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

[billyiddo]

The ONLY reason that happens is because those factors are either greatly diminished or simply not acknowledged as being factors.
In fact, the rhetoric at that point brings us back to 'from game 11 on' in his first season, and how he is so obviously out of his league. Even the 5th place finish he did achieve is written off by some as a consequence of how we 'blind-sided' people in those first 10 games.

If those who diminish such factors so readily would accept their rather major role in what happened last season, there'd literally be no need to keep bringing it up. It actually prevents serious conversations about his stubborness, etc...

Steff please explain how we can criticise what we saw last season without having 'but injuries' thrown back at us? Every time that is what it comes back to.

Re season before lasts opening ten games - again this is just context that doesn't suit the narrative being dismissed - imv there's nothing wrong with taking perceived outliers out of the equation to see if it alters the overall pattern, if you don't agree with the logic people put forward argue why you think it's not an outlier rather than just attacking the person's motivations for doing so - especially when people have taken the time to explain their logic.

 

[thfcsteff]

The reality is that football seasons are 9 months long. Ange had 2 of them. He had 18 months of football playing months and 2 pre-seasons to embed a system across an entire squad, not just eleven players. He didn't have mitigating circumstances for the entire duration of his tenure. Even when he did, you could still measure his performance and take into account those areas.

Ange chose his tactical system and it needed to work with rotation even with a fully fit squad. This is my opinion, but I don't think the gap between first and second choices in the squad were really that great. That gap could have been closed even further with better coaching and more pragmatism and dynamism. So often I felt our starting eleven and subs bench were more than adequate to get wins and draws. As we saw from the record books, we didn't get them.

I'm still proud of my club for making a very strong football and business decision based on all the quantitative and qualitative data they had exposure to. More than us fans would have been exposed to.

I'll save is both the back and forth on things we know we disagree on, but I will focus on this for a discussion.

First off, we paid dearly for gambling with Forster. The drop-off from Vicario to him was huge. I could well be critical of Ange for not using Austin as he was better, however Forster being a senior squad member might've been the factor there. Regardless, we did not pay proper attention there and it cost us. I think the drop-off between Van de Ven and Davies/Gray/whoever was filling that slot was significant. I also think the difference (and drop-off) between Romero and Dragusin was significant; Radu's an old school warrior. He's a not a great passer (as Milo said from the start in fairness to him) so that impacted our play. In the end, the drop off in midfield between Bergvall and others was non-existant, however until January, there were thoughts he should be loaned out. We're lucky he developed so fast, rare IMO. Ditto Gray, albeit he filled in defence superbly for his age/lack of experience. No doubts it was a relative drop-off though. Upfront, the drop-off between Solanke as a CF and anyon else was big. Richy was injured which did not help, we tried Will but it was felt he needed the loan (I liked him and would've gambled but I obviously know waaaaay less than the pros LOL)...

I agree that pragmatism in the short-term might've got us through some games. He isn't that bloke. We knew that when we took him on; maybe we didn't believe it? It's why I believe they'd made the decision to move on this summer in February. Ironically, I have pondered whether Ange knew they'dcut him loose back then and that in a weird way it made it easier for him to take the 'eggs basket' gamble he did as he knew the net result was going to be the same (albeit perhaps hoping a win might change their minds). I even thought what he said before Brighton home showed he knew it was done, I mean publicly declaring that the players were on the tinkle and might well only half show up which would be fine with him because celebrating is important does smack of wrecklessness to me?

 

[thfcsteff]

Steff please explain how we can criticise what we saw last season without having 'but injuries' thrown back at us? Every time that is what it comes back to.

Re last season - again this is just context that doesn't suit the narrative being dismissed - imv there's nothing wrong with taking perceived outliers out of the equation to see if it alters the ovetall pattern, if you don't agree with the logic people put forward argue why you think it's not an outlier rather than just attacking the person's motivations for doing so - especially when people have taken the time to explain their logic.

I can only give you my opinion in answering mate. I'll go to something you said which is nothing is quite black or white (other than the trophy!)...

