Ange in or out?

[Muttley]

I think he’s improved a lot but that’s not to say he can’t continue improving. He’s not the finished article and still has areas to work on which you e mentioned.

When I think back to last year he was playing well when the team were playing well. His level dropped when the team dropped. This year there have been games where he’s single handedly come in and drive the team forward when the team was struggling.

On the technical side if you look at his shooting the last couple of years, he always pulled it weak to the keepers right. This years he hits the target far more frequently, and with power.

I’ve definitely seen improvements in his game but there’s more to work on. The main one for me is more consistency in his performances.

That's fair. I am a Sarr fan.

Great point about the shooting as well. His goals have been very timely.

 

[Kompakted]

The results you show above equated to 19 points from 12 games so averages out to a 60 point season (enough for 7th last season)

Even your abbreviated period of 9 games shows 13 points which would be 54 points and not 50 if continued across the season (enough for 9th last season).

I don't think we are disagreeing. I said the time frame you referred to (before November) equated to "50 odd" points, I.e. not 50 but a number starting with 50 i couldn't be bothered to work out exactly.

As I've stated, with a "fully fit/fresh" squad, Ange looked like he was going to hit 50 odd points. Once the fixture list started ramping up and the treatment room became busy it's dropped to looking like a 40 odd point season.

Ange crawled into 5th place last season after a very disappointing mid-season collapse caused partly by a raft of injuries, concentrated in defence. That's with no Europe and going out the cups early.

This season has repeated the same pattern but without the first 10 game bounce and points cushion and the injuries have been even worse due to the increased fixture congestion.

 

[demotw]

A slightly different question. Has a manager ever fallen this low, and then turned it round? I guess Ferguson's United flirted with relegation at the end of the 80s. But has there been anything more recent? Or does the spiral of decline always get its man?

Maybe not recent, and my memory is not what it once was, but am I not right in thinking Burkinshaw would be listed at least in our top 5 managers of all time, yet his first season he actually got us relegated.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I don't think we are disagreeing. I said the time frame you referred to (before November) equated to "50 odd" points, I.e. not 50 but a number starting with 50 i couldn't be bothered to work out exactly.

As I've stated, with a "fully fit/fresh" squad, Ange looked like he was going to hit 50 odd points. Once the fixture list started ramping up and the treatment room became busy it's dropped to looking like a 40 odd point season.

Ange crawled into 5th place last season after a very disappointing mid-season collapse caused partly by a raft of injuries, concentrated in defence. That's with no Europe and going out the cups early.

This season has repeated the same pattern but without the first 10 game bounce and points cushion and the injuries have been even worse due to the increased fixture congestion.

Nope. Up until the end of November, we were on course for 60 points (good enough for 7th last season).
We were also well set with 10 out of 15 points in the Europa League and were also in the quarter finals of the League Cup.

 

[monkeybarry]

You can't make wild assumptions such as that. Whose to say that as the season progresses the team clicks more and more into how Ange wants them to play?

Anyone that's ever watched football?

 

[Diamond Lights]

i fail to believe another manager wouldn't have got more from the squad. i mean losing to Everton and letting them score 3 goals should be a sackable offence. folks went for Conte and Jose for far less. sure stylistically it was awful, but Ange's results are shocking.

folks need to stop hiding behind the injury card. second part of last year our results were tosh too. beat Villa away but rest was pony. If Ange was non-English speaking foreigner he'd have been hammered by media far worse

 

[DubSpur]

Maybe not recent, and my memory is not what it once was, but am I not right in thinking Burkinshaw would be listed at least in our top 5 managers of all time, yet his first season he actually got us relegated.

2 FA Cups and UEFA cup, puts him in our top 2.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Good question. Essentially does it even seem possible or plausible to turn this around.

Bedfordspurs pointed out Arteta. I think Howe at Saudi Sportswashing Machine is another example. But none of them fell to the level we're at now. Examples of this kind of situation being turned around for sure are rare.

