The 'If You Still Need to Purge Yourself Of Ange' Thread

[thfcsteff]

As I said above, the bigger picture was whether he was actually answering the true question being asked, especially the tougher ones. So many times he could talk for 2-3 mins and when you referred back there was a mismatch between his chosen narrative and the question asked.

That's simply being a top manager in a relentless environment where the quality of craft from those he's facing has dramatically reduced. You have essentially framed what every half-decent PR tells their client to do - bring the topic to a place you want it to be. I understand you don't care for it, but this is really not anything new or remotely shocking.

 

[thfcsteff]

The press and good publicity is important. The clubs care about how they are represented in the press or they wouldn't spend thousands on PR and media teams. Their manager represents them the most. So yes dealing with the media is an important skill for modern managers and for me, the way he dealt with them in his second season when under pressure, indicated part of his inexperience of operating at this level.

They hung him out to dry.
If you don't agree, all good. I told people this was a no-lose thing for Levy as relegation was never going to happen.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

May be it was but maybe it wasn't. Equally winning the Europa League could have been a ridiculous anomaly too. Maybe the stars just aligned in his favour. I mean would you have had confidence that he would have won any of our previous finals since 2009 or even the 2008 one given the way we have performed in other tournaments this season?

Tbh this is just a pointless argument that neither side is going to concede and he's gone now anyway. There just needs to be more respect for the differences in opinion and we're all good supporting the new manager.

We know it was an anomaly because Ange finished 5th with us in his first season, and more often than not regardless of who the manager is we are in the top 6. We also dealt with a historically crazy and anomalous injury crisis. If you’re saying that despite all of that, Ange is potentially still just an utterly terrible dreadful manager and we’d likely still be 17th again with him because how can we be sure that 17th this last season was anomalous…then you’re right. People are just wedded to their sides

I’m not really sure what 2008 or 2009 has to do with anything. Ange has won trophies every where he has been, and clearly prioritised winning one with us. And the players have spoken about how is preparation and motivation was a factor in us winning. ‘Would he have beaten Chelsea in 2008’ - I have absolutely no freaking idea!

As far as I can see, everyone is getting behind the new manager, and anyone who was positive of Ange is not disrespectful of the other side. I think the biggest Ange fans simply say that there is no way of knowing for sure how the 3rd season would have gone, but that we would have liked to see him given the opportunity. That’s it. I’m fine respecting the opposite belief in not having faith that it would have improved or that it was just time for a change. It’s unknowable either way.

What I will challenge though is the mental gymnastics to try and take away the achievement of a man that deserves more respect. To claim that any team we beat must by definition be a bad team is so ridiculous that I can’t believe it was made.

I think that’s the key difference of opinion. I look at last season as having a top 6 squad that could have competed for the top 4, and crazy injuries knocked us off kilter, so decisions were made about how to salvage the season. So I don’t look at us as a bad team who happened to win a bad competition, I look at us as a good team who won a good competition. (In comparison to say PSG, an incredible team winning the hardest competition).

I don’t look at 17th as our actual level, but a result of the circumstances we faced. But the other side looks at 17th as our actual level, and by definition anything that was achieved by that team just cannot be that impressive, if the side finishing 17th can win it. I get where that opinion comes from, but I think it’s a sad way to see what was our greatest achievement for 41 years. I just go back to the point that we were *not* rolling in trophies for the last 2-3 decades at all. So to suddenly act like it was all so easy is a reach, and it’s a reach made because people are trying to take away the achievement of the man that made it happen. Probably because they were annoyed and having to sit through league defeats and feel like the trophy win doesn’t compensate for that annoyance. Fine. But for me, as soon as I realised that the league finish was irrelevant, those performances didn’t bother me in the slightest because it was clear what we were prioritising. And then to actually win that trophy was the greatest feeling supporting football in my adult life. It more than compensated for everything else. It was planned, and achieved.