Ange could've achieved a lot more by being more tactically flexible, less stubborn in his principles, and willing to accept the situation he was in versus the ideals/principles he believed in.
Ange was severely compromised in sticking with those ideals/principles due to the unprecedented amount of key injuries over a sustained period of time.
Mistakes were made as early as pre-season it appears with regards to planning, training, and gauging workload versus players 'breakless'.

I'm not interested in 'attacking' anyone unless they appear to be doing so. If you read what I said again about 'the first 10 games', it is in reference to a point sometimes made when the injury discussion doesn't end up with the answer/opinion someone else might want to hear. I'm not dismissing anything. Want to discuss it? Great. Want to use it as the outlier which shows injuries were not really a factor? Not for me.

There was very obviously something wrong with the medical staff for a couple of seasons (we never got it right and I think that is a shared responsibility), Ange most certainly made missteps, he also most certainly wasn't always looking to make friends outside the dressing room. Did we keep concedeing the same stupid goal (diagonal behind the FB)? Absolutely! Was it infuriating? Absolutely. Was it because Ange is brick or stubborn;y wedded to a set of beliefs? I believe it was the latter. We can discuss why I think that if interested.

Probably the most interesting thing is that the people who hired Ange largely got out of any spotlight on their actions. If you believe there was a mistake/mismatch, then it would've been on them. Postecoglu was always who he was. Probably the least 'Ange' he has ever been in his career was those final EL matches. I was delighted he went full-bore 'win at all costs' because let's face it, that was the only way we were going to do it. I actually didn't think he would, not because he couldn't but because I feared his stubborn nature would prevent it...

 

[Baleforce]

The ONLY reason that happens is because those factors are either greatly diminished or simply not acknowledged as being factors.
In fact, the rhetoric at that point brings us back to 'from game 11 on' in his first season, and how he is so obviously out of his league. Even the 5th place finish he did achieve is written off by some as a consequence of how we 'blind-sided' people in those first 10 games.

If those who diminish such factors so readily would accept their rather major role in what happened last season, there'd literally be no need to keep bringing it up. It actually prevents serious conversations about his stubborness, etc...

It works both ways though.

United being absolute muck, Bodo missing their best players, they were ignored in the praise of the Europa win.

 

[thfcsteff]

BTW @billyiddo I personally think these latest exchanges we've had have been excellent, and will hopefully swiftly advance this thread to a point where you'll be able to gently shut it down and we can all get on down with Super Thomas.

 

[thfcsteff]

It works both ways though.

United being absolute muck, Bodo missing their best players, they were ignored in the praise of the Europa win.

Absolutely. There's always two sides to a story, I don't disagree.

Personally, I don't apologise for not publicly recognising such factors when we win massive games we have been unable to in the decades past, just like I won't ever bang on about the perceived 'quality' of a trophy won.

 

[billyiddo]

Probably the least 'Ange' he has ever been in his career was those final EL matches. I was delighted he went full-bore 'win at all costs' because let's face it, that was the only way we were going to do it.

I'll come back to the rest of the post later/tomorrow but as it's in my head I have to ask, why? Why was that the only way we could have won the EL? If we're supposed to believe in Ange and his tactical approach as being the key to us punching above our weight and winning the league/CL why is it that in order to win the less competitive EL as one of the 2 favourites we had to abandon that approach in the latter stages?

 

[thfcsteff]

I'll come back to the rest of the post later/tomorrow but as it's in my head I have to ask, why? Why was that the only way we could have won the EL? If we're supposed to believe in Ange and his tactical approach as being the key to us punching above our weight and winning the league/CL why is it that in order to win the less competitive EL as one of the 2 favourites we had to abandon that approach in the latter stages?

Errr...injuries? LOL...it's the truth! As for the line about 'winning the league/CL' I've given my view on that many times. It isn't scientific and it isn't necessarily tangible as what I wondered was whether the magic of winning would foster not only new self-belief but also deliver a couple more key players.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

That reads like you're coming at it from the angle that rotating players means accepting poor performances/results - to reiterate, imv we should have been able to rotate out for the EL or League or whatever way round he chose to do it and still be able to do better than we did in the 2nd priority - we literally done as badly as it was possible to do and you seem to think that is an acceptable trade off.

