Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Syed always provides an interesting read.
Don't have a Times sub so can't actually read this one
Cut and paste someone...pretty please.
A cut and paste would be appreciated.
-
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
The glorious march to CL qualification
- Thread starter 90291Spur
- Start date
A cut and paste would be appreciated.
MKSpur
Christian Ziege
If you register you get 2 or 3 articles per month for free, genuinely use it just to read the odd Spurs clickbait!
Copy and paste, as opppsed to cut and paste
Spurs look like they are going to finish fifth in a three-horse race. That is the latest joke doing the rounds after the implosion of the north London club. They lost to Southampton on Saturday and the barbs were inevitable. Typical Spurs, bunch of bottlers. You get the picture.
This characterisation is, of course, a little unfair in the specific instance given that Tottenham Hotspur are operating on a smaller budget than their competitors and have not signed a player all season. But what about the more general point about clubs having particular characteristics, or tendencies, whether good or bad? Can we legitimately talk about this club’s DNA or that club’s temperament?
The problem with this concept is relatively easy to state: the people who populate a club change through time. Spurs today, for example, haven’t got a single player or member of coaching staff who was involved with the first team ten years ago, let alone farther back. Hell, they are even playing in a different stadium.
One can understand how a player or a team can be flaky, but how can this apply to a club, effectively an abstract legal entity, albeit one of great emotional significance? How can the physical components of a club, from their people to their buildings, change and yet certain indefinable qualities remain in place? When stated like this, it feels as if we should ditch this way of talking, once and for all.
Before doing so, however, consider a study on Silicon Valley by James Baron and Michael Hannan, two professors at Stanford business school. They looked at more than 200 technology start-ups and conducted interviews with leaders. “We assembled the most comprehensive database to date on the histories, structures, and HR practices of high-tech companies in Silicon Valley,” the professors wrote.
One key finding was that the various founders almost had distinctive blueprints for their companies. Some companies launched with a “star” vision. A founder would say things like: “We recruit top talent, pay them top wages and give them the resources they need to do their job.” Others were “product” companies, which emphasised technology. “It was a skunk-works mentality and the binding energy was high.” Still others were “commitment” companies. “Founders created a family-like feeling and an intense emotional bond that would inspire superior effort.”
Unsurprisingly, these visions were associated with different initial recruitment and HR strategies and exerted a huge influence on company culture in the early years. What shocked the researchers, however, was that the founding visions continued to exert influence years later, even after the founder had left, and the staff had changed.
“Origins matter . . . a company’s early organisation-building activities might preordain its destiny . . . enduring values served as guideposts for strategy and operations over time.” The researchers termed this “path dependency”.
Hold that thought while considering Manchester United. If you look closely, you will notice that Gary Neville, on his Twitter feed, carries a banner picture of the Busby babes. Other players often post pictures on social media of the history of the club, not least on each anniversary of Munich. David Beckham has spoken of how Sir Alex Ferguson would pepper his team talks with references to the club’s history. “It felt like we were part of a storyline,” Beckham has said.
Beckham, of course, grew up supporting United, as did Neville, Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs so perhaps it is unsurprising that they are familiar with the club’s traditions. Over the past few days, however, you may have been struck by how often people such as Eric Cantona, Peter Schmeichel and others have articulated the United DNA, not least the values of youth, audacity and attacking football.
It is anecdotes such as this that, I think, help to explain the findings of Baron and Hannan, and lend at least some plausibility to the notion that clubs have enduring characteristics. The players may change and the staff may change, but the stories and myths, legacies and shared meanings, persist, often safeguarded by the fans. For all the talk of data in the world today, we make sense of ourselves through narrative. We are embedded in stories and, very often, take our cue from them.
Isn’t this why leaders often fight so hard to shape that story, albeit within the broader parameters laid down by history? Charles de Gaulle’s great achievement after the Second World War was to narrate the French national story through the arc of the heroic resistance movement rather than the Vichy collaborators. The American founding fathers created a narrative that persists to this day of American exceptionalism and a free people standing against the odds.
