Manager Watch: Ange Postecoglou

[ComfortablyNumb]

Ange was backed. We got Solanke. CF is the hardest position to recruit and we got him a suitable one.
We didn't get him the wide-forward, so it's not a perfect window, but it's a really good one. Better than most, and certainly better than many other team's.
If Ange fails it wouldn't be due to recruitment, or Levy.

The biggest problem I see now is that key players are not playing at a high enough level consistently: Son, Madders + Romero. His responsibility is to address this. Hopefully he would.

Odobert?

 

[Ghost Hardware]

Ange signed off on every single one of them knowing the team needed to progress. I just can't see a get out clause at the end of the season when he tells Daniel he got him the wrong players to do so.

When Ange came in countless people on here, and elsewhere kept saying he was exactly what we needed because he was a miracle motivator and his philosophy was incredible, I wasn't overly keen because that is not what we needed. Now all of a sudden it's all Conte-esque in that apparently he needs the exact types of players to make it work. You can all look shocked when I tell you I've been saying this for the last 6-7 years. I said Mourinho would struggle without getting exactly what he needed, that Nuno would struggle when Levy wouldn't get his targets, that Conte's system required certain player types that he never got and so it wasn't his fault, and now here we are again. We've hired another system based coach that requires xyz and abc just won't work. I still say now had we pushed the boat out for Conte or Jose to get them what they asked for we wouldn't now be sitting here saying bemoaning the length of time we've had no trophies. Yes, Jose and Conte were prickly and threw the players under the bus, but hey if I'd taken a new top end position with a company I'd be pissed too if I wasn't given the tools to do the job. If people think this is different because Ange plays more attacking football than the others, it isn't! Without progress, and by that I mean quantifiable progress, we will be back on the manager hunt come the Summer imo.

Just in regards to the first line, whilst i am sure Ange signed off on them the question, for me at least, remains what were the realistic alternatives he was offered.

Ange doesn't strike me, at present at least, to be one to throw his toys out of the pram if he doesn't get what he wants. He seems like an intelligent man who understands at this stage of his career with his limited high level experience a job like Spurs (as poisoned a cup as it may or may not be) is a big opportunity for him. He probably knows he needs to play ball at a boardroom level and I can't help but feel, aside from the Base connection and his style of football, that probably factored into us going for him in the first place. With that in mind, whilst he will no doubt have clear ideas of where and how the current squad is lacking I struggle to see him being so cocksure as to flat out reject the options put in front of him by the club even if they aren't of the immediate level he needs or ideally wants.

Whilst I understand he had a hard on for the likes of Gallagher and Neto he still was ultimately content to get Gray and Odebert. Supposedly Eze was one of his absolute top targets that we chased all summer yet he still remains at CP. So the real point isn't so much him signing off on Odebert or Gray its more did Ange turn down the chance to get (just picking random linked names here) Olmo and Ederson in favour of bringing in youth players. Was he actually given a chance to bring in multiple developed players of a level that would immediately elevate and progress the squad because to me it seems the club were, and still are, unwilling to spend the kind of money on fees AND wages that it would take to bring in the calibre of player we desperately need to take us up a level.

I obviously have no idea, and i'm sure most of us don't, but from the outside it seems he chose the best of the options given to him. That to me is very different to actively seeking and prioritising young talent over more developed alternatives.

Obviously I understand that in the end of the day the money has been spent with the agreement of the manager and we know from history that pointing fingers as to how the money has been spent wont save Ange's job come the end of the season if he has underperformed. Come 7th or bellow he is probably gone. But I think its fairly obvious to the majority of those who follow the PL that we haven't really strengthened our squad by much, really all we have done is buy the true Kane replacement we should have bought the previous summer and added a bit of inexperienced depth. I know it has been covered ad nauseam by now but our last window still irks me. Whilst the likes of Bergvall, Gray, Odebert and Yang are all very exciting prospects that i'm glad we have recruited, the expectation on them to raise our current level is just completely unrealistic. As much as he might well believe in their potential, considering the limited PL mins the first two especially have seen it seems Ange also doesn't have the belief that they are currently capable of improving our chances of success. I mean Bergvall and Gray have had a combined 77 mins (46 and 31) of PL football. At least Odebert was being given more prominent minutes until his injury but one wonders if that was down to desperation due to poor performances of our other WF and a lack of options due to Solanke's injury.

The fact that despite having just bought both the majority of fans are saying (and the club seemingly also to a certain degree if we are keen on Lookman) we desperately need another DM and WF, as well as LB, come the Jan window sums up how much of a failure the summer was. Whilst I know it wont save Ange's job, when looking at the team on paper and especially in comparison with others, I don't see why we should expect anything more then what we achieved last season. If that is how it plays out then I guess the question will then be, is that enough? Would a 5th or 6th place finish and no cup leave the board retaining enough faith in him to further commit in the summer window. What exactly is the board, and fans for that matter, cut off point? How truly committed are the board to another "project".