Even disregarding results that is still an awful lot of football to play and opportunity to further bed in tactics/players and to try and find solutions for the circumstances - i saw no evidence of progress in that regard. It's not even like we used the league games around the knockout phases to bed in the change in tactics we saw in Europe - this all points to me that he can't/couldn't cope with 2 games a week, it was feast or famine - we have CL from the start of next season, that means first team or the core of the first team being played 2 games a week - what happens if we pick up injuries there? Based on everything I've read it appears we would have to accept poor results and poor performances because he can't be expected to rotate and pick up results or pick up results without core players How is that sustainable or acceptable?

For clarification I agree with prioritising the EL once we got to the knockouts - i just don't believe it had to go hand in hand with what we saw in the league.

I think the idea that he couldn't cope with 2 games a week in a normal season is absolute nonsense. A specific context this season meant that this was what we saw.

I think Steff above just did a good job explaining it. The drop off in quality of our back ups was in some cases vast. He is not a person to be more pragmatic for short term gain. He is also trying to instill a style of football that requires a high level of bravery and skill, in order for us to outperform long term. So it's not surprising that there is volatility downwards when he is uncompromising around that, just like there was the positive in his approach we saw in those first 10 games. And just like we got some incredible results when it clicks like 3-0 at Old Trafford and 4-0 at City.

I also think other teams in the league would target us, which wouldn't happen in a usual season. Teams would see we are trying to get through those games unharmed, and build up fitness for players. We weren't playing our highest tempo, full throttle football in the league, but other teams would probably play their hardest and highest tempo against us.

I also think it was very deliberate that he wasn't bedding in the Europa tactics in the league. I don't think he wanted to completely alter the DNA of the side, and he probably wanted to keep the Europa teams guessing as to how we would set up. It was a competition for winning, where as the PL was about getting through.

I'm not sure what sort of 'solutions' would have looked like. It likely will have involved significantly altering the principles of play in order to secure more points in the short term. The best solution is to have your best players in the best condition to win the games, and he didn't have that.

I get that it is a more volatile experience under him. I get that some people do not want that. But I just go back to the idea that he has to deal with the most ridiculous disrespect and patronising nonsense, and I'd put 'can't handle 2 games a week' in that bucket. He absolutely could have won more points and satisfied you by being more pragmatic in the league - that much is obvious. The extent to which that altered the players belief in him and their DNA as a side - given the whole mystique around Ange is that he says something is gonna happen, and it happens, so you better be brave if he tells you to - that is what is unknowable. If you suddenly don't need to be brave because the guy who tells you to be brave has compromised his own beliefs, what then? I just think the whole mix of who he is and how he manages is why he won a European trophy, and the way that we won it. Another manager might do it a different way. But we hadn't won something as serious in 41 years, and I just find this cry for more pragmatism in the league to earn meaningless points to literally no tangible end to just be baffling.

I am not even arguing that Spurs should have kept him. I get why Frank makes sense. I am simply saying that it is unknowable how a third season would have gone, because the context would have been completely different. He was dealt a rubbish hand, and turned it into a European trophy and Champions League qualification. He won in his way, and everything that made him who he is led to his way of doing it. I just can't stand this idea that he doesn't understand very basic concepts like rotation, or pragmatism. These are very obvious things, but he is a winner. So perhaps if he says he's going to win something, and does it, he can be respected for the way he got there. Because this club was NOT swimming in trophies before he arrived.

 

[thfcsteff]

...to follow on

I think the idea that he couldn't cope with 2 games a week in a normal season is absolute nonsense. A specific context this season meant that this was what we saw.

I think Steff above just did a good job explaining it. The drop off in quality of our back ups was in some cases vast. He is not a person to be more pragmatic for short term gain. He is also trying to instill a style of football that requires a high level of bravery and skill, in order for us to outperform long term. So it's not surprising that there is volatility downwards when he is uncompromising around that, just like there was the positive in his approach we saw in those first 10 games. And just like we got some incredible results when it clicks like 3-0 at Old Trafford and 4-0 at City.