This is perhaps why Sir Matt Busby, Ferguson, Jock Stein, Johan Cruyff and others spent so much managerial force on defining and refining the mythology of their clubs. They realised that even young players, fresh out of school, yearn for a sense of how they fit into a story, and not only a club. They took seriously the idea that the way people negotiate meaning and values, and the way they interpret an institution’s history, has implications for the way they behave and perform in the here and now.
Of course, stories can impose costs as well as benefits. Most historians tend to agree that Britain’s desire to perpetuate the storyline of a global power has often led her into foreign policy blunders. It might not be too much of a stretch to suggest that some of the Brexit debate falls within these parameters too. Indeed you can probably think of football clubs that have reached for some unattainable sense of power or invincibility.
Yet perhaps the biggest danger is when the narrative of an organisation is defined not by insiders, but by outsiders.
My sense is that United have gained hugely from their history, and that the club’s greatest managers have leveraged it wisely. But I also wonder if the players and staff at Spurs find it difficult to ignore the pervasive insinuation of flakiness and mental frailty entirely. It can’t be easy.
What seems certain is that narrative matters, just as legacy matters, a point that the All Blacks, one of the most successful sports teams of all, would endorse. When the story is inspirational, and when it becomes a part of the way that people think and feel, it can exert an influence that transcends any person, building or manager.
Copy and paste, as opppsed to cut and paste
Spurs look like they are going to finish fifth in a three-horse race. That is the latest joke doing the rounds after the implosion of the north London club. They lost to Southampton on Saturday and the barbs were inevitable. Typical Spurs, bunch of bottlers. You get the picture.
This characterisation is, of course, a little unfair in the specific instance given that Tottenham Hotspur are operating on a smaller budget than their competitors and have not signed a player all season. But what about the more general point about clubs having particular characteristics, or tendencies, whether good or bad? Can we legitimately talk about this club’s DNA or that club’s temperament?
The problem with this concept is relatively easy to state: the people who populate a club change through time. Spurs today, for example, haven’t got a single player or member of coaching staff who was involved with the first team ten years ago, let alone farther back. Hell, they are even playing in a different stadium.
One can understand how a player or a team can be flaky, but how can this apply to a club, effectively an abstract legal entity, albeit one of great emotional significance? How can the physical components of a club, from their people to their buildings, change and yet certain indefinable qualities remain in place? When stated like this, it feels as if we should ditch this way of talking, once and for all.
Before doing so, however, consider a study on Silicon Valley by James Baron and Michael Hannan, two professors at Stanford business school. They looked at more than 200 technology start-ups and conducted interviews with leaders. “We assembled the most comprehensive database to date on the histories, structures, and HR practices of high-tech companies in Silicon Valley,” the professors wrote.
One key finding was that the various founders almost had distinctive blueprints for their companies. Some companies launched with a “star” vision. A founder would say things like: “We recruit top talent, pay them top wages and give them the resources they need to do their job.” Others were “product” companies, which emphasised technology. “It was a skunk-works mentality and the binding energy was high.” Still others were “commitment” companies. “Founders created a family-like feeling and an intense emotional bond that would inspire superior effort.”
Unsurprisingly, these visions were associated with different initial recruitment and HR strategies and exerted a huge influence on company culture in the early years. What shocked the researchers, however, was that the founding visions continued to exert influence years later, even after the founder had left, and the staff had changed.
“Origins matter . . . a company’s early organisation-building activities might preordain its destiny . . . enduring values served as guideposts for strategy and operations over time.” The researchers termed this “path dependency”.
Hold that thought while considering Manchester United. If you look closely, you will notice that Gary Neville, on his Twitter feed, carries a banner picture of the Busby babes. Other players often post pictures on social media of the history of the club, not least on each anniversary of Munich. David Beckham has spoken of how Sir Alex Ferguson would pepper his team talks with references to the club’s history. “It felt like we were part of a storyline,” Beckham has said.