Part of that may also be that by this point most managers at most clubs would already be sacked, so not a lot of examples where this has been tested.

Yeah I forgot Howe
Good call

 

[Raziel]

i fail to believe another manager wouldn't have got more from the squad. i mean losing to Everton and letting them score 3 goals should be a sackable offence. folks went for Conte and Jose for far less. sure stylistically it was awful, but Ange's results are shocking.

folks need to stop hiding behind the injury card. second part of last year our results were tosh too. beat Villa away but rest was pony. If Ange was non-English speaking foreigner he'd have been hammered by media far worse

Fans and media are in this fudging loop of "manager turnover bad" and "every manager will succeed if given enough time", and there is zero data to show that is a valid point of view.

My issue with the club firing managers every 18 months (although clearly when successful like Harry or Poch, it lasts longer) isn't the change of manager, it's the change of style that inevitably ends up with unsuited players for incoming manger.

If we fired Ange two months ago, and brought in a manager that played and combination of 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, or even 3-4-3, as long as it utilized width, played possession and pressing game with an emphasis on progressive football with reasonably high work rate, squad would have transferred fine, no need to lose the progress we have made in rebuild.

Keep saying it, a manager like Iriola would use this squad fine, no need to shift a whole bunch, just add from here.

 

[billyiddo]

By that logic very few players have improved at clubs all over the world, it is all just natural progression.

When Willian had that really good season at Fulham after the really bad one at Arsenal, it was nothing to do with Silva, Willian had just got back to the level he was at before Arsenal when at Chelsea.

I guess managers create the conditions in which players can progress in rather than outright develop the players themselves

 

[Kompakted]

Nope. Up until the end of November, we were on course for 60 points (good enough for 7th last season).
We were also well set with 10 out of 15 points in the Europa League and were also in the quarter finals of the League Cup.

I'm sorry but you're the one who said "up to November" because the injuries started to hit in November and then want to extrapolate an extra three games i posted which included a bizarre 4-0 win away to City with our 2nd string centre backs playing. The next 3 games into december were D 1 L2 which included a game where both Romero and VDV returned (Chelsea). So during the period where the squad was still relatively healthy and he (while having 2 key injuries) had options his record was W 6 D 2 L 7 so no, he wasn't on course for a 60 point season at all. And some of the performances with full strength and relatively full strength teams were really not very good at all....

 

[Finney Is Back]

I'm sorry but you're the one who said "up to November" because the injuries started to hit in November and then want to extrapolate an extra three games i posted which included a bizarre 4-0 win away to City with our 2nd string centre backs playing. The next 3 games into december were D 1 L2 which included a game where both Romero and VDV returned (Chelsea). So during the period where the squad was still relatively healthy and he (while having 2 key injuries) had options his record was W 6 D 2 L 7 so no, he wasn't on course for a 60 point season at all. And some of the performances with full strength and relatively full strength teams were really not very good at all....

Eh? I merely added up the points in the games that you listed. You showed the PL results from the start of the season until the end of November.

The problems don't necessarily just start when you first happen to get a few injuries by the way. The injuries hit, a smaller group of players then need to play more games building up more fatigue. More injuries then hit and the problem is amplified, especially when the games are coming thick and fast.

If you don't think a lot of our issues are down to injuries and fatigue then fine, you're welcome to that opinion. I just happen to hold a different opinion to you and think that the team we were doing OK until the point that the injuries and fatigue started to really take hold (which I think has been since December and I think will last for another few weeks yet until we see 3 or 4 players coming back (or new in).

If you want to choose whatever sample size makes your point look best then you go for it. It's no skin off my nose.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Not far away. But didn't fall quite as far in the league.

I don't want us exiting Europe, but maybe some of those more worried about relegation than me do?

But I do want to see if Ange can turn this around by getting some players back. And Howe at Saudi Sportswashing Machine is the closest example I could think of too.

As I said in the other thread if we qualify straight to Rnd 16 after our final game on 30th Jan we can forget about EL until 6th March.