I also think other teams in the league would target us, which wouldn't happen in a usual season. Teams would see we are trying to get through those games unharmed, and build up fitness for players. We weren't playing our highest tempo, full throttle football in the league, but other teams would probably play their hardest and highest tempo against us.

I also think it was very deliberate that he wasn't bedding in the Europa tactics in the league. I don't think he wanted to completely alter the DNA of the side, and he probably wanted to keep the Europa teams guessing as to how we would set up. It was a competition for winning, where as the PL was about getting through.

I'm not sure what sort of 'solutions' would have looked like. It likely will have involved significantly altering the principles of play in order to secure more points in the short term. The best solution is to have your best players in the best condition to win the games, and he didn't have that.

I get that it is a more volatile experience under him. I get that some people do not want that. But I just go back to the idea that he has to deal with the most ridiculous disrespect and patronising nonsense, and I'd put 'can't handle 2 games a week' in that bucket. He absolutely could have won more points and satisfied you by being more pragmatic in the league - that much is obvious. The extent to which that altered the players belief in him and their DNA as a side - given the whole mystique around Ange is that he says something is gonna happen, and it happens, so you better be brave if he tells you to - that is what is unknowable. If you suddenly don't need to be brave because the guy who tells you to be brave has compromised his own beliefs, what then? I just think the whole mix of who he is and how he manages is why he won a European trophy, and the way that we won it. Another manager might do it a different way. But we hadn't won something as serious in 41 years, and I just find this cry for more pragmatism in the league to earn meaningless points to literally no tangible end to just be baffling.

I am not even arguing that Spurs should have kept him. I get why Frank makes sense. I am simply saying that it is unknowable how a third season would have gone, because the context would have been completely different. He was dealt a rubbish hand, and turned it into a European trophy and Champions League qualification. He won in his way, and everything that made him who he is led to his way of doing it. I just can't stand this idea that he doesn't understand very basic concepts like rotation, or pragmatism. These are very obvious things, but he is a winner. So perhaps if he says he's going to win something, and does it, he can be respected for the way he got there. Because this club was NOT swimming in trophies before he arrived.

For me you've nailed it.

 

[Muttley]

I'll save is both the back and forth on things we know we disagree on, but I will focus on this for a discussion.

First off, we paid dearly for gambling with Forster. The drop-off from Vicario to him was huge. I could well be critical of Ange for not using Austin as he was better, however Forster being a senior squad member might've been the factor there. Regardless, we did not pay proper attention there and it cost us. I think the drop-off between Van de Ven and Davies/Gray/whoever was filling that slot was significant. I also think the difference (and drop-off) between Romero and Dragusin was significant; Radu's an old school warrior. He's a not a great passer (as Milo said from the start in fairness to him) so that impacted our play. In the end, the drop off in midfield between Bergvall and others was non-existant, however until January, there were thoughts he should be loaned out. We're lucky he developed so fast, rare IMO. Ditto Gray, albeit he filled in defence superbly for his age/lack of experience. No doubts it was a relative drop-off though. Upfront, the drop-off between Solanke as a CF and anyon else was big. Richy was injured which did not help, we tried Will but it was felt he needed the loan (I liked him and would've gambled but I obviously know waaaaay less than the pros LOL)...

I agree that pragmatism in the short-term might've got us through some games. He isn't that bloke. We knew that when we took him on; maybe we didn't believe it? It's why I believe they'd made the decision to move on this summer in February. Ironically, I have pondered whether Ange knew they'dcut him loose back then and that in a weird way it made it easier for him to take the 'eggs basket' gamble he did as he knew the net result was going to be the same (albeit perhaps hoping a win might change their minds). I even thought what he said before Brighton home showed he knew it was done, I mean publicly declaring that the players were on the tinkle and might well only half show up which would be fine with him because celebrating is important does smack of wrecklessness to me?

I like this post because it is finally a football conversation. I don't want to put words in BYs mouth, but I think that is what he is talking about. Over the 100 or so Ange games, there were millions of decent football conversations. Conversations on players, tactics and the reasons we scored and conceded goals. They were all shut down by some because of the 2 narratives - injury / fatigues and EL focus. In reality, we're a football club and so many of us want the football first conversation. It's not that we don't factor in the mitigating factors though but we can form opinion either way.

