The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 31st December 2014

[DaSpurs]

Dawson was here last season during those capitulations. And in previous ones.

I don't agree re Livermore at all, decent, puts himself about but he's at Hull for a reason along with Huddlestone and Dawson fighting relegation. We'd have been better against the likes of Liverpool? Conjecture with little evidence to back it up.

Going back to Pinky's lament about the last of the old guard going I think it was more a nostalgic look at times past (which I understand) and a point towards the clubs long servers such as Daws, Hudd, Lennon, and Defoe. Can't say I miss or will miss any of them from a footballing or mentality point of view.

Players with a strong mentality and very good technical ability are pretty rare and not easy to find at the prices and wages we're willing to pay. Like I said I agree I think the players we brought in have lacked a strong mentality but I think it's fair to say we lacked it before then and if Jake Livermore was the difference then we really were in trouble. He wasn't.

There's a massive middle ground there mate that falls within that "difference." The difference between 2012/13 and the following year was huge, and I pointed out that there are various components involved of various significance. As I said, I don't think Livermore would have changed the results, but I don't think he would have allowed the utter capitulations on the back of entirely giving up.

This was never a conversation of anything more than conjecture and speculation, so I don't understand the need to point that out. "Little evidence" is based on biased sample size in choosing to point to Hull with a massively less talented squad, vs their replacements being around that more talented squad and being turned over. Mind you, Hull was also not consistently turned over by those sides, so if we want to be overly selective and biased I could turn the sample around and point to that fact.

Daws was present, but he was behind a midfield that did absolutely nothing to shield him all of last season. We featured a flat CM last season with two players of similarity, with not one taking the responsibility of shielding the back line and the other with pushing us forward. Daws did not have a good season, but he was not directly responsible for the capitulations last season. I specifically point to our central midfields who put up shockingly low numbers of tackles, interceptions, clearances, and forward passes to relieve pressure in those matches.

 

[eddiev14]

It sounds like we might have a frustrating couple of windows whilst we struggle for buyers of the deadwood who aren't interested in moving on.

It's a shame, but hopefully Levy is prepared to take a bit of a hit on a few of them for the sake of squad morale and freeing up space for the players Poch wants.

Hopefully by August the squad will look completely refreshed.

 

[steve]

There's a massive middle ground there mate that falls within that "difference." The difference between 2012/13 and the following year was huge, and I pointed out that there are various components involved of various significance. As I said, I don't think Livermore would have changed the results, but I don't think he would have allowed the utter capitulations on the back of entirely giving up.

This was never a conversation of anything more than conjecture and speculation, so I don't understand the need to point that out. "Little evidence" is based on biased sample size in choosing to point to Hull with a massively less talented squad, vs their replacements being around that more talented squad and being turned over. Mind you, Hull was also not consistently turned over by those sides, so if we want to be overly selective and biased I could turn the sample around and point to that fact.

Daws was present, but he was behind a midfield that did absolutely nothing to shield him all of last season. We featured a flat CM last season with two players of similarity, with not one taking the responsibility of shielding the back line and the other with pushing us forward. Daws did not have a good season, but he was not directly responsible for the capitulations last season. I specifically point to our central midfields who put up shockingly low numbers of tackles, interceptions, clearances, and forward passes to relieve pressure in those matches.

So Livermore in front of Dawson would've meant we only lost by 3 possibly?

I think as you've alluded to there are many many factors, changes in management, tactics used and losing the likes of Bale and Parker who gave us genuine belief and a winning mentality amongst other things. The stats won't paint the whole picture for the reasons I've just given.

I was at Anfield when we lost 4 - 0. We were beaten before we walked on the pitch. Do I think Livermore ( a squad player at best at Spurs) would've stopped the capitulation? Do I balls.

I've also watched Dawson get taught a lesson by such footballing luminaries as Kenwyne Jones, do his little galvanising clap and then stare at his boots in embarrassment.

The players we brought in lacked the right mentality coupled with problems in management. This more than the likes of Livermore leaving was the problem. We haven't missed him, Hudd or Daws and we won't miss Lennon. Not their ability nor their mentality.