Go to the playoff we suffer a couple more midweek fixtures on 13th and 20th Feb.

The first scenario is so so favourable given our injury return dates ...and also some bloody midweek breaks. Which will also feed into better league form.

 

[Kompakted]

Eh? I merely added up the points in the games that you listed. You showed the PL results from the start of the season until the end of November.

The problems don't necessarily just start when you first happen to get a few injuries by the way. The injuries hit, a smaller group of players then need to play more games building up more fatigue. More injuries then hit and the problem is amplified, especially when the games are coming thick and fast.

If you don't think a lot of our issues are down to injuries and fatigue then fine, you're welcome to that opinion. I just happen to hold a different opinion to you and think that the team we were doing OK until the point that the injuries and fatigue started to really take hold (which I think has been since December and I think will last for another few weeks yet until we see 3 or 4 players coming back (or new in).

If you want to choose whatever sample size makes your point look best then you go for it. It's no skin off my nose.

I said the injuries had an impact. I said they turned a poor 50 odd point season into a disastrous 40 odd point season. I'm merely pointing out that the idea we'd have achieved anything above mediocre in the league had these injuries not happened isn't really backed up by anything other than hope. That's leaving aside the question over whether Postecoglu is always going to have higher than average injuries over a season and whether those injuries will always be concentrated in defence (as we have had this 2 seasons in a row now). The sample size that really counts is the current full sample size of Ange's season and a half in charge, where he has one of the worst points to game ratio in our PL history.

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't think we are disagreeing. I said the time frame you referred to (before November) equated to "50 odd" points, I.e. not 50 but a number starting with 50 i couldn't be bothered to work out exactly.

As I've stated, with a "fully fit/fresh" squad, Ange looked like he was going to hit 50 odd points. Once the fixture list started ramping up and the treatment room became busy it's dropped to looking like a 40 odd point season.

Ange crawled into 5th place last season after a very disappointing mid-season collapse caused partly by a raft of injuries, concentrated in defence. That's with no Europe and going out the cups early.

This season has repeated the same pattern but without the first 10 game bounce and points cushion and the injuries have been even worse due to the increased fixture congestion.

Nice to see we learnt from that process by making absolutely sure we did not sign any opf the extra defenders we all knew we needed and that he wanted.

 

[thfcsteff]

I said the injuries had an impact. I said they turned a poor 50 odd point season into a disastrous 40 odd point season. I'm merely pointing out that the idea we'd have achieved anything above mediocre in the league had these injuries not happened isn't really backed up by anything other than hope. That's leaving aside the question over whether Postecoglu is always going to have higher than average injuries over a season and whether those injuries will always be concentrated in defence (as we have had this 2 seasons in a row now). The sample size that really counts is the current full sample size of Ange's season and a half in charge, where he has one of the worst points to game ratio in our PL history.

The sample size which counts for me is evaluating exactly how often we have supported a manager at thius fudging football club with what THEY want versus what WE will give them. This past summer is a fine example. Were Gray and Bergvall great signings? Absolutely. Did he also want Gallagher, Eze, Neto among others? Yes. Did we get him even one of them? No. Whether you agree with the players he wanted or not, the fact remains that once again, a manager wanted to supplement club signings with a couple of instant difference makers, and we did not give him ONE of them. He got Solanke on the final day, wonderful. How many managers do we do this to? FWIW I am NOT a fan of Neto, but we either hite managers to both execute a strategy and support them in their work, or we hire managers to do what 'the project' wants solely until such a time as we wring them out. It appears to me we are on the latter course yet again. Let's see...

 

[billyiddo]

He signs off on the players we do buy - so it's safe to assume he wanted the players that we have signed. More safe than it is to assume the players we were linked to that we didn't buy were also definitely wanted by him.

