Christian Eriksen

[markysimmo]

sherwood claiming credit for eriksens transfer

Sherwood claims he first spotted the winger, 22, when he was an 18-year-old playing for Denmark in a 2-1 defeat by England and tried to convince Spurs chairman Daniel Levy to sign him then.
‘I watched him for Denmark in 2011 and I rang Daniel Levy the day after and said that he needed to sign this boy,’ Sherwood said. ‘You are always fearful that someone might come and take one of your best players and Christian is certainly one.’

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/spurs-midfielder-christian-eriksen-could-3437420

nothing wrong with that but he could've said something earlier during avb's tenure to give the guy a boost

On twitter this morning people are saying the game that Sherwood said he went to didnt even happen

 

[camspur]

On twitter this morning people are saying the game that Sherwood said he went to didnt even happen

Well, that would be the Sherwood haters, here's the report from the game

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9391367.stm

 

[metalgear]

Still the bigger mistake he made is rejecting suarez.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Fapatalk

 

[camspur]

Still the bigger mistake he made is rejecting suarez.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Fapatalk

Who is "He" that you are refering to?

 

[markysimmo]

Who is "He" that you are refering to?

I think the scouting dream team of Les and Tim

 

[chancer]

Without meaning to denounce TS' claims, Eriksen was known to most of the European footballing world even back in 2011. I have no idea about whether or not Eriksen was a TS transfer although we do know that he wasn't an AVB signing (we only know that Paulinho and Soldado were players he wanted, according to the papers that is). At the start of last summer's window I reckoned Eriksen was going to go to a club late in the window as various clubs waited to see if they could get him at the last minute for cheap, I'm more inclined to believe that we got him because it was too good a value to believe. If we believe in the transfer committee then no doubt TS had input at this stage, but the article doesn't make that clear.

As a side note, Eriksen was playing regulalry for AVB until the Wham game where he was marked out of the game, but even after that he still started quite a few games. Then in November he was injured and didn't return until just before AVB got the axe. Whilst AVB may not have had a hand in the signing of Eriksen, I don't think he was marginalised to the extent others think.

Sorry Cochise, I don't want to have a go, but this post is typical of what we're seeing on this board at the moment.

Paragraph 1: Downplay any credit that might be due Sherwood
Paragraph 2: Exaggerate any credit that might be due AVB

It really is bizarre how this kind of rewriting of history goes on every day on this board.

Sherwood:

- Very likely the prime mover on the transfer committee in Eriksen purchase
- Has played Eriksen in his most effective position since he came in
- Has picked him consistently
- Has overseen Eriksen's recent, significant uptick in form

AVB:

- Didn't want Eriksen signed
- Didn't seem to know Eriksen's best position
- Didn't pick him regularly
- Oversaw patchy form from Eriksen

Somehow all the Sherwood points are downplayed (Sherwood was only one of the team that bought Eriksen, and no mention of Eriksen's form since Sherwood became coach) while AVBs points are sugar-coated (downplaying that AVB didn't want him, followed by explanations and excuses for Eriksen's patchy form/selection under AVB without a word of criticism.)

I acknowledge that you do give credit to Sherwood for being a member of the transfer panel, but overall it is not a fair or accurate description of what's gone on.

 

[metalgear]

Actually all the strikers did better under Sherwood and the defence fared worse. Difference in emphasis of styles.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Fapatalk

 

[Jordinho]

Sorry Cochise, I don't want to have a go, but this post is typical of what we're seeing on this board at the moment.

Paragraph 1: Downplay any credit that might be due Sherwood
Paragraph 2: Exaggerate any credit that might be due AVB

It really is bizarre how this kind of rewriting of history goes on every day on this board.

Sherwood:

- Very likely the prime mover on the transfer committee in Eriksen purchase
- Has played Eriksen in his most effective position since he came in
- Has picked him consistently
- Has overseen Eriksen's recent, significant uptick in form

AVB:

- Didn't want Eriksen signed
- Didn't seem to know Eriksen's best position
- Didn't pick him regularly
- Oversaw patchy form from Eriksen

Somehow all the Sherwood points are downplayed (Sherwood was only one of the team that bought Eriksen, and no mention of Eriksen's form since Sherwood became coach) while AVBs points are sugar-coated (downplaying that AVB didn't want him, followed by explanations and excuses for Eriksen's patchy form/selection under AVB without a word of criticism.)

