Ange departs

[Gutter Boy]

Italy's the most tactical country in world football. I'm not sure they'll appreciate his no tactics approach!

 

[Baleforce]

Italy's the most tactical country in world football. I'm not sure they'll appreciate his no tactics approach!

A nation entrenched in playing the game the right way.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

He could, but when that player became unavailable, he had no plan B. He just kept doing the same thing over and over again, until the Everton game where - in my opinion - he delivered one of the most unprofessional performances I've ever seen from a football manager.

I don't think I'm going too far if I claim Postecoglou has never been a master strategist. Pretty much everyone came to the same conclusion: he's got a way with words and he's great at getting players on board, but his tactics are crude. Oddly enough, I think a lot of people wanted him to succeed but the tide definitely turned when he 'threw away' the league. We got a great night and a trophy as a trade-off but for most people (myself included) that can't make up for four months of absolutely abject performances in the league.

Each to their own. Personally I would have been furious had he risked one of our crucially important players for meaningless League games and risked their availability or condition for the Europa. Once it became clear we weren’t going to be relegated there was no difference between 17th and 9th other than prize money, and I liked that he turned horrible circumstances in to the first European trophy in my lifetime.

On the Plan B stuff, people won’t agree but that’s fine. I just simply believe Ange was trying to instil a culture and a belief in an extremely brave way of playing football, that would ultimately pay off over the long term. And you don’t get players to buy into to that if you make it known you are ok with flexing when things might be too difficult. If having a Plan B was the cheat code everyone now thinks it is, I expect to be challenging for the title this coming season. Because I’m pretty sure with normal injuries and a more experienced squad we’d be back in the top 6 under Ange or anyone else. Frank will adapt more, so I expect outsized results. Otherwise it’s just another philosophy with trade offs that the fan base will be frustrated by in two years time.

We never see anything through. We never truly that a manager produce something in its intended final form. The moment it threatens the stability of top 6 prize money and European revenue, we panic to get back there. I would have loved to have seen something through with someone who wanted to play daring, brave football in line with the supposed ethos of the club.

 

[Surfless]

Each to their own. Personally I would have been furious had he risked one of our crucially important players for meaningless League games and risked their availability or condition for the Europa. Once it became clear we weren’t going to be relegated there was no difference between 17th and 9th other than prize money, and I liked that he turned horrible circumstances in to the first European trophy in my lifetime.

On the Plan B stuff, people won’t agree but that’s fine. I just simply believe Ange was trying to instil a culture and a belief in an extremely brave way of playing football, that would ultimately pay off over the long term. And you don’t get players to buy into to that if you make it known you are ok with flexing when things might be too difficult. If having a Plan B was the cheat code everyone now thinks it is, I expect to be challenging for the title this coming season. Because I’m pretty sure with normal injuries and a more experienced squad we’d be back in the top 6 under Ange or anyone else. Frank will adapt more, so I expect outsized results. Otherwise it’s just another philosophy with trade offs that the fan base will be frustrated by in two years time.

We never see anything through. We never truly that a manager produce something in its intended final form. The moment it threatens the stability of top 6 prize money and European revenue, we panic to get back there. I would have loved to have seen something through with someone who wanted to play daring, brave football in line with the supposed ethos of the club.

Amen. To all of that.

 

[Lilbaz]

Deluded fans thought we would win. We were massive underdogs. Please remember that was the same Liverpool side that were one of the very best in Europe and finished the PL season on 97 points. We weren't even in good form going into the match and had our star striker missing through injury.

No one literally no one other than a Tottenham fan thought we were anything but underdogs on that night.

Doesn't mean we couldn't have won. Not sure why fans were deluded for thinking we'd win.
We were underdogs against utd.

 

[Bishop]

Doesn't mean we couldn't have won. Not sure why fans were deluded for thinking we'd win.
We were underdogs against utd.

Underdogs and not winning are different things. The discussion was if we were underdogs or not and against that Liverpool side we certainly were.

If you watched Liverpool and you watched Spurs there was no way we were beating them. They were a level better than us already. That spurs side was in deep decline and Liverpool were already risen.

Ps. I disagree with you on United. They are awful and we've already smashed them 3 times last season. Far from a guaranteed win especially with their recent scumbag ways but still I'd never say we were underdogs. As bad we were last season we were categorically a better side. That's how flipping bad they are.

 

[Lilbaz]

Underdigs and not winning are different things. The discussion was if we were underdogs or not and against that Liverpool side we certainly were.

