Tottenham Hotspur Wheel of Misfortune

[Eamo71]

Some very good points made but I think our biggest problem is inconsistency at Management level.

We have yet to have a manager who has lasted for four seasons in the Premier League and this, above everything else, is why we have struggled for success.

It's inconsistency at management level all right - in the boardroom. The club is not run properly from a football POV. And has not been for decades even going back to when Pat Jennings left/forced out. Pat's story about how that came about is a real eye opener to how poorly run Spurs is and how well run Arsenal is. Something that continues to this day.

 

[jts1882]

The management of the club at board level has changed completely several times since Jennings left. The Scholar, Sugar and Enic regimes have all come in since then. You could argue that the one that misjudged the Jennings situation was far more successful on the football field than those that followed and that Enic is at least reversing the decline under Scholar and Sugar.

The myth of the success brought by long-term managers is an odd one. Managers like Ferguson, Wenger, Paisley, Shankly, Nicholson and Busby are among the games greats. They stayed a long time because they were successful. Moyes wasn't going to turn into a success at United just because they kept him longer. Looking back, Herbert Chapman, another of the greats, kept moving. He built the triple title winning Huddersfield side and left before their three-peat, then built the triple title winning arsenal team, this time leaving in a box before the third title. He was successful because he was good wherever he went, like Clough and Mourinho. The successful long-term managers are the exceptions and they are among the greats because they were good, not because the board was patient.

 

[braineclipse]

The management of the club at board level has changed completely several times since Jennings left. The Scholar, Sugar and Enic regimes have all come in since then. You could argue that the one that misjudged the Jennings situation was far more successful on the football field than those that followed and that Enic is at least reversing the decline under Scholar and Sugar.

The myth of the success brought by long-term managers is an odd one. Managers like Ferguson, Wenger, Paisley, Shankly, Nicholson and Busby are among the games greats. They stayed a long time because they were successful. Moyes wasn't going to turn into a success at United just because they kept him longer. Looking back, Herbert Chapman, another of the greats, kept moving. He built the triple title winning Huddersfield side and left before their three-peat, then built the triple title winning arsenal team, this time leaving in a box before the third title. He was successful because he was good wherever he went, like Clough and Mourinho. The successful long-term managers are the exceptions and they are among the greats because they were good, not because the board was patient.

Spot on for me.

One of the continuing questions for me is what if the boards that hired those great managers had been more patient with the managers preceding those instead?

 

[thfcsteff]

Some very good points made but I think our biggest problem is inconsistency at Management level.

We have yet to have a manager who has lasted for four seasons in the Premier League and this, above everything else, is why we have struggled for success.

You're going to start an old argument again...one of those did himself in, no, make that two, with their big mouths and (in one case) eyes everywhere but on the job 100%...

 

[thfcsteff]

The management of the club at board level has changed completely several times since Jennings left. The Scholar, Sugar and Enic regimes have all come in since then. You could argue that the one that misjudged the Jennings situation was far more successful on the football field than those that followed and that Enic is at least reversing the decline under Scholar and Sugar.

The myth of the success brought by long-term managers is an odd one. Managers like Ferguson, Wenger, Paisley, Shankly, Nicholson and Busby are among the games greats. They stayed a long time because they were successful. Moyes wasn't going to turn into a success at United just because they kept him longer. Looking back, Herbert Chapman, another of the greats, kept moving. He built the triple title winning Huddersfield side and left before their three-peat, then built the triple title winning arsenal team, this time leaving in a box before the third title. He was successful because he was good wherever he went, like Clough and Mourinho. The successful long-term managers are the exceptions and they are among the greats because they were good, not because the board was patient.

Great post. I will add that especially in Cloughie's case, he was brilliant whenever Taylor was with him...without him? Not so much...

 

[Spur of the moment]

The management of the club at board level has changed completely several times since Jennings left. The Scholar, Sugar and Enic regimes have all come in since then. You could argue that the one that misjudged the Jennings situation was far more successful on the football field than those that followed and that Enic is at least reversing the decline under Scholar and Sugar.