I acknowledge that you do give credit to Sherwood for being a member of the transfer panel, but overall it is not a fair or accurate description of what's gone on.

You are doing the exact opposite in this very post.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

sherwood claiming credit for eriksens transfer

Sherwood claims he first spotted the winger, 22, when he was an 18-year-old playing for Denmark in a 2-1 defeat by England and tried to convince Spurs chairman Daniel Levy to sign him then.
‘I watched him for Denmark in 2011 and I rang Daniel Levy the day after and said that he needed to sign this boy,’ Sherwood said. ‘You are always fearful that someone might come and take one of your best players and Christian is certainly one.’

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/spurs-midfielder-christian-eriksen-could-3437420

nothing wrong with that but he could've said something earlier during avb's tenure to give the guy a boost

Why say that? What's the point?

He shouldn't even entertain the thought that we could lose Eriksen. Stupid to raise the possibility.

 

[DHSF]

Why say that? What's the point?

He shouldn't even entertain the thought that we could lose Eriksen. Stupid to raise the possibility.

I think that is a snide at Levy. Why say that? its happened in the past - we have history.

 

[Luda2013]

We won't lose Eriksen. He's the best playmaker in the prem. He'd cost an arm and a leg.

 

[Denmark Spur]

Sherwood is such an incredible dingdonghead #-o

There has been no reported interest in Eriksen from CL-clubs in the papers

Eriksen has said that he is happy to stay - even if we are not in Europe

So why say something like that? Now the media will be making all sort of stories about him being linked with other clubs

But hey; Tim knows that he is not here next season so he actually dont care if Eriksen is off in the summer

 

[Cochise]

Chancer stop being so damn pro Sherwood. I actually went back through the team selections before even writing that out, just to make sure that I wasn't recalling facts wrongly. Eriksen started many games under AVB in the #10 position, the position that he had played in at Ajax for most of his career, to say AVB didn't play him in the correct position is wrong as he played a big part in the results against Norwich and Chelsea at the lane. I never omitted the fact that he went from starting every game to every other after the West Ham loss either. Sherwood has experimented with him and found the best way to make space for the lad to operate in is by using the wonky 442, but that is outside of the current argument here.

Did you read the mirror article??? Sherwood actually says that he told Levy to sign him up in 2011 but nothing about pushing for him in 2013.

“I watched him at 18 at Wembley playing for Denmark [a 2-1 defeat by England in February 2011] and I rang Daniel Levy the day after and said that he needs to sign this boy. A £10m fee later he is finally here, so that is all good news.”

That is the exact quote, he does not say anything like "this summer I insisted that we buy him" etc etc. So there is no elaboration from Sherwood on whether or not he did push for the transfer at committe level, I even said that I thought he had a say in the committee. There is no way I have downplayed his involvement.

For the record, Eriksen was known to many people as a rising star in the game prior to the England game. If you ask around I'm sure you will find quite a few people who had heard of him even then, such was the hype surrounding him at that young age.

So where have I directly fabricated a story to discredit Sherwood?? I stated Eriksen was known to many prior to the England game FACT. I stated that we have no idea whether or not Sherwood pushed for him in 2013 because Sherwood doesn't say that in the article FACT. I stated that AVB did play Eriksen regularly and then less often after the West Ham game, but did not marginalise him as shown by team selections prior to his injury FACT.

I give credit where it's due and I do not tint everything in an AVB light, in all honesty I didn't enjoy watching Tottenham under his tenure.

 

[JerusalemMan]

Interesting to read what Sherwood has specifically said in the last couple of days about the deployment of Eriksen. I think there was some criticism of TS for playing him on the left and being blind to his strengths through the centre. Apparently that criticism at least has little foundation:

"“I don’t want him to play wide,” said Sherwood. “I think in my first game at Southampton, he played inside. I think he likes to play on the fringes of it and get the ball in between the lines rather than being on the combative side. He’s a No10 or plays narrow enough on the sides – that’s his position. He plays loose and gets in those sneaky positions, and he can affect it beyond the midfield. If he gets it too deep you’re probably wasting him. [Luka] Modric was similar. Modric played inside so who knows where he [Eriksen] might end up. He wants to learn and will adapt to what he’s asked to do.”"