 

[DaSpurs]

So Livermore in front of Dawson would've meant we only lost by 3 possibly?
Demb
I think as you've alluded to there are many many factors, changes in management, tactics used and losing the likes of Bale and Parker who gave us genuine belief and a winning mentality amongst other things. The stats won't paint the whole picture for the reasons I've just given.

I was at Anfield when we lost 4 - 0. We were beaten before we walked on the pitch. Do I think Livermore ( a squad player at best at Spurs) would've stopped the capitulation? Do I balls.

I've also watched Dawson get taught a lesson by such footballing luminaries as Kenwyne Jones, do his little galvanising clap and then stare at his boots in embarrassment.

The players we brought in lacked the right mentality coupled with problems in management. This more than the likes of Livermore leaving was the problem. We haven't missed him, Hudd or Daws and we won't miss Lennon. Not their ability nor their mentality.

We won't any more since we've seemed to finally find our footing and I agree we should sell Lennon, but I maintain that we shouldn't have gutted the whole core at the same time for entirely foreign players. We should have maintained a mix of Prem experience with foreign flair, and instead we went way overboard.

You're still too hung up on the footballing qualities though. Look at our squad which beat Chelsea. Not many differences at all from the one that was hammered by that same side just over a month ago, but we went down and still scrapped back to our feet. This says it all about how crucially fundamental mentality is at this level, and I think it no less significant than footballing quality. The reason we have managed to turn it around in such a short time is not on the back of a sudden rise in quality, but most importantly because we have finally returned to a sense of identity and chemistry on the pitch.

No I don't think Daws should be a starter over Fazio and Vertonghen, but I'd have kept him as a squad option over Kaboul. No I don't think Livermore should be our starting holding mid of the future, but I'd have easily kept him over any of Paulinho, Capoue, a crocked Sandro, Stambouli, and Dembele. Admittedly not as quality of a player as some of the above, but his impact would nonetheless have been greater IMO.

 

[steve]

We won't any more since we've seemed to finally find our footing and I agree we should sell Lennon, but I maintain that we shouldn't have gutted the whole core at the same time for entirely foreign players. We should have maintained a mix of Prem experience with foreign flair, and instead we went way overboard.

You're still too hung up on the footballing qualities though. Look at our squad which beat Chelsea. Not many differences at all from the one that was hammered by that same side just over a month ago, but we went down and still scrapped back to our feet. This says it all about how crucially fundamental mentality is at this level, and I think it no less significant than footballing quality. The reason we have managed to turn it around in such a short time is not on the back of a sudden rise in quality, but most importantly because we have finally returned to a sense of identity and chemistry on the pitch.

No I don't think Daws should be a starter over Fazio and Vertonghen, but I'd have kept him as a squad option over Kaboul. No I don't think Livermore should be our starting holding mid of the future, but I'd have easily kept him over any of Paulinho, Capoue, a crocked Sandro, Stambouli, and Dembele. Admittedly not as quality of a player as some of the above, but his impact would nonetheless have been greater IMO.

I wouldn't have kept him over any of them - he's not good enough, wanted to go, we got a good fee and he's got the regular footy he wanted at a club that matches his all round skill set including his mentality. He hasn't been missed at all by anyone I know.

What do the terms sense of identity and chemistry on the pitch mean - can you be more specific in what exactly it is you mean please? Do you think these were prevalent against Leicester on Boxing Day?

Of course mentality is important at this level the best players have both but I didn't see a poor mentality when Dembele played against Chelsea or Stambouli played against Man Yoo. Or Capoue against Soton. Or even Paulinho when he came on against Chelsea. In fact I find it astonishing that you think Livermore would've been more valuable than the likes of Dembele or Capoue or even Stambouli (who the jury is still out on).

Nice kid, does his best and I'm genuinely pleased he's made it at Hull because he's worked hard for it but he's a mid table plodder with limitations and not someone who I regret leaving at all.

 

[Rout-Ledge]

more from ali z, sounds a bit like summing up paper rumours but anyway: As for players out a few clubs have enquired about Soldado, none on Ade, a firm bid place for Lamela (not accepted) interest in two mentioned plus Townsend and Pauli, none in Kaboom or Capoue.