Beckham, of course, grew up supporting United, as did Neville, Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs so perhaps it is unsurprising that they are familiar with the club’s traditions. Over the past few days, however, you may have been struck by how often people such as Eric Cantona, Peter Schmeichel and others have articulated the United DNA, not least the values of youth, audacity and attacking football.
It is anecdotes such as this that, I think, help to explain the findings of Baron and Hannan, and lend at least some plausibility to the notion that clubs have enduring characteristics. The players may change and the staff may change, but the stories and myths, legacies and shared meanings, persist, often safeguarded by the fans. For all the talk of data in the world today, we make sense of ourselves through narrative. We are embedded in stories and, very often, take our cue from them.
Isn’t this why leaders often fight so hard to shape that story, albeit within the broader parameters laid down by history? Charles de Gaulle’s great achievement after the Second World War was to narrate the French national story through the arc of the heroic resistance movement rather than the Vichy collaborators. The American founding fathers created a narrative that persists to this day of American exceptionalism and a free people standing against the odds.
This is perhaps why Sir Matt Busby, Ferguson, Jock Stein, Johan Cruyff and others spent so much managerial force on defining and refining the mythology of their clubs. They realised that even young players, fresh out of school, yearn for a sense of how they fit into a story, and not only a club. They took seriously the idea that the way people negotiate meaning and values, and the way they interpret an institution’s history, has implications for the way they behave and perform in the here and now.
Of course, stories can impose costs as well as benefits. Most historians tend to agree that Britain’s desire to perpetuate the storyline of a global power has often led her into foreign policy blunders. It might not be too much of a stretch to suggest that some of the Brexit debate falls within these parameters too. Indeed you can probably think of football clubs that have reached for some unattainable sense of power or invincibility.
Yet perhaps the biggest danger is when the narrative of an organisation is defined not by insiders, but by outsiders.
My sense is that United have gained hugely from their history, and that the club’s greatest managers have leveraged it wisely. But I also wonder if the players and staff at Spurs find it difficult to ignore the pervasive insinuation of flakiness and mental frailty entirely. It can’t be easy.
What seems certain is that narrative matters, just as legacy matters, a point that the All Blacks, one of the most successful sports teams of all, would endorse. When the story is inspirational, and when it becomes a part of the way that people think and feel, it can exert an influence that transcends any person, building or manager.
MKSpur
Christian Ziege
It feels like that article ran out space!
Talking about United’s DNA is starting to annoy me, Fergie made most of the recent history Yet the minute he left they went from champs to non CL for the first time since the top 4 qualification was invented. They have since bored their way to a couple of cups spending record amounts whilst hardly playing youth players and shattering their wage structure and are miles behind their neighbours (who whilst admittedly have been heavily doped have a big history of flakiness themselves)
Solskjaer has come along and I’ll give credit to him for trying to breathe life back into the Fergie shaped corpse that remains of the club. Yet it seems that the last 10 matches has convinced a lot of people that all of the good work that’s taken place over the last few years for us to take our place at the big table without spending anything like the usual occupants, but not actually taking the head seat is some kind of institutional failure. However United winning possibly our most sided game ever of this season, beating a few teams that they are expected to beat and fluking a CL win against serial bottlers with a bit of help from poor officiating (now that is part of the United DNA) is the second coming of the messiah and was always going to happen because they are Man United.
I still want them to come 4th ahead of blue scum and red scum but my normal aversion to playing national opponents in Europe could be lessened if we get to school these arrogant clams over two legs.
Talking about United’s DNA is starting to annoy me, Fergie made most of the recent history Yet the minute he left they went from champs to non CL for the first time since the top 4 qualification was invented. They have since bored their way to a couple of cups spending record amounts whilst hardly playing youth players and shattering their wage structure and are miles behind their neighbours (who whilst admittedly have been heavily doped have a big history of flakiness themselves)
Solskjaer has come along and I’ll give credit to him for trying to breathe life back into the Fergie shaped corpse that remains of the club. Yet it seems that the last 10 matches has convinced a lot of people that all of the good work that’s taken place over the last few years for us to take our place at the big table without spending anything like the usual occupants, but not actually taking the head seat is some kind of institutional failure. However United winning possibly our most sided game ever of this season, beating a few teams that they are expected to beat and fluking a CL win against serial bottlers with a bit of help from poor officiating (now that is part of the United DNA) is the second coming of the messiah and was always going to happen because they are Man United.
