What's new

Mauricio Pochettino is the latest cab on the rank.

Jamturk

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2008
9,871
22,934
Harry Redknapp favoured 4-3-3, Andre Villas Boas employed a continental high line, Sherwood was old school 4-4-2.


Stopped reading at this point
 

sak11

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2005
926
897
How the fuck did that one get past the editor at the paper? What a poorly written pile of shit. Truly appalling.
 

Shirtfront

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2005
1,247
406
That Article really does show you the danger of The Blog; remove the editorial, broadsheet check and balance on a journalist and they dish up absolutely drivel (from usually the best written of the papers, I would say).

Just terrible at every level.

Sure - Tim was a bit abrasive; the job was a bit much for him; I would even say he was out of his depth. But it certainly wasn't the case that the only accurate thing he said was that the next manager would be foreign. He identified a lot of problems with the club and its players very accurately; he just couldn't address them satisfactorily.

And Levy has been trigger happy and erratic in his approach to managerial appointments, but I think it is a bit absurd to try and suggest he has lurched from one extreme to the other with no idea of what he is trying to achieve.

As for Harry favouring 4-3-3 while Sherwood played 4-4-2. Huh? Harry practically invented 4-4-2 FFS.

And that's all after you get past the conceit of the headline. Pochettino is a cab. Levy is a cab driver? Huh? If a cab is at a rank, then wouldn't Levy be the passenger? Or something? It's just awful.

Why did I just waste that long writing about it?

Sorry.
 

tommo84

Proud to be loud
Aug 15, 2005
6,120
11,100
Stopped reading after Jim White stated Soton under Pochettino attacked at pace. I happen to agree with this view, but it goes against the likes of Neil Ashton claiming Pochettino isn't an attacking manager, and Soton fans saying his tactics are all about dominating possssion.

I'm starting to wonder if anyone actually bothered to watch Southampton play last season at all? Wouldn't surprise me if nobody in the press did as I'd imagine you can't get a great view of St Marys from halfway up Jose Mourinho's rectum.

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?
 

SlunkSoma

Like dogs bright
Oct 5, 2004
3,941
3,490
Jol: Bad results, let go for widely accepted improvement
Ramos: Awful form, turned out to not be able to transfer his skills to prem.
Redknapp: Success, but overplayed his hand when England job came calling.
AVB: Would have been given time, showed inflexibility and alienated dressing room and a number of club staff
Sherwood: Caretaker in all but name, as high calibre candidates weren't available.

Ramos and AVB are the ones that stick out as bad hires, but none of the above was unnecessary I think. Levy did what he had to throughout this period. Arnesen leaving for Chelsea upset the progress Levy planned, and that was beyond his control. Commoli was a bit of a disaster, so if there is a mistake anywhere it is the hiring of him. Even he came highly rated. This next cab on the rank lark is so overblown. I like Levy, he is not afraid to make tough decisions.
 

wakefieldyid

SC Supporter
Jun 13, 2006
1,560
1,591
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?
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!
 

Pat Rice Spurs fan

I'm dynamite and I don't know why
Feb 22, 2007
1,609
1,237
I can see the point the journo is trying to make and, half in jest, I said something similar myself, on here a couple of weeks back. But Tim had overseen all the youth & development teams and played 433 throughout, so it would seem a reasonably consistent move, bringing him in after AVB - especially as I suspect he was only seen as a caretaker.
And if thinks Harry played 433 (as if), then there's some consistency between him & AVB.
Let's hope Pochettino is somewhere between - free flowing in attack but hard working and structured in defence.
 

TottenhamMattSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
10,925
16,007
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?
 

WhiteHeartLowe

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2004
1,916
1,452
What's the basis for this bollocks theory that sticking with someone or a philosophy prospers?[/quote]

Its usually called "Sir Alex Ferguson"
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
24,604
21,898
It's almost as if they want him to fail. Like the press do with every Spurs manager that isn't called Harry or Tim.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
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?

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.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
It's almost as if they want him to fail. Like the press do with every Spurs new manager of every club that 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.

FYP.

Nowadays, it's called 'journalism'.
 

michaelden

Knight of the Fat Fanny
Aug 13, 2004
26,386
21,685
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.

fuck me! the Telegraph is all UKIP now! Anything to sell a copy it seems
 

Greenspur

Very old member
Sep 1, 2004
2,681
3,090
As if going for a different approach after failure is, in some way, stupid.
You cannot expect to solve a problem using the same kind of thinking that created it in the first place - Albert Einstein.
 

TottenhamMattSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
10,925
16,007
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.
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.

Name me one manager in the modern era who, having been given time through adversity, has transformed a club.

Rogers? No. Liverpool never suffered adversity under him, they got steadily better, all the reason to "back him" not that he needed backing.

Wenger? No. Won the double in his first full season.

Where is the evidence backing a manager that's not delivering is the right thing to do David? Where is it?
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
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.
 

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Jul 22, 2008
43,881
95,147
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.

To be fair to Levy, Harry has gone on record as saying that he feels it was Lewis who was behind his sacking.
 

UbeAstard

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2005
3,354
2,413
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.

I agree and I don't believe we have sacked any manager for those reasons.
 
Top