I'd been tempted to take what we can get for Soldado if we can line up a decent replacement. Might be more sensible to wait until the summer though.

No chance would I sell Lamela. Paulinho seems to be getting a little better, but anything over £10m we'd be silly to turn down.

Not surprised about the lack of interest in Kaboul or Capoue, they've been dreadful this season.

 

[DaSpurs]

I wouldn't have kept him over any of them - he's not good enough, wanted to go, we got a good fee and he's got the regular footy he wanted at a club that matches his all round skill set including his mentality. He hasn't been missed at all by anyone I know.

What do the terms sense of identity and chemistry on the pitch mean - can you be more specific in what exactly it is you mean please? Do you think these were prevalent against Leicester on Boxing Day?

Of course mentality is important at this level the best players have both but I didn't see a poor mentality when Dembele played against Chelsea or Stambouli played against Man Yoo. Or Capoue against Soton. Or even Paulinho when he came on against Chelsea. In fact I find it astonishing that you think Livermore would've been more valuable than the likes of Dembele or Capoue or even Stambouli (who the jury is still out on).

Nice kid, does his best and I'm genuinely pleased he's made it at Hull because he's worked hard for it but he's a mid table plodder with limitations and not someone who I regret leaving at all.

Honestly, I'm astonished you feel the opposite.

What has Capoue done for us? What has Dembele done other than the odd game? Most of the time, he passes side to side and accumulates a shockingly poor number of tackles per game despite his physical nature. Even when he played as an attacking mid for Fulham, he still hardly put up any more production than he does now as a holding midfielder. Paulinho? The deepest lying striker in the world, who contributes goals but absolutely nothing defensively or ball movement, the latter of which the primary responsibility of a central midfielder.

Core and mentality is manifested in the long term, so it's irrelevant to point to individual performances of each of the above. Over the long term, that core of midfield was astonishingly poor against the top sides when shit hit the fan. With the lesser quality of Livermore, he never once allowed us to get bent over. So stop viewing it in the isolated sense of the fact that Livermore isn't a groundbreaking player, and try to bring it into the context of the medium of team chemistry, which has been the entire point of this conversation.

I think at this point though that we've long since gone in circles and we're overcrowding a thread not intended for this, so I think we should end it at this before A&C leaves the match thread. Cheers bud, hope you find your evening delightful.

 

[Mr Pink]

The only game I ever felt Livermore was genuinely good in was a 2-0 against Everton, when he partnered Modric. The one were Ekotto rifled a 25 yard screamer of Tim Cahil's arse. Think Lennon skinned Baines for the first.

Livermore was a good lad, but he was only ever going to go so far with us. A starter for Hull is his level and I hope he continues to do well for them.

 

[DiscoD1882]

Sorry I just found the rating. I must have accidentally touched the dislike but it wasn't deliberately done. Look at my past ratings given

This is how the Tottenham riots started.

 

[DiscoD1882]

Done by mistake. I didn't even know I'd done it. Oops Sorry!

This is how the Tottenham riots started

 

[DaSpurs]

The only game I ever felt Livermore was genuinely good in was a 2-0 against Everton, when he partnered Modric. The one were Ekotto rifled a 25 screamer of Tim Cahil's arse. Think Lennon skinned Baines for the first.

Livermore was a good lad, but he was only ever going to go so far with us. A starter for Hull is his level and I hope he continues to do well for them.

I agree, but the argument wasn't as to the footballing quality of Livermore specifically, it was as to his general contribution in the context of the fact that we removed so much of the core for foreign players. Again, on paper, no Livermore doesn't stand up. But as for whole team mentality and chemistry, I think the turnaround between performances against Chelsea within the span of one month proves that the contribution of team identity cannot be undervalued.

 

[steve]

Honestly, I'm astonished you feel the opposite.

What has Capoue done for us? What has Dembele done other than the odd game? Most of the time, he passes side to side and accumulates a shockingly poor number of tackles per game despite his physical nature. Even when he played as an attacking mid for Fulham, he still hardly put up any more production than he does now as a holding midfielder. Paulinho? The deepest lying striker in the world, who contributes goals but absolutely nothing defensively or ball movement, the latter of which the primary responsibility of a central midfielder.