To your points above about players. It's interesting about the GKs as all of the backup keepers received major plaudits one minute and were also slated in other moments. When I think of the bigger 2 year picture, our first problem was set pieces and Vicario. It was tactical issues that took most of the first season to resolve, and nobody knew why. In season 2, clearly it was hard for any keeper to be backup at the time Vic was injured as it was at our lowest point from the injury perspective. Not that case from mid Feb onwards. Barely a conversation about set pieces all season though which was positive.

Some of the other issues were amplified by the tactics as well. Ange's system meant that it was hard to replace a first teamer like Solanke or VDV. As an example, Forest and Wales would think nothing of playing Johnson as the striker when they had the injuries. The thought process of using Ange, Tel or even Son in an Ange system was about the manager, not the player's abilities. Hence the conclusion that only a fit Richi can do it. Then we have Tel playing an effective number 9 for France these last couple of weeks. So for me, it's not about player drop off. It's more to do with not finding the right solutions. In defence, such a big part of it was that. Ange's deep, risky offside lines were so difficult for players to swap in and out in defence as well.

I think we now have a manager who is about finding creative solutions and optimising players. I have a feeling Ange will adapt way more if he can get another role in the PL. I hope he does so we can continue to learn about his own evolution as a manager. I still have that curiosity about him as I secretly liked his Ange-wall finish in the EL.

 

[glasgowspur]

Absolutely. There's always two sides to a story, I don't disagree.

Personally, I don't apologise for not publicly recognising such factors when we win massive games we have been unable to in the decades past, just like I won't ever bang on about the perceived 'quality' of a trophy won.

I've been pondering this quality of the EL stuff.

Is there any questioning of Liverpool winning the PL with the worst utd and spurs teams in decades, Chelsea being a basket case and city falling apart, 20 points less than last season?
And arsenal just being arsenal. That's supposedly the top third of the teams in the league.
A PL where forest looked like securing CL for a considerable time, where villa needing a win on the last day to qualify for CL get horsed by utd.

If there's five abject team, us, utd and the three relegated, two of the biggest clubs are in crisis (Chelsea and city), arsenal are bottlers, that's half league, not such an achievement is it.

 

[Muttley]

Errr...injuries? LOL...it's the truth! As for the line about 'winning the league/CL' I've given my view on that many times. It isn't scientific and it isn't necessarily tangible as what I wondered was whether the magic of winning would foster not only new self-belief but also deliver a couple more key players.

Our winning line-up was

Venom
Porro, Romero, VDV, Udogie
Bents, Biss
Johnson, Sarr, Richi
Solanke

So if we switched Sarr with Madds or Kulu we'd be pretty much at full strength. I appreciate the Biss vs Berg and Son vs Richi arguments but they don't really change much. In fact Biss was beast in the latter stages of this competition.

I'm not sure we would change an entire system of play because of injuries in the number 10 position. Perhaps a few tweaks but not as exaggerated a change as we saw. I would build the stronger case that we changed it because it made sense tactically. We had been conceding too many goals over a long period and to win games you need to be in games. I think Ange focusing on clean sheets won us that cup. Even then, I don't remember a major period in the game where our 3 midfielders dominated theirs. We sacrificed that high press to stay rock solid. Obviously as the game went on, we had to react to who was on our bench and I thought Danso was our immense sub. Son was anything but immense to be fair.

I think injuries was a factor in the bit EL tactical switches. I wouldn't overstate it though.

 

[thfcsteff]

I like this post because it is finally a football conversation. I don't want to put words in BYs mouth, but I think that is what he is talking about. Over the 100 or so Ange games, there were millions of decent football conversations. Conversations on players, tactics and the reasons we scored and conceded goals. They were all shut down by some because of the 2 narratives - injury / fatigues and EL focus. In reality, we're a football club and so many of us want the football first conversation. It's not that we don't factor in the mitigating factors though but we can form opinion either way.