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Chancer stop being so damn pro Sherwood. I actually went back through the team selections before even writing that out, just to make sure that I wasn't recalling facts wrongly. Eriksen started many games under AVB in the #10 position, the position that he had played in at Ajax for most of his career, to say AVB didn't play him in the correct position is wrong as he played a big part in the results against Norwich and Chelsea at the lane. I never omitted the fact that he went from starting every game to every other after the West Ham loss either. Sherwood has experimented with him and found the best way to make space for the lad to operate in is by using the wonky 442, but that is outside of the current argument here.

Did you read the mirror article??? Sherwood actually says that he told Levy to sign him up in 2011 but nothing about pushing for him in 2013.

“I watched him at 18 at Wembley playing for Denmark [a 2-1 defeat by England in February 2011] and I rang Daniel Levy the day after and said that he needs to sign this boy. A £10m fee later he is finally here, so that is all good news.”

That is the exact quote, he does not say anything like "this summer I insisted that we buy him" etc etc. So there is no elaboration from Sherwood on whether or not he did push for the transfer at committe level, I even said that I thought he had a say in the committee. There is no way I have downplayed his involvement.

For the record, Eriksen was known to many people as a rising star in the game prior to the England game. If you ask around I'm sure you will find quite a few people who had heard of him even then, such was the hype surrounding him at that young age.

So where have I directly fabricated a story to discredit Sherwood?? I stated Eriksen was known to many prior to the England game FACT. I stated that we have no idea whether or not Sherwood pushed for him in 2013 because Sherwood doesn't say that in the article FACT. I stated that AVB did play Eriksen regularly and then less often after the West Ham game, but did not marginalise him as shown by team selections prior to his injury FACT.

I give credit where it's due and I do not tint everything in an AVB light, in all honesty I didn't enjoy watching Tottenham under his tenure.

The reason why he is getting criticised by the anti Sherwood phalanx is that the game was in Denmark, not at Wembley. Most people watched it as it's was the messiah Wilshires coming of age game... But he got completely outplayed by. Eriksen!!!

I think it was an obvious move to play him on the left but as someone rightly points out... Were getting about 70% of what he could be doing. It's strange that people are comparing his role to chadlis of late as Chadli is playing in a holding role not an attacking one. If anything Chadli is playing in Sandros role. I'm no fan of Chadli but he hasn't been bad in that role (other than at liverpoo)

What we need to do is build the team and system around eriksen. We have Pritchard to return from Swindon and he plays very much the same as eriksen too so we even have cover from within our young team and there are others who can play there too. Eriksen has a good history of being fit to play so it makes sense to maximise your best player

 

[mephitis]

So where have I directly fabricated a story to discredit Sherwood?? I stated Eriksen was known to many prior to the England game FACT. I stated that we have no idea whether or not Sherwood pushed for him in 2013 because Sherwood doesn't say that in the article FACT. I stated that AVB did play Eriksen regularly and then less often after the West Ham game, but did not marginalise him as shown by team selections prior to his injury FACT.

I give credit where it's due and I do not tint everything in an AVB light, in all honesty I didn't enjoy watching Tottenham under his tenure.

 

[DublinSpur]

The reason why he is getting criticised by the anti Sherwood phalanx is that the game was in Denmark, not at Wembley. Most people watched it as it's was the messiah Wilshires coming of age game... But he got completely outplayed by. Eriksen!!!

I think it was an obvious move to play him on the left but as someone rightly points out... Were getting about 70% of what he could be doing. It's strange that people are comparing his role to chadlis of late as Chadli is playing in a holding role not an attacking one. If anything Chadli is playing in Sandros role. I'm no fan of Chadli but he hasn't been bad in that role (other than at liverpoo)

What we need to do is build the team and system around eriksen. We have Pritchard to return from Swindon and he plays very much the same as eriksen too so we even have cover from within our young team and there are others who can play there too. Eriksen has a good history of being fit to play so it makes sense to maximise your best player

Have to say, I disagree with the idea of building the team around Eriksen. Far too risky to place that level of pressure on him at this stage of his career. He showed glimpses of brilliance during the early part of the season, and he's been a real revelation the past few months now he's settled in. But we have no evidence yet of how consistent he can be... can he maintain a consistently high quality over multiple seasons? Because you have a real problem if you build your team around a player who can't.

Personally I'd need to see Eriksen perform to a high quality for the entirety of next season before I put the fate of Tottenham Hotspur in his hands. I'm not saying he won't become the player you think he is. In fact, I think he will as it happens. But it's just a bit too early to say in my view.