Core and mentality is manifested in the long term, so it's irrelevant to point to individual performances of each of the above. Over the long term, that core of midfield was astonishingly poor against the top sides when shit hit the fan. With the lesser quality of Livermore, he never once allowed us to get bent over. So stop viewing it in the isolated sense of the fact that Livermore isn't a groundbreaking player, and try to bring it into the context of the medium of team chemistry, which has been the entire point of this conversation.

I think at this point though that we've long since gone in circles and we're overcrowding a thread not intended for this, so I think we should end it at this before A&C leaves the match thread. Cheers bud, hope you find your evening delightful.

I think you're talking in intangibles DS.

Pinky made a point about the last of the old school players, meaning players who'd been here a long time (Hudd, Lennon, Daws, Defoe), I made the point that I didn't miss any of them. You jumped in regarding players leaving being a problem regarding mentality and mentioned Scotty Parker, Livermore and Huddlestone. Parker we agree on (who wouldn't) but he wasn't old school. Huddlestone you soon dropped because he never showed much of a mentality. So Livermore was your last hope, a player I've never heard anyone once admit to say his leaving was a problem. It smacks of straw clutching after the event to me DS.

The main problem was some of the new players we brought in, not Livermore leaving - easier to admit that than talk about intangibles like core and mentality. And now you've contradicted yourself by talking about them both being manifested in the long term but then saying you'd prefer Livermore over Stambouli who's not been here long and played very little - are you writing him off already?

Parker was a big loss, so was Sandro to injury, I appreciate what you're saying about Livermore but I don't think he's demonstrated enough in terms of ability or mentality to be really missed at Spurs.

Livermore leaving wasn't a big loss then and it isn't now. It was the players we brought in plus problems with the management and all that that involves. Average skill set, average mentality and now at a club that suits him. Enjoy your evening too.

 

[Mr Pink]

I agree, but the argument wasn't as to the footballing quality of Livermore specifically, it was as to his general contribution in the context of the fact that we removed so much of the core for foreign players. Again, on paper, no Livermore doesn't stand up. But as for whole team mentality and chemistry, I think the turnaround between performances against Chelsea within the span of one month proves that the contribution of team identity cannot be undervalued.

The problem wasn't who we let go, it was who we brought in when Levy whipped out his Bale shaped wheelbarrow to go shopping with Baldini.

They should of been doing some of there shopping closer to home IMO.

 

[Ghost Hardware]

I would go postal if we sold Lamela right now, he is just starting to show signs of truly settling. It would be a very short sighted move to sell him now and we would probably take a heavy loss.

Lots of reports coming out about Pool trying to get Shaqiri on a loan for 1 mil with a future fee of 8 mil. We should be all over this one even if the total price was nearer 12. makes much more sense then loaning Rabiot without a to buy clause. Ideally we could look to bring in Delph maybe, as we have just been linked with a cut price move, sell Pauli and bring in Shaqiri that way we still keep abreast of our home grown quota even if we sell Lennon.

Anyway, whoever we move for I hope we pick wisely as the teams currently below us will spend money and will stregthan. If we play our cards right I think we could have a shot at top four, which is incredible hard to fathom considering how poorly we were doing a few weeks back. I know sales will be key, but I still, for some misguided reason think we might do okay in the market this time.

 

[DaSpurs]

I think you're talking in intangibles DS.

Pinky made a point about the last of the old school players, meaning players who'd been here a long time (Hudd, Lennon, Daws, Defoe), I made the point that I didn't miss any of them. You jumped in regarding players leaving being a problem regarding mentality and mentioned Scotty Parker, Livermore and Huddlestone. Parker we agree on (who wouldn't) but he wasn't old school. Huddlestone you soon dropped because he never showed much of a mentality. So Livermore was your last hope, a player I've never heard anyone once admit to say his leaving was a problem. It smacks of straw clutching after the event to me DS.