To your points above about players. It's interesting about the GKs as all of the backup keepers received major plaudits one minute and were also slated in other moments. When I think of the bigger 2 year picture, our first problem was set pieces and Vicario. It was tactical issues that took most of the first season to resolve, and nobody knew why. In season 2, clearly it was hard for any keeper to be backup at the time Vic was injured as it was at our lowest point from the injury perspective. Not that case from mid Feb onwards. Barely a conversation about set pieces all season though which was positive.

Some of the other issues were amplified by the tactics as well. Ange's system meant that it was hard to replace a first teamer like Solanke or VDV. As an example, Forest and Wales would think nothing of playing Johnson as the striker when they had the injuries. The thought process of using Ange, Tel or even Son in an Ange system was about the manager, not the player's abilities. Hence the conclusion that only a fit Richi can do it. Then we have Tel playing an effective number 9 for France these last couple of weeks. So for me, it's not about player drop off. It's more to do with not finding the right solutions. In defence, such a big part of it was that. Ange's deep, risky offside lines were so difficult for players to swap in and out in defence as well.

I think we now have a manager who is about finding creative solutions and optimising players. I have a feeling Ange will adapt way more if he can get another role in the PL. I hope he does so we can continue to learn about his own evolution as a manager. I still have that curiosity about him as I secretly liked his Ange-wall finish in the EL.

We all want football conversations. You believe they were shut down by some because of 2 narratives - injury/fatigue and EL focus. I agree. Those topics did derail 'football conversations'. What also derailed such conversations, were the narratives which insisted he was clearly out of his depth, that he did not have the experience or knowledge to succeed at the club, and that he was a poor communicator as well as (in some statements) a terrible person. I make that 5 narratives. To parrot your last line in the boldface above, it's not that we don't factor in the mitigating factors (we can also appreciate other views and perspectives) however not when these narrative foghorns get sounded so definitively.

Now to respond to the football conversation...

I can only speak for myself when I sday last summer I wanted us to make a serious move in the back-up keeper dept as Fraser scared me. Our set-piece record was not great for sure, albeit we conceded the same amount of goals from set-pieces as Arsenal last season FWIW.

From what I recall, Ange did try Deki as a 'false 9' on several occasions to varying degrees of success. I have to watch more closely, but I thought Tel was playing off the left for France (again I am only basing this on highlights, so might well be wrong). FWIW he did try Tel as a 9 too; different proposition in the Prem.

I think where we suffered most defensively was in how we progressed the ball out when we did not have our starters. There was a massive drop-off in progressing the ball forwards, indeed we gave up a lot of cheap possession.

As I said also, there is absolutely truth in the fact that Ange was wedded to a system he did not want to change or adapt. And again, the irony of him going 'full pragmatist' in the latter stages of the Europa League cannot have been lost on anyone. BY asked earlier why we couldn't win that trophy with his 'chosen way'. I think the Deki injury solidified for him that he had to lock down in order to win.

Your final bold-faced sentence above is why some of us would've taken the gamble (added to the other intangibles winning brings).

I've said several times that I think Frank is the perfect fit for this club in all ways, so we're in agreement there.

 

[thfcsteff]

Our winning line-up was

Venom
Porro, Romero, VDV, Udogie
Bents, Biss
Johnson, Sarr, Richi
Solanke

So if we switched Sarr with Madds or Kulu we'd be pretty much at full strength. I appreciate the Biss vs Berg and Son vs Richi arguments but they don't really change much. In fact Biss was beast in the latter stages of this competition.

I'm not sure we would change an entire system of play because of injuries in the number 10 position. Perhaps a few tweaks but not as exaggerated a change as we saw. I would build the stronger case that we changed it because it made sense tactically. We had been conceding too many goals over a long period and to win games you need to be in games. I think Ange focusing on clean sheets won us that cup. Even then, I don't remember a major period in the game where our 3 midfielders dominated theirs. We sacrificed that high press to stay rock solid. Obviously as the game went on, we had to react to who was on our bench and I thought Danso was our immense sub. Son was anything but immense to be fair.

I think injuries was a factor in the bit EL tactical switches. I wouldn't overstate it though.