There's also two other possible reasons why building a team around Eriksen might be premature. Firstly: Lamela. Will he be here next season? If so, is he as good as we all secretly hope he is? Secondly: the new manager. I doubt there will be a huge turn-over in players this summer, but the new manager is bound to bring in one marquee signing in attack.

It's my hope that next season we'll have Eriksen competing with Lamela and at least one other player for the title "best player at Spurs", so building a team around him won't be such an obvious thing to do. And that kind of competition is more likely to inspire a player of his age to meet his potential. Build a team around him now and he might buckle under the pressure, or he might go the other way and see himself as indispensable - stop putting in the effort because he knows 80% is enough to keep him in the team.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Have to say, I disagree with the idea of building the team around Eriksen. Far too risky to place that level of pressure on him at this stage of his career. He showed glimpses of brilliance during the early part of the season, and he's been a real revelation the past few months now he's settled in. But we have no evidence yet of how consistent he can be... can he maintain a consistently high quality over multiple seasons? Because you have a real problem if you build your team around a player who can't.

Personally I'd need to see Eriksen perform to a high quality for the entirety of next season before I put the fate of Tottenham Hotspur in his hands. I'm not saying he won't become the player you think he is. In fact, I think he will as it happens. But it's just a bit too early to say in my view.

There's also two other possible reasons why building a team around Eriksen might be premature. Firstly: Lamela. Will he be here next season? If so, is he as good as we all secretly hope he is? Secondly: the new manager. I doubt there will be a huge turn-over in players this summer, but the new manager is bound to bring in one marquee signing in attack.

It's my hope that next season we'll have Eriksen competing with Lamela and at least one other player for the title "best player at Spurs", so building a team around him won't be such an obvious thing to do. And that kind of competition is more likely to inspire a player of his age to meet his potential. Build a team around him now and he might buckle under the pressure, or he might go the other way and see himself as indispensable - stop putting in the effort because he knows 80% is enough to keep him in the team.

Fair comments but he has done it consistently at Ajax and in the champions league and is pretty consistent

I agree that I'd like to have a couple of players that we build the attacking side around, eriksen and Lamella at least and I'd really like to see Holtby given a chance too

The reason liverpoo have done well this year is that various players have stepped up when others haven't so they have kept up a certain level of performance. We always look better with multiple threats and this season we haven't really had that and looked very predicable at times

 

[Raziel]

Have to say, I disagree with the idea of building the team around Eriksen. Far too risky to place that level of pressure on him at this stage of his career. He showed glimpses of brilliance during the early part of the season, and he's been a real revelation the past few months now he's settled in. But we have no evidence yet of how consistent he can be... can he maintain a consistently high quality over multiple seasons? Because you have a real problem if you build your team around a player who can't.

Personally I'd need to see Eriksen perform to a high quality for the entirety of next season before I put the fate of Tottenham Hotspur in his hands. I'm not saying he won't become the player you think he is. In fact, I think he will as it happens. But it's just a bit too early to say in my view.

There's also two other possible reasons why building a team around Eriksen might be premature. Firstly: Lamela. Will he be here next season? If so, is he as good as we all secretly hope he is? Secondly: the new manager. I doubt there will be a huge turn-over in players this summer, but the new manager is bound to bring in one marquee signing in attack.

It's my hope that next season we'll have Eriksen competing with Lamela and at least one other player for the title "best player at Spurs", so building a team around him won't be such an obvious thing to do. And that kind of competition is more likely to inspire a player of his age to meet his potential. Build a team around him now and he might buckle under the pressure, or he might go the other way and see himself as indispensable - stop putting in the effort because he knows 80% is enough to keep him in the team.

We shouldn't sacrifice the team setup for Eriksen, but we should definitely seem him as a major component in our midfield, how long he stays left for, vs. coming into center will depend on his progress.

Re TS, he's just self promoting, he probably was on transfer committee, but he also forgets there were a few games he didn't play Eriksen early on, and has only really made Eriksen a certain starter based on force of Eriksen's performances, not any grand plan to build team around him.

 

[metalgear]

We won't lose Eriksen. He's the best playmaker in the prem. He'd cost an arm and a leg.

exactly why we would lose him.
its not me, its not us fans who can complain but really it doesn't get to those who matter:
1- levy, who will be under pressure to fund the new stadium build.
2 - the players themselves who will look back at the last few years and know that things never stay the same at the club, and might be tempted to leave while their star is still shining.