 

[Tucker]

No. I still get nervous at every set piece but I think that's lingering PTSD from that horrible spell last season when we conceded from set pieces for fun.

I’ve been like this since Robinson was in goal. Even when we have been decent at defending or taking them.

 

[Trix]

Just in regards to the first line, whilst i am sure Ange signed off on them the question, for me at least, remains what were the realistic alternatives he was offered.

Ange doesn't strike me, at present at least, to be one to throw his toys out of the pram if he doesn't get what he wants. He seems like an intelligent man who understands at this stage of his career with his limited high level experience a job like Spurs (as poisoned a cup as it may or may not be) is a big opportunity for him. He probably knows he needs to play ball at a boardroom level and I can't help but feel, aside from the Base connection and his style of football, that probably factored into us going for him in the first place. With that in mind, whilst he will no doubt have clear ideas of where and how the current squad is lacking I struggle to see him being so cocksure as to flat out reject the options put in front of him by the club even if they aren't of the immediate level he needs or ideally wants.

Whilst I understand he had a hard on for the likes of Gallagher and Neto he still was ultimately content to get Gray and Odebert. Supposedly Eze was one of his absolute top targets that we chased all summer yet he still remains at CP. So the real point isn't so much him signing off on Odebert or Gray its more did Ange turn down the chance to get (just picking random linked names here) Olmo and Ederson in favour of bringing in youth players. Was he actually given a chance to bring in multiple developed players of a level that would immediately elevate and progress the squad because to me it seems the club were, and still are, unwilling to spend the kind of money on fees AND wages that it would take to bring in the calibre of player we desperately need to take us up a level.

I obviously have no idea, and i'm sure most of us don't, but from the outside it seems he chose the best of the options given to him. That to me is very different to actively seeking and prioritising young talent over more developed alternatives.

Obviously I understand that in the end of the day the money has been spent with the agreement of the manager and we know from history that pointing fingers as to how the money has been spent wont save Ange's job come the end of the season if he has underperformed. Come 7th or bellow he is probably gone. But I think its fairly obvious to the majority of those who follow the PL that we haven't really strengthened our squad by much, really all we have done is buy the true Kane replacement we should have bought the previous summer and added a bit of inexperienced depth. I know it has been covered ad nauseam by now but our last window still irks me. Whilst the likes of Bergvall, Gray, Odebert and Yang are all very exciting prospects that i'm glad we have recruited, the expectation on them to raise our current level is just completely unrealistic. As much as he might well believe in their potential, considering the limited PL mins the first two especially have seen it seems Ange also doesn't have the belief that they are currently capable of improving our chances of success. I mean Bergvall and Gray have had a combined 77 mins (46 and 31) of PL football. At least Odebert was being given more prominent minutes until his injury but one wonders if that was down to desperation due to poor performances of our other WF and a lack of options due to Solanke's injury.

The fact that despite having just bought both the majority of fans are saying (and the club seemingly also to a certain degree if we are keen on Lookman) we desperately need another DM and WF, as well as LB, come the Jan window sums up how much of a failure the summer was. Whilst I know it wont save Ange's job, when looking at the team on paper and especially in comparison with others, I don't see why we should expect anything more then what we achieved last season. If that is how it plays out then I guess the question will then be, is that enough? Would a 5th or 6th place finish and no cup leave the board retaining enough faith in him to further commit in the summer window. What exactly is the board, and fans for that matter, cut off point? How truly committed are the board to another "project".

I don't disagree with much of that, not that any of it will matter come reckoning time is my point. If he turns round and tells the board it's due to recruitment he's failed to improve us, you know what the outcome will be.

My personal opinion is that under this regime the only chance of a manager staying the course is if he's willing to bend and compromise his ideas to fit what we have. I'm very much hoping Ange will do that, and I made that very clear after Brentford and United I saw shoots of that happening. Then I watched the second half of Brighton and listened to the press conference and it couldn't have been a more stubborn and pig headed display from Ange.

History has taught us over and over with Levy if you don't bend you do eventually break.

 

[TOMSPURS]

Be under no illusion the only difference between Ange and Conte is how far forward they want to play, and how important possession is to them. Apart from that they are very very alike.

I'd agree both Ange & Conte are very similar, with very very fixed ideas on football. Both, it could be argued, are either very confident/arrogant/stubborn in their views. But rightly or wrongly, their different styles & single mindset have generally been successful. Definitely both need players with very specific skill sets to make it work.