 

[Robspur12]

We know it was an anomaly because Ange finished 5th with us in his first season, and more often than not regardless of who the manager is we are in the top 6. We also dealt with a historically crazy and anomalous injury crisis. If you’re saying that despite all of that, Ange is potentially still just an utterly terrible dreadful manager and we’d likely still be 17th again with him because how can we be sure that 17th this last season was anomalous…then you’re right. People are just wedded to their sides

People far more in the know than me or you felt our league form wasn't an anomaly. And despite the 5th place finish in his first season they identified a down ward trend in form and an inability to compete on multiple fronts, unlike other trophy winners last season. They had a lot to lose from his sacking in terms of criticism. Yet despite that they still thought the underlying data did not support keeping him.

And then there are the leaks in the press about his poor handling of injuries which made the situation worse. There is circumstantial evidence to back these up in the form of the immediate and reckless return from injury of VDV and Romero against Chelsea. Returns which led to them both breaking down and further lengthy periods of absence. And his own colleagues observations around injuries affecting his squads elsewhere.

 

[Robspur12]

Probably because they were annoyed and having to sit through league defeats and feel like the trophy win doesn’t compensate for that annoyance.

I think it's more simple than that; we were so inept in the League, so lacking in preparation, organisation and desire, it naturally makes one question the quality of the tournament we won. Especially when the equally inept Utd were our opponents in the final.

Now for me that doesn't affect the joy in winning the trophy but does add perfectly reasonable context to the win.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

People far more in the know than me or you felt our league form wasn't an anomaly. And despite the 5th place finish in his first season they identified a down ward trend in form and an inability to compete on multiple fronts, unlike other trophy winners last season. They had a lot to lose from his sacking in terms of criticism. Yet despite that they still thought the underlying data did not support keeping him.

And then there are the leaks in the press about his poor handling of injuries which made the situation worse. There is circumstantial evidence in the form of the immediate and reckless return from injury of VDV and Romero against Chelsea. Returns which led to them both breaking down and further lengthy periods of absence. His own colleagues observations around injuries affecting his squads.

Sorry, who are you referring to? The Spurs board?

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I’m not even arguing that getting Frank in isn’t the right thing to do for the club in the way they want to run things, but it doesn’t really alter the debate around Ange. If we want to argue that because ENIC has made a decision then it has to be infallibly correct, then we might as well shut this whole thing down. Of course the decisions they make will be right for them.

I’ve always argued that I wanted to do something different, to take a big swing with a style of football built on immense bravery, to see if it could have us outperform our financial position. It might not have worked. I would have liked to see Ange given the opportunity though.

And I think the rest of this just boils down to:

22 league defeats <> crazy injuries and prioritising another competition and then winning it

Looking unorganised in the league <> continuing to try and maintain principles of play with inferior players, rather than throw it all out, in order to allow us to get back to it properly in the third season

I am totally fine if people did not believe in Ange. I just really struggle with the idea that actually his achievements weren’t that good, because of whatever reach people want to make. Each to their own in terms of how many league defeats they could tolerate, and their belief in how much time Ange deserved. But let’s not take away an achievement from a clearly decent man who promised something and delivered something this club hadn’t seen for 41 years.

 

[thfcsteff]

Outside of a few fringe extremities I believe the majority respect Ange for winning the EL, are thankful for it and recognise the achievement in winning our first European trophy/any trophy in X amount of years.

However holding those feelings does not preclude you from having other opinions such as him not being good enough at PL level or thinking that the EL as a competition is not as strong as what others believe it to be.

I absolutely agree.
As long as we remember they are opinions then there is no issue.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

They hung him out to dry.
If you don't agree, all good. I told people this was a no-lose thing for Levy as relegation was never going to happen.

Whose “they”?

 

[Muttley]

People far more in the know than me or you felt our league form wasn't an anomaly. And despite the 5th place finish in his first season they identified a down ward trend in form and an inability to compete on multiple fronts, unlike other trophy winners last season. They had a lot to lose from his sacking in terms of criticism. Yet despite that they still thought the underlying data did not support keeping him.

And then there are the leaks in the press about his poor handling of injuries which made the situation worse. There is circumstantial evidence in the form of the immediate and reckless return from injury of VDV and Romero against Chelsea. Returns which led to them both breaking down and further lengthy periods of absence. His own colleagues observations around injuries affecting his squads.

