't think you get many better backup keepers than Vorm, or backup fullbacks in Trippier or Davies. It wasn't so long ago that Davies was being tipped to join Chelsea for £20m.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Signed since Pochettino's arrival:
Dele, Dier, Aldereiweld, Son, Trippier, Wimmer, Davies, Nkoumou, Sissoko, Janssen, Vorm, N'Jie (currently on loan)
Come and gone: Fazio, Stambouli

One or two dodgy ones there but quite a few clever signings in amongst them too.

Fazio, Stambouli and N'Jie are the definite flops, sadly. The jury's out on Sissoko, Janssen and N'kodou, and it should stay that way (ideally) until the start of next season. Davies, Trippier and Wimmer have been reasonably solid backups - Wimmer has been a good backup on the whole, although that's been a bit marred by his recent struggles. Son's been a good signing on the whole, alternating between starter and sub but growing into his role as the past two seasons have progressed. Vorm, Dele, Dier and Toby have been excellent signings, made for considerably excellent fees (that whole lot only cost about 25m on the whole).