- Nov 15, 2018
- 19,542
- 48,826
Interesting stuff mate thanks for sharing but he does also say let’s not wait for the other team to die of bordem which at times is exactly what it looks like the plan is under Jose.The irony, fishy, is that you’ve missed the point. Yes, Blanchflower was talking about winning with style, but the fundamental point is he was still talking about winning. He was saying it’s better to win well than win badly, not that it was better to lose well than win badly.
And even though he wrote it in 1972, he was still talking from his place as an exemplar of winning. Although the gloss had faded a little, Spurs at the time were considered one of the giants of the game because of our dominance in the 60s.
If one looks deeper into some of the things that Danny Blanchflower said, you can see that, for him, winning was the most important thing, not style.
Words such as, "We aim to equalise before the other team score. We should get our retaliation in first."
Or when asked by an interviewer what the secret to [at that point] Spurs winning every game they'd played that season. His reply was, "Most probably because in each match we have scored more goals than our opponents."
Those are the words of someone for whom winning is most important. He didn't say that the secret to winning every game had been, "we played beautiful football".
It's all well and good talking of glory and beauty and style when things are going well, but when things are going badly they're nothing but platitudes.
How about this axiom: "You should cut your coat to fit your cloth"?
At the moment, on the pitch, we are in a bad place - we're vulnerable and brittle. Right now, we need to exercise pragmatism, get our heads down and ride through the storm as best we can. If that means shithousery, so be it; if it means playing grindy football, so be it; if it means we can't celebrate hatfuls of goals every match, so be it. And if it's pragmatism that is the order of the day currently, and it is, then I can't think of a better person to bring that pragmatic approach than Mourinho.
Do you think that Blanchflower would speak glowingly of our also-ran campaigns extending nearly thirty years (the odd beacon of success notwithstanding)? Do you think he'd be waxing lyrical about reaching a Champions League final and losing (that's not an attack on Pochettino before I get dragged over the coals)? No, he wouldn't.
I have little doubt that Blanchflower would have celebrated our dynamic style under our previous manager, but he would also recognise the dire straits we're currently in and I'm sure he'd be devastated by the fact that we've won so little in the last few years.
Blanchflower was considered a true gentleman - witty, urbane, and generous. He certainly wouldn't be so ungentlemanly as to be deriding his manager three months into his tenure; he wouldn't be so ungentlemanly as to not give someone an opportunity to prove himself; he wouldn't be so ungentlemanly as to abuse someone at a distance (not that I'm accusing you of that, speaking generally).
Perhaps we should follow in the example he would set and remember something else the great man once said: "Ideas are funny things. They only work if you do." Maybe we should put in some work too?