Ps. I disagree with you on United. They are awful and we've already smashed them 3 times last season. Far from a guaranteed win especially with their recent scumbag ways but still I'd never say we were underdogs. As bad we were last season we were categorically a better side. That's how flipping bad they are.

The pundits, bookies etc... all had us as underdogs. They were crap but so were we.

 

[billyiddo]

Terminology argument but underdog would be used when you'd expect one team to win/lose much more than the other - I'd imagine if United were favourites it would have only been very slight.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Terminology argument but underdog would be used when you'd expect one team to win/lose much more than the other - I'd imagine if United were favourites it would have only been very slight.

A coin flip.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

Each to their own. Personally I would have been furious had he risked one of our crucially important players for meaningless League games and risked their availability or condition for the Europa. Once it became clear we weren’t going to be relegated there was no difference between 17th and 9th other than prize money, and I liked that he turned horrible circumstances in to the first European trophy in my lifetime.

On the Plan B stuff, people won’t agree but that’s fine. I just simply believe Ange was trying to instil a culture and a belief in an extremely brave way of playing football, that would ultimately pay off over the long term. And you don’t get players to buy into to that if you make it known you are ok with flexing when things might be too difficult. If having a Plan B was the cheat code everyone now thinks it is, I expect to be challenging for the title this coming season. Because I’m pretty sure with normal injuries and a more experienced squad we’d be back in the top 6 under Ange or anyone else. Frank will adapt more, so I expect outsized results. Otherwise it’s just another philosophy with trade offs that the fan base will be frustrated by in two years time.

We never see anything through. We never truly that a manager produce something in its intended final form. The moment it threatens the stability of top 6 prize money and European revenue, we panic to get back there. I would have loved to have seen something through with someone who wanted to play daring, brave football in line with the supposed ethos of the club.

It all sounds very nice when you read it that way but, unfortunately, that's not exactly what happened. He did compromise to see us through in Europe. You can't argue with the result and I don't believe anyone associated with the club wasn't over the moon when the players lifted that trophy, but in my opinion, you're giving him way too much credit.

There's a difference between playing back-up players (something he didn't even do to my liking as I wish he had given more time to some of the younger players at club, particularly when it was obvious that there was nothing to play for) and what happened at Everton. I can only speak for myself but it's not so much the 22 defeats that bother me than the manner in which we lost these games. We were extremely poor.

The current narrative is that either on his own or in accordance with the board, he decided to throw away the league. Possibly but as weeks turned into months, we lost our shape, our attacking prowess and, in the end, we weren't even that good at keeping the ball. All the while, in the EL, we were the polar opposite of what he described as 'his way' of playing football.

In my opinion - but I'll grant you I'm in a minority as he seems to be well-liked by his players - you can't talk about your philosophy until you're blue in the face and then appear so careless as soon as things don't go according to plan. We concede too many goals from set-pieces? Yeah, who cares? The team go into the Everton game so unprepared the players look like they don't know what they're doing? Never mind, we don't care about the league too.

Having a plan B isn't a cheat code; it's about knowing that you can't play on the halfway line without the fastest defender in the league. I had no problem when he did that with 9 men against Chelsea. As you say, he wanted to instil a culture and you could argue that the loss could have been a statement. But there was absolutely no point in continuing to do that one year later, even less so when you play a completely different system in the EL.

As you say, to each, their own but there's one thing I disagree with: those of us who wanted Postecoglou to carry on like to present themselves as romantics, people with panache who'd trade the boredom of the weekly league routine for one moment of glory. Well, I'm a romantic too: when I watch a game of football, I'm looking for a good time. I want to be entertained. If I have to watch through 40-odd hours of what I can only describe as very poor performances to enjoy the - admittedly exhilarating - feeling of a cup win... well, let's just say that's not my idea of entertainment.

 

[parklane1]

We never see anything through. We never truly that a manager produce something in its intended final form. The moment it threatens the stability of top 6 prize money and European revenue, we panic to get back there. I would have loved to have seen something through with someone who wanted to play daring, brave football in line with the supposed ethos of the club.

Good post, sorry for cutting it down but the above are my thoughts as well. I have said elsewhere unless we change the system of hiring and firing managers every couple of years we will always struggle to be consistant. The club AND the fans have to accept that we get through far too managers far too quickly for any real consistency in results and success.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

It all sounds very nice when you read it that way but, unfortunately, that's not exactly what happened. He did compromise to see us through in Europe. You can't argue with the result and I don't believe anyone associated with the club wasn't over the moon when the players lifted that trophy, but in my opinion, you're giving him way too much credit.