However, I think they do differ greatly in one aspect regarding recruitment & it's one of the main reasons I still think Ange will succeed at Spurs.

He's very clear with the recruitment team what type of player/skill set he needs & wants. Name, nationality, age don't alter his thinking, as long as the player has the tools to play, the key major decision is character. He accepts there are budget restrictions & works within them. Ultimately if it fails, he knows it's on him.

It always felt that Conte had specific players he wanted & didn't trust the recruitment team. Once Conte didn't get his player, it was only a matter of time before it all blew up. Levy's failure to back him, is another argument.

I think it's easier for Levy to back Ange, knowing he'll work within the agreed budgets & parameters. My fear always, is that Levy will change the rules as he goes.

 

[-Afri-Coy-]

The issue with the concept of “backing” is it’s so vague that it can mean anything. imo the only real measurable way to back someone (as in showing trust in them) is through investing your time with them - Conte definitely didn’t want that, Mourinho didn’t seem to either. Besides, both of them spent a fortune at other clubs and still complained they weren’t supported. Difference for me isn’t only playstyle, it’s that Ange clearly wants to be here.

fwiw I think we’ve got probably the 5th best team in the league and I think that’s probably where we’ll finish.

The term isn’t vague at all you’re honestly just reading into it too much.

It has always been a term used in relation to transfers and financial spend.

Ange got the players he approved, so therefore he was backed.

Neither of our last two managers got what they asked for, they got what they were given. There’s a big difference.

 

[ultimateloner]

Whilst I don't agree, I don't disagree either. It'll be down to both imo. Levy for employing yet another one way or the highway manager and not getting the players necessary. Also Ange for refusing to adapt to his surroundings and for taking a job knowing how we operate.

Best case scenario is of course is Ange accepting he might need to make a few tactical allowances and adjust his team to suit what we have until the young players mature a bit into his system. At the same time Levy gets in the right players required to fit this philosophy. That however will only happen over time, and it will surely be sprinkled with other kids of high potential.

Without compromise though it will no doubt follow the same path as the last few stubborn in their process managers.

Be under no illusion the only difference between Ange and Conte is how far forward they want to play, and how important possession is to them. Apart from that they are very very alike.

I dont know how many managers Levy could have chosen. Do you have an idea? I think Levy's done well recruiting Ange, because at least Ange is trying to play proactive football, which was what many fans were asking for at the time. I'm not neccesarily a fan of this (I think both counter-attack or proactive style will look bad when they fail, just in different ways). The lack of tactical flexibility part; I dont know how that could have been assessed. Are there other proactive-football managers who do that? Aside from Anchelotti, I dont know obvious 'elite' managers who can play multiple styles that play to a sqaud's strength.

Do you also blame Levy for not backing Ange player-recruitment wise? Because my main point was I feel Ange was backed, with Solanke being prove of that.

I think the 'buy kids with high potential' part was always going to happen regardless of manager. The difference being Conte/Mourinho would have straight-up refused to play kids, and Ange seems more receptive to that.

My personal view is that Conte's a more proven, and therefore likely a better manager than Ange for most teams. Whether Ange would out-perform Conte with us remains to be seen.

 

[ultimateloner]

Odobert?

Might positively surprise us. Who knows? Long season.

 

[Trix]

I dont know how many managers Levy could have chosen. Do you have an idea? I think Levy's done well recruiting Ange, because at least Ange is trying to play proactive football, which was what many fans were asking for at the time. I'm not neccesarily a fan of this (I think both counter-attack or proactive style will look bad when they fail, just in different ways). The lack of tactical flexibility part; I dont know how that could have been assessed. Are there other proactive-football managers who do that? Aside from Anchelotti, I dont know obvious 'elite' managers who can play multiple styles that play to a sqaud's strength.

Do you also blame Levy for not backing Ange player-recruitment wise? Because my main point was I feel Ange was backed, with Solanke being prove of that.

I think the 'buy kids with high potential' part was always going to happen regardless of manager. The difference being Conte/Mourinho would have straight-up refused to play kids, and Ange seems more receptive to that.

My personal view is that Conte's a more proven, and therefore likely a better manager than Ange for most teams. Whether Ange would out-perform Conte with us remains to be seen.

The problem is every time we are on a managerial search we speak to quite a few. Some of them Levy(the board) doesn't like, then there are others that just won't work under him because of his history. You say he did well getting Ange but like a huge number of staff at the club now he is repped by Base. Had he not been I'm not sure he'd have even been on the radar.