Yep, as fans we only get exposed to so much. We see what happens on the pitch and we see what happens in the pressers. I'm not saying we should speculate about the other layers but we should do so knowing that there is an employer / employee relationship and if we think we have quant and qual data, I can't imagine what access they have inside the club. Those Spurs leaders acted with both types and seem to come to a unanimous decision. Of course, even that in itself doesn't make all the Ange Out phalanx right and the Ange In wrong. Even the THFC leadership could have made a bad call. I don't think they have though. I said way back that I would be proud of my club if they made winning the EL the equivalent of table stakes for a club of our size, and sought something even bigger in the next phase. That is a winning mentality.

It also doesn't deride Ange in any way. He got that trophy along with the rest of the football club. It's been 3 or 4 years in the building and there's been contributors everywhere including his own. Even poor old Scott Munn became our first Chief Football Officer and won a trophy on his watch. I don't see people up in arms about why he has got the boot (if he has). Again the employer / employee engagement model can only reveal why he wasn't the right fit for the next chapter.

 

[thfcsteff]

May be it was but maybe it wasn't. Equally winning the Europa League could have been a ridiculous anomaly too. Maybe the stars just aligned in his favour. I mean would you have had confidence that he would have won any of our previous finals since 2009 or even the 2008 one given the way we have performed in other tournaments this season?

Tbh this is just a pointless argument that neither side is going to concede and he's gone now anyway. There just needs to be more respect for the differences in opinion and we're all good supporting the new manager.

The main reason I started this thread was precisely so as respect could be shown for the new manager whilst also allowing people to air out the last vestiges of whataboutery and history with regards to Postecoglu.

@billyiddo raised the fact that is natural to refer to past managers during the reign of current ones. Of course. That is both human nature and logical. When Franks's got his feet under the table I absolutely hope we get that conversation in whatever threads! Because hopefully they will be about Franks's tactics versus tactics of past managers (including Postecoglu). What I hope is we do not get constant 'at least it isn't 22 defeats' which in turn provokes responses which become endless.

I respect all opinions in the spirit of debate. I don't have time for echo chamber anger (largely because once vented it is done and we know).

Here's hoping this thread sucks the gas out of the rancor.

P.s great question re: finals. I have to say, he might've been prepared to do the dirty work in 2019 and win ugly? We shall never know. The only hard facts are that he won a European final? It's a fun puzzler...

 

[Mrs Vert]

I think he almost certainly could have played in a completely different way to earn more points in the league. But I believe that he wanted to maintain enough of the principles of play so that we still had an identity that the players were bought into and comfortable with, so that in the third season we would be back to where we should be in the league.

And I guess then. That was his downfall. I genuinely think if he finished 14 he would have stayed....but who knows

 

[thfcsteff]

Whose “they”?

I've said it before, but I think the club knew they weren't taking him back since February and sat quietly leaving him to deal with the flack in the knowledge he would not go FC (full Conte). By 'them' I mean the chairman + football management team.

 

[thfcsteff]

Yep, as fans we only get exposed to so much. We see what happens on the pitch and we see what happens in the pressers. I'm not saying we should speculate about the other layers but we should do so knowing that there is an employer / employee relationship and if we think we have quant and qual data, I can't imagine what access they have inside the club. Those Spurs leaders acted with both types and seem to come to a unanimous decision. Of course, even that in itself doesn't make all the Ange Out phalanx right and the Ange In wrong. Even the THFC leadership could have made a bad call. I don't think they have though. I said way back that I would be proud of my club if they made winning the EL the equivalent of table stakes for a club of our size, and sought something even bigger in the next phase. That is a winning mentality.

It also doesn't deride Ange in any way. He got that trophy along with the rest of the football club. It's been 3 or 4 years in the building and there's been contributors everywhere including his own. Even poor old Scott Munn became our first Chief Football Officer and won a trophy on his watch. I don't see people up in arms about why he has got the boot (if he has). Again the employer / employee engagement model can only reveal why he wasn't the right fit for the next chapter.