There's a difference between playing back-up players (something he didn't even do to my liking as I wish he had given more time to some of the younger players at club, particularly when it was obvious that there was nothing to play for) and what happened at Everton. I can only speak for myself but it's not so much the 22 defeats that bother me than the manner in which we lost these games. We were extremely poor.

The current narrative is that either on his own or in accordance with the board, he decided to throw away the league. Possibly but as weeks turned into months, we lost our shape, our attacking prowess and, in the end, we weren't even that good at keeping the ball. All the while, in the EL, we were the polar opposite of what he described as 'his way' of playing football.

In my opinion - but I'll grant you I'm in a minority as he seems to be well-liked by his players - you can't talk about your philosophy until you're blue in the face and then appear so careless as soon as things don't go according to plan. We concede too many goals from set-pieces? Yeah, who cares? The team go into the Everton game so unprepared the players look like they don't know what they're doing? Never mind, we don't care about the league too.

Having a plan B isn't a cheat code; it's about knowing that you can't play on the halfway line without the fastest defender in the league. I had no problem when he did that with 9 men against Chelsea. As you say, he wanted to instil a culture and you could argue that the loss could have been a statement. But there was absolutely no point in continuing to do that one year later, even less so when you play a completely different system in the EL.

As you say, to each, their own but there's one thing I disagree with: those of us who wanted Postecoglou to carry on like to present themselves as romantics, people with panache who'd trade the boredom of the weekly league routine for one moment of glory. Well, I'm a romantic too: when I watch a game of football, I'm looking for a good time. I want to be entertained. If I have to watch through 40-odd hours of what I can only describe as very poor performances to enjoy the - admittedly exhilarating - feeling of a cup win... well, let's just say that's not my idea of entertainment.

I’m sure this has been done to death but honestly I’m surprised at how much the extent of our injuries, combined with the combination of the relentless schedule at the time that they happened, has seemingly been forgotten. His coaches have talked about how they tried to adapt in the league, but maintain the principles they had. All your reference to ‘poor performances’ is basically us playing a reserve team that is running on fumes, and having to get up again 3 days later to go again.

I don’t think the actual Ange experience is to be poor in the league to win a cup. I think this last season was a complete anomaly, and he ended it with a European trophy. Personally, once I realised what he was doing in the league, I stopped getting so frustrated at the performances. I knew there was a greater plan at play, and it was the only way to have some success in the season. Because of the injuries, we would not have recovered beyond probably 12th regardless. It was all worth it - 40 hours of terrible football in order to have that night in Bilbao and the week that followed. If presented the exact same circumstances, I’d want the exact same thing to happen again.

I’m just not following where you decide that it’s ok to instill the culture against Chelsea, but no point doing it a year later? The fact is he DID adapt, he wasn’t playing Ange ball for most of last season. It was a patched up half way house of a team that could run a little less, play it longer a little more, but still maintain enough of the principles that made up the club’s identity under him. But everything he did, was to give us the best possible chance of having some success this last season, and then bouncing back strong in his third. With an identity, a team spirit forged by winning, and more experience and depth having been drilled well in his system and physical expectations.

 

[thfcsteff]

Plenty have stated that it was a tough decision and could understand whichever decision was made. But no matter what the subject, there's always going to be a few that are entrenched in their views, and I'm sure we all have topics that we are like that with.

That's fair. I of course don't (LOL - joking there!)...I just hope that once the announcement is made we can move on with both excitement and interest in what the future holds, and immense gratitude for what Postecoglu did for this club.

 

[Raziel]

Good post, sorry for cutting it down but the above are my thoughts as well. I have said elsewhere unless we change the system of hiring and firing managers every couple of years we will always struggle to be consistant. The club AND the fans have to accept that we get through far too managers far too quickly for any real consistency in results and success.

Not sure I agree

- IIRC the average tenure for a manager in Europe is 16 months?
- When Spurs managers have been producing results, they stay on (Harry & Poch)
- Still don't see any real correlation with manager tenure and success (as vs. the other way around)

To me, this is just one of those weird perspectives the media has got Spurs fans wound up on (just like no one talked every day about how long since Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Villa, Everton had not won a trophy), some of the biggest clubs and smallest clubs in the world change their manager quite often, why only Spurs is a problem?

Note: I'm not saying it's ideal, and imo it creates some challenges (churn of manager style impacts squad suitability) and basically the more you churn the manager, the more you need to spend to compensate (see Chelsea) but in and of itself, that isn't a fatal flaw

For all the disaster that Spurs is supposed to be, we have played in Europe 16 out of the last 20 seasons, won a domestic trophy and a European one, been 2nd in league (3rd twice), been to CL and domestic cup finals and had truly elite level players play for us (Bale, Modric, Kane, Son), sometimes when Spurs fans complain (not specific dig at you @parklane1), I really wonder what fudging club they are talking about.

