• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Roberto De Zerbi *OFFICIAL*

Yeah, I find the “look how well Brentford are doing now without him” to be very disrespectful. He did an incredible job there to get them up and keep them in the league. Andrews, so far, has been impressive but he has been able to build on the platform that Frank played a huge part in putting in place.

The job here was too big for him IMO. A really poor appointment which calls in to question, very seriously, the judgement of those who appointed him and retained him especially given the “30 point list” or whatever it was that they based the appointment on.

As Poch said this week, in football there are some things that data and stats cannot measure or quantify and that’s what keeps some of the beauty and mystery around the game. Our decision makers clearly didn’t think that was relevant or factor it into their decision making.
I think the way to add to that would be. We know for certain the job TF did when he joined Brentford, we don’t know what Andrew’s would do if he started at the same start point.

But countering that, he’s done a magnificent job considering the players that have left and the cloud that was Wissa sulking during the whole summer bringing down morale.

And just to tell you how bad brick I am, I don’t think you can compare the two
 
Yeah, I find the “look how well Brentford are doing now without him” to be very disrespectful. He did an incredible job there to get them up and keep them in the league. Andrews, so far, has been impressive but he has been able to build on the platform that Frank played a huge part in putting in place.

The job here was too big for him IMO. A really poor appointment which calls in to question, very seriously, the judgement of those who appointed him and retained him especially given the “30 point list” or whatever it was that they based the appointment on.

As Poch said this week, in football there are some things that data and stats cannot measure or quantify and that’s what keeps some of the beauty and mystery around the game. Our decision makers clearly didn’t think that was relevant or factor it into their decision making.

It'll go down as the worst appointment in our modern history. Nuno was bad but he was what was leftover and moved on nice and quickly. Thomas Frank was apparently the end result of a fairly intensive process and someone who matched their criteria. What the fudge was the criteria? It was very clear he was never going to work. He didn't have what it would take to walk into a dressing room that's just been through a disaster of a season yet still won a European trophy.

And so, so many people on here just didn't get it either. None of that mattered, all we needed was a pragmatist.
 
It'll go down as the worst appointment in our modern history. Nuno was bad but he was what was leftover and moved on nice and quickly. Thomas Frank was apparently the end result of a fairly intensive process and someone who matched their criteria. What the fudge was the criteria? It was very clear he was never going to work. He didn't have what it would take to walk into a dressing room that's just been through a disaster of a season yet still won a European trophy.

And so, so many people on here just didn't get it either. None of that mattered, all we needed was a pragmatist.
That Lange wanted somebody he could go out for dinner with and speak in his native tongue?
 
Not to mention he was clearly a nice genuine guy who was working hard to be successful here and grateful for the opportunity - disliking the guy seems a bit much to me, but each to their own I guess....

I do think he was a nice guy and clearly blame ultimately goes with the people who appointed him in the first place. I think there’s a bit of it though where Frank could have handled things differently, and it still might not have worked out, but it would have been a bit better.

One is the ‘if you don’t take a risk you take a risk’ stuff. It just feels like gaslighting. He was transparently an extremely risk averse manager. He would talk vaguely of ‘adding layers’. And it all pointed to not being willing or able to build on what the team could already do. I think he thought he genuinely had to strip it right back to basics, either because he thought the team needed to stop conceding so many goals, or because that’s the method he followed at Brentford. It’s not a reason to dislike the man as such, but he could have made different decisions around this point and not made this season so bad.

The other is the closest reason for me to dislike him, and it’s that once the pressure really starts to heat up, his tune changes from ‘we stand on the shoulders of what Ange achieved’ and into ‘we’re not a CL club, we finished 17th last season’. He started talking us down to make himself look better, and it’s something that De Zerbi now is trying to unwind. I’m not sure otherwise why exactly he would feel the need to be so negative on the squad, maybe to give them a ‘reality check’, I don’t know. I just think he’s the worst messenger for that. A because he’s never operated at our level and B because the pressure was on from results largely because of the risk averse and poorly suited tactics he was choosing to employ. And the players likely understood that.
 
Yeah, I find the “look how well Brentford are doing now without him” to be very disrespectful. He did an incredible job there to get them up and keep them in the league. Andrews, so far, has been impressive but he has been able to build on the platform that Frank played a huge part in putting in place.

The job here was too big for him IMO. A really poor appointment which calls in to question, very seriously, the judgement of those who appointed him and retained him especially given the “30 point list” or whatever it was that they based the appointment on.

As Poch said this week, in football there are some things that data and stats cannot measure or quantify and that’s what keeps some of the beauty and mystery around the game. Our decision makers clearly didn’t think that was relevant or factor it into their decision making.

Genuinely stunning to me. I think it was a top 10 criteria and 30 people interviewed, and Frank was the stand out. Just…..how?

Nuno may or may not have ultimately been right for us (personally I think he never really got a chance and we treated him quite abysmally) but at least it was a reaction to events and we didn’t really have a choice, we had to appoint somebody. Frank though was a full on intentional decision by people who then committed their logic to the public sphere in the form of in-house media interviews. Thanks to them for being transparent I guess, but it now makes it extremely difficult to trust anything they do about football going forward.
 
I do think he was a nice guy and clearly blame ultimately goes with the people who appointed him in the first place. I think there’s a bit of it though where Frank could have handled things differently, and it still might not have worked out, but it would have been a bit better.