I think had he been able to, he'd have started Maddison and Deki for sure.
I agree with your bold-faced point, and perhaps that supports an underlying point @billyiddo was trying to make, that in the end he abandonned his core principles in order to win the thing. Wholly, wholly possible. We'll never really know if we'd have gone into that final with a different approach with those two fit. I tend to think we would have, but it might not have been the right thing to do?

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I've been pondering this quality of the EL stuff.

Is there any questioning of Liverpool winning the PL with the worst utd and spurs teams in decades, Chelsea being a basket case and city falling apart, 20 points less than last season?
And arsenal just being arsenal. That's supposedly the top third of the teams in the league.
A PL where forest looked like securing CL for a considerable time, where villa needing a win on the last day to qualify for CL get horsed by utd.

If there's five abject team, us, utd and the three relegated, two of the biggest clubs are in crisis (Chelsea and city), arsenal are bottlers, that's half league, not such an achievement is it.

The prem last year was weak as… look at the end points tallies for a start

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I like this post because it is finally a football conversation. I don't want to put words in BYs mouth, but I think that is what he is talking about. Over the 100 or so Ange games, there were millions of decent football conversations. Conversations on players, tactics and the reasons we scored and conceded goals. They were all shut down by some because of the 2 narratives - injury / fatigues and EL focus. In reality, we're a football club and so many of us want the football first conversation. It's not that we don't factor in the mitigating factors though but we can form opinion either way.

To your points above about players. It's interesting about the GKs as all of the backup keepers received major plaudits one minute and were also slated in other moments. When I think of the bigger 2 year picture, our first problem was set pieces and Vicario. It was tactical issues that took most of the first season to resolve, and nobody knew why. In season 2, clearly it was hard for any keeper to be backup at the time Vic was injured as it was at our lowest point from the injury perspective. Not that case from mid Feb onwards. Barely a conversation about set pieces all season though which was positive.

Some of the other issues were amplified by the tactics as well. Ange's system meant that it was hard to replace a first teamer like Solanke or VDV. As an example, Forest and Wales would think nothing of playing Johnson as the striker when they had the injuries. The thought process of using Ange, Tel or even Son in an Ange system was about the manager, not the player's abilities. Hence the conclusion that only a fit Richi can do it. Then we have Tel playing an effective number 9 for France these last couple of weeks. So for me, it's not about player drop off. It's more to do with not finding the right solutions. In defence, such a big part of it was that. Ange's deep, risky offside lines were so difficult for players to swap in and out in defence as well.

I think we now have a manager who is about finding creative solutions and optimising players. I have a feeling Ange will adapt way more if he can get another role in the PL. I hope he does so we can continue to learn about his own evolution as a manager. I still have that curiosity about him as I secretly liked his Ange-wall finish in the EL.

Just jumping in on the set piece thing
We conceded one set piece in the first half of anges first season and it was Villa header which was also a brilliant goal
Then city literally took Vicario out in the FA cup and it was free hit every game (the very next game for a start)
They changed the rules slightly because of it for this season and the issue is not really and issue anymore

On the injury thing a huge issue was always it was areas where the cover was injured too so we again had an exasperated issue
But they were what they were …

 

[tommysvr]

Pretty confident that in 10, 20, 30 years time, this’ll be the only important thing about Ange’s time. Even those who think finishing 5th, 8th, or 12th would have been better might have come around by then.

 

[Raziel]

First off, we paid dearly for gambling with Forster. The drop-off from Vicario to him was huge. I could well be critical of Ange for not using Austin as he was better, however Forster being a senior squad member might've been the factor there. Regardless, we did not pay proper attention there and it cost us. I think the drop-off between Van de Ven and Davies/Gray/whoever was filling that slot was significant. I also think the difference (and drop-off) between Romero and Dragusin was significant; Radu's an old school warrior. He's a not a great passer (as Milo said from the start in fairness to him) so that impacted our play. In the end, the drop off in midfield between Bergvall and others was non-existant, however until January, there were thoughts he should be loaned out. We're lucky he developed so fast, rare IMO. Ditto Gray, albeit he filled in defence superbly for his age/lack of experience. No doubts it was a relative drop-off though. Upfront, the drop-off between Solanke as a CF and anyon else was big. Richy was injured which did not help, we tried Will but it was felt he needed the loan (I liked him and would've gambled but I obviously know waaaaay less than the pros LOL)...

