- Feb 20, 2005
- 836
- 809
It's quite simple. The DT's started to prostitute itself by posting nonsensical articles, and it's not just the sports pages where they do this. The result is a paper (both print and internet versions) crammed full of articles that are eye-catching, cheap to write (just get an intern to bang out 200 words), and controversial (without being libellous), and and then just harvest the advertising revenue. Journalism doesn't get much crappier than this!It's almost as if everyone is simply writing whatever it is that they think will upset the Spurs fans, but of course that's nonsense. I mean its not as if most of the sports press are embittered West Ham fans is it?
Since levy took charge at spurs Chelsea have employed Ranieri, Mourinho, Grant, Scolari, Ancelotti, AVB, Di Matteo, Benitez and Mourinho again.
In that time they've won 3 titles, the European Cup, Europa league, fa cups, league cups, super cup?
In that time Arsenal won fuck all.
What's the basis for this bollocks theory that sticking with someone or a philosophy prospers?
It's almost as if they want him to fail. Like the press do with everySpursnew manager of every clubthat isn't called Harry or Tim, after a brief period when some of them predict that the new manager will win the league, the cup and the CL.
Beyond his foreignness, though, what it was about Pochettino that persuaded Daniel Levy, the Tottenham chairman, to hand him a five year contract? Unlike Steve Bruce, say, or another progressive young manager doing eye-catching things on the south coast, Eddie Howe, he fulfils Levy’s principle remit of not hailing from these shores.
Putting £108m of international talent into our squad last year suggests we are not paupers. That's not a lot less than rich clubs have spent and they've a) succeeded in incorporating the new players in Into the squads with b) various new managers.Chelsea can simply spend their way out of any difficulties. A squad packed with international stars compensates for a hell of a lot of managerial instability.
The same applies to Man City. It doesn't apply to us, to Everton under Moyes or to Wigan under Martinez. And Arsenal have no longer won 'fuck-all', plus they've qualified for the Champions League every season, without fail.
And there's an answer to your question. You're cherry-picking examples and ignoring context. There's an air of the wilfully-perverse about your post.
Where is the evidence backing a manager that's not delivering is the right thing to do David? Where is it?
I'm not going to answer that question directly, in part because if you don't see it already, you won't be convinced, other than to quote the oft-heard words 'consistent style of play', but I am going to take up your concept of what constitutes 'not delivering'.
Ramos had us in the relegation zone. That was 'not delivering', because it was a crisis that needed addressing. Finishing 4th or 5th four years in succession doesn't merit that phrase, because the indirect answer to your question is that 2 years is too early to decide whether any manager who has us winning 50%-65% of our games and chronically hanging around the upper reaches of the table is 'not delivering'. Only in football, it seems would that not be patently obvious to everyone.
I didn't like Harry's verbal incontinence, self-aggrandisement and avoidance of responsiblity (i.e., blame). I didn't like AVB's inhibited football and his reduction of potentially inspired footballers to hesitant automatons. I didn't like Sherwood's evident naivety in his coaching and his handling of personalities, although his crass comments to the press didn't bother me as much as it did so many people here.
But none of those come close to reasons for sacking the manager. At the time, I thought that sacking Redknapp was foolish and represented an attack of hubris by Levy - in hindsight, I have promoted 'foolish' to 'bloody insane'. I thought that sacking AVB in midseason, if it was done for footballing reasons, was equally foolish and impulsive, if only because no suitable replacement was likely to be available at the time (hubris again).
You sack the manager if you're in bad trouble at the foot of the table, not because you reckon playing manager-lottery will come up with an unnoticed genius, if only you do it often enough. In my version of real life (as opposed to the football industry), you don't sack the manager because you finished in 4th place instead of 3rd, or when you're in 5th place instead of 4th at mid-season.
In my version of real life (as opposed to the football industry), you don't sack the manager because you finished in 4th place instead of 3rd, or when you're in 5th place instead of 4th at mid-season.