One is the ‘if you don’t take a risk you take a risk’ stuff. It just feels like gaslighting. He was transparently an extremely risk averse manager. He would talk vaguely of ‘adding layers’. And it all pointed to not being willing or able to build on what the team could already do. I think he thought he genuinely had to strip it right back to basics, either because he thought the team needed to stop conceding so many goals, or because that’s the method he followed at Brentford. It’s not a reason to dislike the man as such, but he could have made different decisions around this point and not made this season so bad.

The other is the closest reason for me to dislike him, and it’s that once the pressure really starts to heat up, his tune changes from ‘we stand on the shoulders of what Ange achieved’ and into ‘we’re not a CL club, we finished 17th last season’. He started talking us down to make himself look better, and it’s something that De Zerbi now is trying to unwind. I’m not sure otherwise why exactly he would feel the need to be so negative on the squad, maybe to give them a ‘reality check’, I don’t know. I just think he’s the worst messenger for that. A because he’s never operated at our level and B because the pressure was on from results largely because of the risk averse and poorly suited tactics he was choosing to employ. And the players likely understood that.
I’m sorry but I really don’t get the “nice guy” angle on TF and this “he’s not to blame” argument.

He is exactly one of the two main culprits for us being where we are.

He made himself available for the job. He interviewed for it. He pursued it. He took the paychecks.

Then he gaslit us and the players who were coming back from the most uplifting achievement in recent memory and poured cold water all over it.

He absolutely, unequivocally sucked and never took any of the blame.

But for some reason (maybe the hair or that he drinks red wine?) he’s a “nice guy” and it wasn’t his fault and we shouldn’t criticize him?

Sorry but I don’t buy that. He deserves as much criticism as anyone for the predicament we are currently in.

(For the record, I have carefully used “dislike” instead of “hate”. One is based on rationality, the other on emotion)
 
I’m sorry but I really don’t get the “nice guy” angle on TF and this “he’s not to blame” argument.

He is exactly one of the two main culprits for us being where we are.

He made himself available for the job. He interviewed for it. He pursued it. He took the paychecks.

Then he gaslit us and the players who were coming back from the most uplifting achievement in recent memory and poured cold water all over it.

He absolutely, unequivocally sucked and never took any of the blame.

But for some reason (maybe the hair or that he drinks red wine?) he’s a “nice guy” and it wasn’t his fault and we shouldn’t criticize him?

Sorry but I don’t buy that. He deserves as much criticism as anyone for the predicament we are currently in.

(For the record, I have carefully used “dislike” instead of “hate”. One is based on rationality, the other on emotion)

I do hear you!

And FWIW, I think this 45 mins we’ve just seen is the biggest indictment of Frank possible.

We have absolutely just played a top 5 team completely off the park on their ground. Allow for their lower intensity and prioritisation of the Europa League, and we can still see the level of sophistication in possession and the intentionality of our pressing, it is leagues above.

We had many fans seriously saying our players were bad players. They aren’t. They just needed a competent coach, not someone that was actively trying to talk them down because they couldn’t play mid table football.
 
I do hear you!

And FWIW, I think this 45 mins we’ve just seen is the biggest indictment of Frank possible.

We have absolutely just played a top 5 team completely off the park on their ground. Allow for their lower intensity and prioritisation of the Europa League, and we can still see the level of sophistication in possession and the intentionality of our pressing, it is leagues above.

We had many fans seriously saying our players were bad players. They aren’t. They just needed a competent coach, not someone that was actively trying to talk them down because they couldn’t play mid table football.
Yes, yes, yes and YES!!!!!
 
Someone on the commentary team said it best - in response to the other bloke saying Villa had rested seven, he snapped back saying we'd been playing with 15+ players out for the entire season.

It's the little things like that, which start popping up around the place, that indicate that the clouds are clearing. Because at last, someone's defending a club that has been put through the wringer for a year without anyone to defend them or put their interests first.

In most cases, a club's first defenders are the owners and executives - they set the public standard, and then everyone else follows. But our owners and executives are abysmal, so that route is out of the question. At this club, for 20+ years, the man who has to defend the club and make it believe, is the manager. Everyone in the ecosystem - players, fans, media and onlookers - take their cue from the manager, since he's the club's only spokesperson.

It's a uniquely high-pressure role, and managers have commented on it in the past - most notably Conte, who questioned why he was always the one who had to answer questions in times of crisis. But it is the role of a Spurs manager nonetheless. Be a political messiah, set the message.

Managers who don't stand up for the club and its players suffer, because the ecosystem is relentless at kicking us when we're down. Ange said it best - Spurs does weird things to people, and there's no shortage of people willing to put the boot in. Which then saps everyone's confidence, and the cycle worsens. Frank was the epitome of this - he was a decent coach, but by refusing to be a political communicator, to stand up for the club and instill a vision everyone could buy into, he doomed himself.

By contrast, the managers that succeed are the ones willing to be the club's figurehead, who sets its vision and defends it to the world. Poch was the most famous example. Ange, too. You need to believe, so others can take their cue from you and believe, too.

And de Zerbi, personal flaws aside, seems to be one in that mould. He's kept to his message of the players being better than they are showing, that we can win 5 games on the trot, that the club should think of itself as a big club expecting to win, not relegation battlers. And finally, it's filtering through - to the players, who look like they believe. To the fans. And, finally, to the media ecosystem used to savaging us without reply.

Long way to go, and we could well go down. And personally I don't think I'll warm to de Zerbi.

But he understands what it means to be a Spurs manager. It isn't like any other job. You need to believe, even when the whole world doesn't. And from what I've seen, de Zerbi does. And combined with his tactics and coaching, it's showing results.

Good on him.
 
Back