The main problem was some of the new players we brought in, not Livermore leaving - easier to admit that than talk about intangibles like core and mentality. And now you've contradicted yourself by talking about them both being manifested in the long term but then saying you'd prefer Livermore over Stambouli who's not been here long and played very little - are you writing him off already?

Parker was a big loss, so was Sandro to injury, I appreciate what you're saying about Livermore but I don't think he's demonstrated enough in terms of ability or mentality to be really missed at Spurs.

Livermore leaving wasn't a big loss then and it isn't now. It was the players we brought in plus problems with the management and all that that involves. Average skill set, average mentality and now at a club that suits him. Enjoy your evening too.

Straw clutching? I didn't "drop" Huddlestone, I mentioned that was a component of that loss of mentality and never deviated from that. In terms of footballing quality, it was never close and I never suggested it was that those players' contributions would be superior, but his loss in combination with the others certainly did lead to the problems that we had. That is an extremely aggressive paragraph that is unfounded on truth with my own quotes, and your own "conjecture" as to your reasoning that I'm seemingly down to last resort comments. Shockingly ungrounded leaps in assumptions there.

Contradicted myself with that comment? I think you've contradicted yourself by pointing out about the potential of Stambouli while also accusing me earlier of making conjecture without little evidence. And yes, I stand by my point that Livermore over the course of last season would have contributed to a more successful season than the bottoming out we faced last season. 44% of our goals conceded last season were due to OG or direct error. 44%. That reflects a massively poor indication of poor mentality, and one which I don't think would have occurred had we left some of that core in place, namely Livermore. As I said, I certainly don't think we'd have finished much higher, but I do think our midfields would have been far more balanced and we would not have fared as poorly against the bigger sides. Had we kept Livermore over Capoue, I absolutely think we would have fared better and I don't apologize for that nor think that's a desperate stance. Even a numerical analysis between the two would reinforce this, even before we get into mentality, team chemistry, etc.

But this is done. If anyone else reading this discussion falls for your lackluster assumptions and connected reasoning points in aggression, that's their own fault. I think we'll simply leave it as that we agree on on the fact that the acquisitions were unbalanced and that it led to our problems, regardless of the extent of how we feel about the departed.

 

[NNspur]

This is how the Tottenham riots started

Shit! I didn't realise a touch of a phone could have such devastating circumstances.......hang on, that got a lot of investment in the area and got the club let off the s60s or whatever there called so not all bad.

 

[DaSpurs]

The problem wasn't who we let go, it was who we brought in when Levy whipped out his Bale shaped wheelbarrow to go shopping with Baldini.

They should of been doing some of there shopping closer to home IMO.

I agree with that, but as with any side you cannot remove that extent of a core and expect a smooth transition, even if the newly acquired featured some from the British Isles. We sold both our offensive core and our leadership core that summer, and no extent of re-acquisitions, however well calculated, could have replaced that. We should have maintained a bridge, a foundation from which to allow more efficient change on a stronger ground, and then made additional changes later.

 

[dovahkiin]

some bits b4 bed - sorry if posted, havent really checked

trix on coys / all credit to @TrickyVilla : no outs, no in's! Money available but wage bill is bloated already.
The way I hear it as soon as players go we will see incomings. Just a case of when we can move players on.
There is interest in 6(that I know of) we are willing to let go.
Wage bill is already OTT and the likes of Mason, Bentaleb and Kane need parity with their now squad status. Hugo, Rose and Townsend just signed improved deals and Jan has one on the table. The money has to come from somewhere even before we look at what we'd pay new signings.

hertyid: Wages really jumped the past 18 months. The new PL deal being negotiated at the moment will improve cashflow again for everyone but we could still do with shifting some deadwood. Adebayor contract expiring will help. Also I am told Paulinho may be back in the circle of trust.

 

[carpediem991]

If there is genuine interest in Paulinho and we decide to keep him now that would depress me.

 

[DaSpurs]

Aargh no we must move Paulinho on. Takes up an undoubtedly significant amount of those wages and doesn't contribute much either in CM or AM. Really hoping the rumor about Inter's interest with loan to buy is true. We cannot pass that up.