I agree that pragmatism in the short-term might've got us through some games. He isn't that bloke. We knew that when we took him on; maybe we didn't believe it? It's why I believe they'd made the decision to move on this summer in February. Ironically, I have pondered whether Ange knew they'dcut him loose back then and that in a weird way it made it easier for him to take the 'eggs basket' gamble he did as he knew the net result was going to be the same (albeit perhaps hoping a win might change their minds). I even thought what he said before Brighton home showed he knew it was done, I mean publicly declaring that the players were on the tinkle and might well only half show up which would be fine with him because celebrating is important does smack of wrecklessness to me?

So again, just for discussion purposes

1. Vic -> Forster, agree, club took a gamble (we know in hindsight the intention was Kinsky this summer) and it didn't pay off. Caveat -> PPG/league did not improve once we got Kinsky and/or Vic return (see my final point)
1. Romero/VDV -> Dragusin/Gray/Davies, don't agree, no question Romero/VDV are our first choice and a step above quality wise but this to me more than anything highlights the flaws in Ange's system (as he played in the PL), basically with Romero/VDV you could almost get away with the tactic, but with no one else. If we just played some of those games like we did in EL (4-2-4) with the defenders allowed to have the play in front of them, the drop off would not have been so catastrophic.

The problem with the idea that injuries were the primary issue is player availability over time does not correlate with results over time
- Basically Ange's tenure can be divided into 3 month or 6 month time periods including the first 10 games, and the return (PPG/position) just gets worse as time (each quarter/half) goes on.

If injuries were a critical (not saying they weren't, but primary?) factor in his league form, the return of players in 2nd half of both seasons should have seen a significant uplift in results, we didn't.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

So again, just for discussion purposes

1. Vic -> Forster, agree, club took a gamble (we know in hindsight the intention was Kinsky this summer) and it didn't pay off. Caveat -> PPG/league did not improve once we got Kinsky and/or Vic return (see my final point)
1. Romero/VDV -> Dragusin/Gray/Davies, don't agree, no question Romero/VDV are our first choice and a step above quality wise but this to me more than anything highlights the flaws in Ange's system (as he played in the PL), basically with Romero/VDV you could almost get away with the tactic, but with no one else. If we just played some of those games like we did in EL (4-2-4) with the defenders allowed to have the play in front of them, the drop off would not have been so catastrophic.

The problem with the idea that injuries were the primary issue is player availability over time does not correlate with results over time
- Basically Ange's tenure can be divided into 3 month or 6 month time periods including the first 10 games, and the return (PPG/position) just gets worse as time (each quarter/half) goes on.

If injuries were a critical (not saying they weren't, but primary?) factor in his league form, the return of players in 2nd half of both seasons should have seen a significant uplift in results, we didn't.

But again, ‘when players returned’, which players actually played in the league?

I also can’t believe you don’t think the drop off between VDV and and Gray / Davies isn’t that much. It’s monstrous. One is an 18 year old midfielder playing out of position in his first PL season and the other is a slow, small, converted left back.

I would agree that he could have changed systems in the PL too, but it’s not ‘getting away with it’ to be able to leverage the skills of Romero and VDV, it’s the entire point if you’re trying to build something that can overshoot your financial position. I think Gray and Davies were used at centre back because they can pass the ball out under some pressure, so it didn’t totally destroy our principles.

It simply would not have been Ange’s way to try and adjust his way out of a crisis. He’s an uncompromising, all or nothing kinda guy. And that led to some bad league form. But it also led to a European trophy. And I don’t think we have enough data to say whether or not the third season would have been over by November for him or not, because from the moment our injury crisis took hold, he did what he believed was best for the club, which was to finally win something. Deeper, more experienced squad and normalised injuries, there’s every chance we are top 6 again next year.

You asked whether we can expect to have gotten 28 more points under him. I think yes. It’s 8 wins and 4 draws. It’s Forest’s record this year. Yes…I can absolutely see a world in which he got that.