 

[Kompakted]

The sample size which counts for me is evaluating exactly how often we have supported a manager at thius fudging football club with what THEY want versus what WE will give them. This past summer is a fine example. Were Gray and Bergvall great signings? Absolutely. Did he also want Gallagher, Eze, Neto among others? Yes. Did we get him even one of them? No. Whether you agree with the players he wanted or not, the fact remains that once again, a manager wanted to supplement club signings with a couple of instant difference makers, and we did not give him ONE of them. He got Solanke on the final day, wonderful. How many managers do we do this to? FWIW I am NOT a fan of Neto, but we either hite managers to both execute a strategy and support them in their work, or we hire managers to do what 'the project' wants solely until such a time as we wring them out. It appears to me we are on the latter course yet again. Let's see...

We are far from the only club that expect coaches to work with what they're given and the club strategy. You buy Neto and you likely don't ever see Moore in a Spurs shirt this season. Similar to Gallagher and Bergvall. I do think the manager could have been a better fit in that regard. He clearly values experience to the point of playing an out-of-form experienced player out of position over a young player. Whereas if I compare that to Poch who was willing to dump experienced players for youth....I think again the club need to marry the coach to the strategy.

 

[Muttley]

He signs off on the players we do buy - so it's safe to assume he wanted the players that we have signed. More safe than it is to assume the players we were linked to that we didn't buy were also definitely wanted by him.

What you say is true, but I don't think it is that black and white. I think managers start a transfer window with a picture in their heads of what their team will look like next season, including their main 2 or 3 targets and offloads. Then about half way through they're having doubts that it's going to happen. And then it doesn't happen so an alternative set of targets is agreed, or they might decide to stick with what they have as the alternatives aren't right. The problem is the picture that they painted before the window changes to a naturally compromised one. The narrative then becomes that the manager chose to make the signings and keep those players.

What we have learned from Ange so far is that he treats recruitment as a team sport with the rest of the gang. They all seem in it together. I'll pick him apart on a few things, but the way he has worked to his job description and embraced the transfer game as a Spurs manager is not one of them. You never hear him whinge about it, but you can tell he's desperate to get a couple more in. He just gets the complexity of our budgets and brand attraction to signing players.

 

[thfcsteff]

We are far from the only club that expect coaches to work with what they're given and the club strategy. You buy Neto and you likely don't ever see Moore in a Spurs shirt this season. Similar to Gallagher and Bergvall. I do think the manager could have been a better fit in that regard. He clearly values experience to the point of playing an out-of-form experienced player out of position over a young player. Whereas if I compare that to Poch who was willing to dump experienced players for youth....I think again the club need to marry the coach to the strategy.

I did not say he should've got them all. I am saying he didn't get one of them.
Moore would absolutely have got minutes here and there, but yes, he would not have become a player we are relying upon to bail us out (at 17 years old and having not even played U-21s). Bergvall would absolutely have got minutes, and possibly ended up being loaned out in January, except he took a quantum leap in development over a month before Xmas, and as such has suddenly found himself in the 'bail us out please' category too; I am grateful for sure, he's been great, but he still has a ways to go and I would rather he was able to develop rather than be thrust into the court of instant delivery.

What do you mean by that line? Are you referencing Son and Lankshear? I think that's a tenuous line to walk. We have no idea what he and the staff see with Lankshear every day, suffice to say it seems to be enoiugh for them to not want to gamble. I could offer suggestions as to why, but they'd be nothing more than speculation. We don't know.

As for the last line, well I really don't know where to begin.
Kinsky, Gray, Berghall, Moore. Dragusin is 22. How many kids do you want out there at once? Bar Kinsky, all have played for the last 8 weeks non-stop (Dragusin finally gave into his own body having played with an injury for a while before finally getting the brick knocked out of him by DCL's flying elbow). If your metric for that comment remains Ange's continual deployment of Son, I'd remember he is the club captain, the team captain, and despite his poor form and fatigue has 8 goals and 7 assists in all competitions (6 and 6 in 19 PL games). He has the most assists this season, and is 2 goals behiond our leading scorer this season.
In a poor season, and with him in poor form, he is still one of our current most productive players (staggeringly)...