This isn't me having a pop at Ange or saying he's not the right guy, this is me saying what I have always said.....Are we picking up all these Base represented players and staff members because they are the best people we could bring in, or is it because they are repped by Base and it's an easy to facilitate fix. I do find it incredibly difficult to believe due to the numbers that it is the former to be quite honest.

 

[muppetman]

This thread has gotten very weird. Reading the last few pages it feels like Ange is a dead man walking, but we've been on a good run of results other than a pretty shitty second half against a good team.

Am I missing something?

 

[worcestersauce]

This thread has gotten very weird. Reading the last few pages it feels like Ange is a dead man walking, but we've been on a good run of results other than a pretty shitty second half against a good team.

Am I missing something?

Nothing not worth missing.

 

[E17yid]

This thread has gotten very weird. Reading the last few pages it feels like Ange is a dead man walking, but we've been on a good run of results other than a pretty shitty second half against a good team.

Am I missing something?

It’s the league form. Not been a great start. Drop points against West Ham and it’s objectively a bad start to the season. Still early enough that it can be turned around but not to early for people to get a bit worried about how the season will pan out.

 

[HildoSpur]

This thread has gotten very weird. Reading the last few pages it feels like Ange is a dead man walking, but we've been on a good run of results other than a pretty shitty second half against a good team.

Am I missing something?

No you are not missing anything - lots of hyperbole in here.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Interested in the difference between fact and opinion?

Factually the in-game management could improve in time.

Your opinion, it won't.

None of us really know which one it will be at this point.

No I'm interested in how giving time to build the squad and impose his philosophy is the same thing as giving him time to improve his game management.

If he was a new manager then yes I'd agree. If he'd only been at Spurs for a few weeks I'd potentially agree.

But is that really something he's going to change at this stage in his managerial career and over a season into his time at Spurs?

It's obviously not a fact to say he won't and I wasn't saying it was a fact. But I was interested in understanding why you thought that might change given more time.

 

[talkshowhost86]

This thread has gotten very weird. Reading the last few pages it feels like Ange is a dead man walking, but we've been on a good run of results other than a pretty shitty second half against a good team.

Am I missing something?

I don't think many people are Basing their views on just this season to be fair.

 

[muppetman]

I don't think many people are Basing their views on just this season to be fair.

Fair enough and thanks for the reply - all seems a bit disproportionate to me - onions and all that.

 

[Wig]

Ange was brought in on a 4 year contract. Yes, he's signed off on incoming players but the majority are raw youngsters who aren't ready to start games, with a view to getting them to first-team standard over a longer period.

You can't only bring in long-term signings and then judge a manager on short-term results when the players he's brought in aren't ready.

This thread gets overwhelmed when we get one bad result and barely a whisper when we have 5 consecutive wins. We need to zoom out and look at the bigger picture.

 

[only1waddle]

No I'm interested in how giving time to build the squad and impose his philosophy is the same thing as giving him time to improve his game management.

If he was a new manager then yes I'd agree. If he'd only been at Spurs for a few weeks I'd potentially agree.

But is that really something he's going to change at this stage in his managerial career and over a season into his time at Spurs?

It's obviously not a fact to say he won't and I wasn't saying it was a fact. But I was interested in understanding why you thought that might change given more time

We've seen him sort the set piece issue out this season.
We've seen the fullbacks sit back and invert less recently making it less congested.
We've seen Johnson playing inside a lot more.
We've seen a bit more of a dedicated 6 Infront of the back four.

All things people wanted to see a bit more of.

So he's shown he can problem solve and adapt, but I firmly believe these game management conversations wouldn't be as prominent if Romero had been doing his job properly.

Essentially, you're asking if he's prepared to die on the hill of his philosophy and throw this opportunity away, an opportunity he's most likely dreamt about for 30 years, or with time adapt.

Time might not be as strong as necessity is as the season goes on.
All we can do is guess and watch it play out.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

If we are out of Europe then he hasn't won one trophy, let alone a treble now has he.

The clue was in the words mate.

8th-9th/out of Europe would usually imply not qualifying for European football aka out of the European positions

Either way it will depend on how much progress is made overall. If we still put up a competitive points total in the league and go very deep in all cups or win a domestic cup then progress overall could be pointed to and we might just be 2-3 pieces in the jigsaw away from it really clicking like Arteta, Klopp and other managers have had in their 3rd seasons.

Lets see how it all plays out.

 

[Mr Pink]

Why are some people a bit dim lol

Nobody is suggesting Ange should be or is likely to be sacked.

What they are discussing - is the current style of football sustainable enough to get us to where we want to be as a Club in the future, specifically if Ange doesnt adapt more.

Thats an entirely reasonable discussion and the only hyperbole comments are coming from those jumping to the conclusion that people want him sacked because they're discussing it.