I still want them to come 4th ahead of blue scum and red scum but my normal aversion to playing national opponents in Europe could be lessened if we get to school these arrogant clams over two legs.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Syed always provides an interesting read.
Don't have a Times sub so can't actually read this one
Cut and paste someone...pretty please.
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
I think there’s definitely something to be said for the Spurs fan base that does let itself get worked up way too easily. I fully admit I’ve been someone not confident on where this season is heading given the nature of our performances but too many are not willing to trust that we have the right people at the club making the right decisions, as if we’ll never reach these heights again rather than the idea that we are now here to stay.
I feel that general angst probably does translate to the players a bit.
I feel that general angst probably does translate to the players a bit.
SteveAWOL
Barry Daines
Yup, and the flat track bullies have got a relatively easy run-in (on paper) if Emery can sort out their travel sickness.Just realised that Arsenal’s record in their last 5 PL games is WWWDW.
This includes 2 away games. And they should have won the drawn one...
Last edited:
Bedfordspurs
Chris Waddle
Just realised that Arsenal’s record in their last 5 PL games is WWWDW.
This includes 2 away games. And they should have won the drawn one...
Yeah they won at Huddersfield... I’d expected a group of blind kids to win there
thfcsteff
Garth Crooks
Man Utd and Emirates Marketing Project losses were fine performances with lack of finishing/defensive blunders...the second-half at Saints was terrrrrrrible.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Legohamster
Ian Walker
I hope if we drop down to 4th before the Liverpool game it gets some sort of reaction from the players.
SteveAWOL
Barry Daines
Dunno how accurate his predictions have been in previous seasons but (despite the turgid PL performances of late) we’re still projected to hold onto 3rd... which would be quite some achievement, considering the lack of transfers and having to play home games at a soulless tourist trap for 3/4 of this campaign...
From https://twitter.com/omarchaudhuri/
From https://twitter.com/omarchaudhuri/
Mikey10
Pedro Mendes
And most people would have expected us to beat a relegation-threatened Southampton and Burnley. Gotta get the points on the board and that’s what Arsenal have been doing. They also could well have beaten a top 3 side away, having had the better of us at Wembley.
We were 10 points clear of the Goons, with a goal difference +15 theirs - so effectively 11 points. It’s now down to 1 point and +1 GD.
I remain worried.
glasgowspur
Andy Thompson
Problem in my eyes is that players at spurs now and in the past have accepted that they don't have to win anything at spurs.
The better ones will always get a move to a bigger club and get their medals there.
The better ones will always get a move to a bigger club and get their medals there.
Bedfordspurs
Chris Waddle
There is a big difference between playing a Burnley side in their best from since the 50s, and a Southampton team in reasonable form but fighting for their survival, than a team who are probably the worst in premier league history
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
Had the better of us, are you serious? That was about the worst Arsenal side I’d seen since the Ricoh era. Leicester had the better of us, Wolves had the better of us, Arsenal really didn’t!
After that Southampton performance, I hope and envisage there will be a reaction regardless.....
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Humour me - why not explain what it is you are trying to say.
Legohamster
Ian Walker
Hmmm Arsenal created the best chances in that game and of courses choked the pen in the last minute.
If that’s the worst Arsenal side what does it say about us throwing away an 11 point lead?
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
I didn’t say anything about us! We were poor, we’ve got 1 point in 4 games or something, we are in terrible form.
None of the above has anything at all to do with whether this Arsenal side is better than any of the Wenger teams.
By the way Eriksen on his own 6 yards, Sissoko from 10 yards in the centre of the goal, were equally as good as anything Arsenal created. The pen was a joke decision, a gift from the ref and justice was done in that incident, the only annoying thing is it wasted 2 or 3 minutes at the end of the match where we couldn’t go on the attack again.