The myth of the success brought by long-term managers is an odd one. Managers like Ferguson, Wenger, Paisley, Shankly, Nicholson and Busby are among the games greats. They stayed a long time because they were successful. Moyes wasn't going to turn into a success at United just because they kept him longer. Looking back, Herbert Chapman, another of the greats, kept moving. He built the triple title winning Huddersfield side and left before their three-peat, then built the triple title winning arsenal team, this time leaving in a box before the third title. He was successful because he was good wherever he went, like Clough and Mourinho. The successful long-term managers are the exceptions and they are among the greats because they were good, not because the board was patient.

Which incidentally makes it all the more intriguing that the characteristics of the club remain fairly constant. Throughout the decades we have a tendency to be

* big spenders
* well supported
* over-hyped
* prone to crises
* vulnerable at the back

We as rarely finish near the top of the table as at the foot, usually somewhere between fifth and fifteenth.

If there has been a change it is in our decline in cup competitions where once we excelled, but this is largely a reflection of an almost obligatory fixation with qualification for the CL, perennially frustrated in turn by the dominance of financially-doped top clubs able to attract and afford much stronger squads all round.

 

[Rob]

Spurs are not the best or biggest team in the world shocker.

We are struggling to finish fourth which suggests that there are at least four clubs in this country alone who are better than us, have better resources, can offer higher wages, have a world ranking higher than ours. We can't win the europa league after years of trying so there are plenty of other clubs - benfica as an example who are better than us are a massive feeder club!

If we try to finish fourth and fail then some of our players are going to want to move on to one of those clubs who are performing at that higher level - Teddy Sheringham did. We see this at a lot of European teams also, ones who are much better than us like Atletico Madrid for example - they constantly sell their best players and constantly replace them and constantly improve.

Our problem is in the players we have been replacing the sold players with, NOT the actual selling of star players. When modric left, have we bought a like for like for him yet? No. When bale left, it was always gonna be difficult to replace him but technically Nacer Chadli was the player who was bought in to fill the gap left by Bales departure and that's a joke! Atletico would never have done that!

Some very good points made but I think our biggest problem is inconsistency at Management level.

We have yet to have a manager who has lasted for four seasons in the Premier League and this, above everything else, is why we have struggled for success.

Very good point. Yet the managers we have had are to blame for this as much as the Chairman is for sacking them. The point I made above about the players coming in to replace our "marquee" players who have left, and I'll add the example of when we sold Ginola but didn't have a left midfielder barring Jose Dominguez to replace him for what felt like several seasons. This is down to the managers in charge at the time. I don't believe for one second that any manager has had this player or that player sent to them when they haven't wanted them - but that's a whole other argument! The point is they haven't succeeded.

Simply, the managers haven't been good enough.

Our best players have been poached by bigger clubs and we poach players and managers from smaller clubs, that's the natural pecking order. But when was the last time one of our managers was poached by a bigger club? ....and Harry to England doesn't count because he wasn't actually approached lol!

 

[Raziel]

Simply, the managers haven't been good enough.

Our best players have been poached by bigger clubs and we poach players and managers from smaller clubs, that's the natural pecking order. But when was the last time one of our managers was poached by a bigger club? ....and Harry to England doesn't count because he wasn't actually approached lol!

Interesting point ...

 

[jts1882]

How often are the top managers poached in England? The rich clubs poach managers from smaller clubs but rarely from each other.

Recently I can only think of Moyes to United, making Everton the biggest club to suffer poaching of a manager. Perhaps us getting Graham from Leeds is biggest of the PL era. I'm probably missing a really obvious example, but I don't think it is common.

 

[Rob]

How often are the top managers poached in England? The rich clubs poach managers from smaller clubs but rarely from each other.

Recently I can only think of Moyes to United, making Everton the biggest club to suffer poaching of a manager. Perhaps us getting Graham from Leeds is biggest of the PL era. I'm probably missing a really obvious example, but I don't think it is common.

You appear to have stumbled upon a glaringly large hole in my otherwise flawless logic