Regardless of any differing opinions we hold, I agree it is an absolute truth that he was not the right manager for the next stage of our journey. 100%. Frank fits on every level. Ange only fitted the hope & imagination side, because clearly he is the sort of manager operates outside the full remit and structure of a club designed the way ours is.

 

[Muttley]

Regardless of any differing opinions we hold, I agree it is an absolute truth that he was not the right manager for the next stage of our journey. 100%. Frank fits on every level. Ange only fitted the hope & imagination side, because clearly he is the sort of manager operates outside the full remit and structure of a club designed the way ours is.

Not sure I'll ever fully understand. I could absolutely see why Ange played on the hope and imagination layers. I could perhaps see why he may not have satisfied the quantitative data side as a contra to that though. I can imagine Lange and the analysts could pick to pieces some of the things that happened on the field. There were very few favourable stats in the bigger picture. Then you have the qualitative layer. The Spurs leadership knew the man personally. We didn't, but he seems to have done a great job of dividing his own Spurs fanbase. Perhaps he did the same internally with the leadership team.

In companies you need advocates at the senior level. He must have lost his advocacy bit by bit I guess. If you're saying he was hosed by February that's interesting as we didn't really have a semblance of a loaded squad again until about mid Feb in the Utd fixture. To be fair, you always said that.

 

[billyiddo]

I’ve always argued that I wanted to do something different, to take a big swing with a style of football built on immense bravery, to see if it could have us outperform our financial position. It might not have worked. I would have liked to see Ange given the opportunity though.

We have 2 seasons worth of football to use to form an opinion on that - I'm comfortable that that amount of football gives me enough grounds to form a solid opinion on the matter and that is that it didn't work and it wasn't going to get better. I think upper mid table would have been our level under him.

To preempt a response that 5th in his first season says otherwise I would counter that by highlighting that our form/ppg post opening ten games would have had us a fair bit lower and that over the two seasons we have seen a steady downward curve in that metric, we never showed since those opening games any hint that we could get back to that level of consistent performance, that's over 1.75 seasons of football - which is more than than the average PL manager gets.

The root of my opinion is that I do not have any confidence/faith in his tactical approach to the game and that the PL (and CL) has too many good managers/teams/players that will expose the inherent flaws in his setup, we saw this pretty much weekly over a lomg period of time. It's an unforgiving league with a high level of quality throughout (relegated teams of late notwithstanding) and you need more than bravery to make it work. Plenty of 'good' managers have not cut the mustard here (PL) and have still had good careers away from the league - no reason Ange couldn't do the same.

 

[Baleforce]

And I think the rest of this just boils down to:

22 league defeats <> crazy injuries and prioritising another competition and then winning it

Yeah, I think 22 was unacceptable, I think the injuries were a red herring and the issue was more the tactics, lastly, I don't believe he did prioritise the Europa League until the last month of the season.

 

[billyiddo]

These people in the know, are those the same ones that knew utd would beat us in the final.
The same ones that said utd would win because it's utd and they are bigger players?

Not sure you can draw a line of comparison between the two tbh

 

[Muttley]

Yeah, I think 22 was unacceptable, I think the injuries were a red herring and the issue was more the tactics, lastly, I don't believe he did prioritise the Europa League until the last month of the season.

No doubt in my mind that the injuries were a major disruption and a major reason for the downturn in league fortunes.

I guess where I got frustrated was with the narratives that we weren't allowed to learn anything through that 3-4 month spell because of the injuries. Quite similar to the narratives that we then weren't allowed to learn anything about the league because we had gone "all in" for the EL.

 

[Baleforce]

No doubt in my mind that the injuries were a major disruption and a major reason for the downturn in league fortunes.

I guess where I got frustrated was with the narratives that we weren't allowed to learn anything through that 3-4 month spell because of the injuries. Quite similar to the narratives that we then weren't allowed to learn anything about the league because we had gone "all in" for the EL.

The way I look at it, we kept conceding the same type of goal, it doesn't matter who is playing centre back when you leave a man unmarked at the far post anyway.

Gray, Davies, Dragusin were fine, they didn't cost us goals through ability, we conceded because our scheme was transparent and ineffective. Our performance level didn't change irrespective of personnel, a strong system protects players.