 

[parklane1]

Not sure I agree

- IIRC the average tenure for a manager in Europe is 16 months?
- When Spurs managers have been producing results, they stay on (Harry & Poch)
- Still don't see any real correlation with manager tenure and success (as vs. the other way around)

To me, this is just one of those weird perspectives the media has got Spurs fans wound up on (just like no one talked every day about how long since Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Villa, Everton had not won a trophy), some of the biggest clubs and smallest clubs in the world change their manager quite often, why only Spurs is a problem?

Note: I'm not saying it's ideal, and imo it creates some challenges (churn of manager style impacts squad suitability) and basically the more you churn the manager, the more you need to spend to compensate (see Chelsea) but in and of itself, that isn't a fatal flaw

For all the disaster that Spurs is supposed to be, we have played in Europe 16 out of the last 20 seasons, won a domestic trophy and a European one, been 2nd in league (3rd twice), been to CL and domestic cup finals and had truly elite level players play for us (Bale, Modric, Kane, Son), sometimes when Spurs fans complain (not specific dig at you @parklane1), I really wonder what fudging club they are talking about.

Well as the saying goes we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[thfcsteff]

I just don’t agree, but that’s ok. I do wonder whether the fans in Japan thought his style worked in Australia but wouldn’t work in their league. Especially when they were tracking towards the bottom in his first season. But it ended up working.

I’m not sure why for example if the system had been found out, we won comfortable against teams like Villa at the start of this season? Why didn’t Pep stop us? Why couldn’t Amorim do it in 4 chances? Please don’t say that Amorim didn’t have his squad or Pep was having a bad year, because I would assume that a system that blatantly has a ceiling would be figured out by any team but especially those top coaches. Clearly when it worked, it really worked. And I would have liked to see it given the opportunity to work through a whole season without a historic injury crisis.

I also don’t see why we can’t have a system that depends on one of the fastest players. We signed that player. We can rely on him! Other teams were able to play their first choice centre backs for most of the league season. Why is Ange not allowed to benefit from his signing?

I have no proof that it would have worked out with Ange, but I do believe that it would have eventually. It’s just faith. But it’s the same sort of faith that Arsenal placed in Arteta after an 8th place finish. Now that are consistently top 2.

I think it’s just wishful thinking to think we are ever winning the league under ENIC. We need City and Liverpool to both falter, and Arsenal and Chelsea to fall behind us too, all in the same season. And we need to get to that position after chopping managers every couple of years in order to maintain our stability in the top 6. And we need to assume United don’t leverage superior finances. I just don’t buy it. We give up truly believing in a vision and giving the managers the tools they need to progress any time they get close.

As ever, fine reading.

I think it comes down to what you believe football is TBH.

With regards to Pep not being able to stop us, ditto Amorim, I think maybe it is because they are also managers who have their philosophy and won't change. They take a stand. Some will say thart managers such as Slot and to a lesser extent Arteta are more flexible, but they never set their stall in the way Pep and Amorim did/do. I was intrigued to see the adjustments I sensed Ange would make this coming season with what he had learned, however as you said, we are not especially good at following through on football plans. I think it is interesting when people say 'if he hadn't won the Europa League there'd be no discussion'. Be that as it may, he did win it. And it did change the chemistry of this group. What we hope is that being they're professionals, that chemistry remains within the group and each player for the next manager/Frank, who I do think is a good fit for this club and how we operate.

Your last paragraph has sadly been true.
Being an optimist, I remain hopeful that Vinkatashum signals a new era in that regard and a new approach to going the final yard. Thomas Frank would present an excellent opportunity to show that we are not doomed to 'the loop' in 24 months time.

 

[thfcsteff]

Italy's the most tactical country in world football. I'm not sure they'll appreciate his no tactics approach!

Make sure you get on the ol' blower and let all those 'fake experts' in the Italian FA know what a mistake they're making!!!!

 

[thfcsteff]

Not sure I agree

- IIRC the average tenure for a manager in Europe is 16 months?
- When Spurs managers have been producing results, they stay on (Harry & Poch)
- Still don't see any real correlation with manager tenure and success (as vs. the other way around)

To me, this is just one of those weird perspectives the media has got Spurs fans wound up on (just like no one talked every day about how long since Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Villa, Everton had not won a trophy), some of the biggest clubs and smallest clubs in the world change their manager quite often, why only Spurs is a problem?

