What's new

Match Ratings -VS- Birmingham City

Spurs' Man of the Match


  • Total voters
    98

chinaman

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2003
17,974
12,423
I still would rather have signed Alan Smith than Bent because Smith would have complimented our other strikers better than bent. He would also have defended from the front. It's funny that your always telling us that "managers know best" and yet you think Ferguson's signing of Alan Smith was stupid ? He understands the team dynamic and how players work with players. It's not who scores that's important it's how many quality chances a team creates. Alan Smith would have been a foil for all three of our strikers. Bent works with none. It's about fitting pieces of the jigsaw. Smith wouldn't have been my first choice of course but he would have offered something we lacked.


I agree with you that Alan Smith would have been preferable. If nothing else, he's the type of bastard that we lack. Play him in a hatchet man role in midfield and you'll see fiberglass seeking places to hide.
 

tRiKS

Ledley's No.1 fan
Jun 6, 2005
6,854
142
I agree with you that Alan Smith would have been preferable. If nothing else, he's the type of bastard that we lack. Play him in a hatchet man role in midfield and you'll see fiberglass seeking places to hide.

But he did hide in Tainio pocket last time out.
 
Top