Note: I'm not saying it's ideal, and imo it creates some challenges (churn of manager style impacts squad suitability) and basically the more you churn the manager, the more you need to spend to compensate (see Chelsea) but in and of itself, that isn't a fatal flaw

For all the disaster that Spurs is supposed to be, we have played in Europe 16 out of the last 20 seasons, won a domestic trophy and a European one, been 2nd in league (3rd twice), been to CL and domestic cup finals and had truly elite level players play for us (Bale, Modric, Kane, Son), sometimes when Spurs fans complain (not specific dig at you @parklane1), I really wonder what fudging club they are talking about.

...don't you ever wonder how much more it could've been if (figuratively) the smallest yet most important of steps had been taken at key moments?

 

[thfcsteff]

It all sounds very nice when you read it that way but, unfortunately, that's not exactly what happened. He did compromise to see us through in Europe. You can't argue with the result and I don't believe anyone associated with the club wasn't over the moon when the players lifted that trophy, but in my opinion, you're giving him way too much credit.

There's a difference between playing back-up players (something he didn't even do to my liking as I wish he had given more time to some of the younger players at club, particularly when it was obvious that there was nothing to play for) and what happened at Everton. I can only speak for myself but it's not so much the 22 defeats that bother me than the manner in which we lost these games. We were extremely poor.

The current narrative is that either on his own or in accordance with the board, he decided to throw away the league. Possibly but as weeks turned into months, we lost our shape, our attacking prowess and, in the end, we weren't even that good at keeping the ball. All the while, in the EL, we were the polar opposite of what he described as 'his way' of playing football.

In my opinion - but I'll grant you I'm in a minority as he seems to be well-liked by his players - you can't talk about your philosophy until you're blue in the face and then appear so careless as soon as things don't go according to plan. We concede too many goals from set-pieces? Yeah, who cares? The team go into the Everton game so unprepared the players look like they don't know what they're doing? Never mind, we don't care about the league too.

Having a plan B isn't a cheat code; it's about knowing that you can't play on the halfway line without the fastest defender in the league. I had no problem when he did that with 9 men against Chelsea. As you say, he wanted to instil a culture and you could argue that the loss could have been a statement. But there was absolutely no point in continuing to do that one year later, even less so when you play a completely different system in the EL.

As you say, to each, their own but there's one thing I disagree with: those of us who wanted Postecoglou to carry on like to present themselves as romantics, people with panache who'd trade the boredom of the weekly league routine for one moment of glory. Well, I'm a romantic too: when I watch a game of football, I'm looking for a good time. I want to be entertained. If I have to watch through 40-odd hours of what I can only describe as very poor performances to enjoy the - admittedly exhilarating - feeling of a cup win... well, let's just say that's not my idea of entertainment.

Just to clarify (in my case anyway) when I talked about the 'romance' it was largely in reference to my wish to see what could've happened with this group after that triumph in that way. Trading boredom, etc? That wasn't in my thinking, but I will say I found it bordering on insane that he leveraged everything on one basket with such a fragile egg. If he'd been interested in saving his job, he'd have sacked off the cups and focussed on a Europa League place run in the league. I thought it was exhilerating in one sense and madness in another...with (of course) that net result. Anyway, soon we can close the chapter

 

[Raziel]

...don't you ever wonder how much more it could've been if (figuratively) the smallest yet most important of steps had been taken at key moments?

Always/obviously, but you would have to acknowledge just as much as "we could have done better", we could have done worse (piece people often miss).

e.g. if Frank comes in and gets us 5th/6th and a decent run in cups, the club will hardly get anyone praising them, but it will be the right call (hard to prove)

Just to clarify (in my case anyway) when I talked about the 'romance' it was largely in reference to my wish to see what could've happened with this group after that triumph in that way. Trading boredom, etc? That wasn't in my thinking, but I will say I found it bordering on insane that he leveraged everything on one basket with such a fragile egg. If he'd been interested in saving his job, he'd have sacked off the cups and focussed on a Europa League place run in the league. I thought it was exhilerating in one sense and madness in another...with (of course) that net result. Anyway, soon we can close the chapter

The issue (and at risk of repeating myself), he and/or the team was unable to balance between bare fudging minimum in league and prioritization of EL. There is no doubt in my mind that if he got 12th (still worse result in 20 years) and won the cup, he'd have a job today/next season. And there is a bit more to it as well (e.g. the club's perspective on injuries)