'Spurs-y' is the most pathetic of phrases tome, a relatively 'new' term which someone apparently tried to force into an urban dictionary a few years ago. It is, as I understand it, designed to be an indication of a side that consistently blows it at the last.
Let me be clear about why I support Tottenham Hotspur mate.
"“The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.”
I personally consider everything else a bonus. Now, IF you're telling me that 'Spurs-y' has now come to be a side that flirts with the Premiership title two seasons in a row and falls short in the last few games despite never actually having been top during either campaign (with the latter campaign having been a chair manufactured from nothing) then yes. Fine. 'sexy' if you wish. But I won't be using the term. Never have. Never will. So I suppose in order for your theory to hold weight, we have to accept the word 'Spurs-y'...which I won't mate.
That quote is magnificent - a cornerstone of what we are. Yet, it is a two-parter, mate - yes, winning by any means isn't what we are about, but we're still meant to be going out and beating whomever we come up against. We haven't done that for 56 years now, at least to the extent that we can claim another title out of it.
Your reasons for supporting the club are beautifully unique to you - a fact true of every single man and woman on here, and across football more broadly. Yet I suspect the romantic notion of what we are drew you in very similarly to how it drew me in as a wide-eyed child. However, when looking back at the long sweep of our history, we have simply not won anywhere near the number of league titles that the teams around us have - and that is despite our advantages in terms of location (general state of Haringey aside, it's always been in London), aesthetic (we're not Leeds, and will never be, which undoubtedly draws players of a higher calibre than would have consented to play for, say, Don Revie), historical stature (we've always been considered one of the bigger clubs in England), finances and so on.
This is a fact. However much we might like to dress it up, it's a fact. So the question becomes, why is that the case? Why have we only won two titles in our 135-year history? We've proven a fearsome, vibrant, memorably romantic cup side, but why haven't we been able to translate that into league form at least once over more than half a century?
You might not believe in 'Spurs-y' in any way, shape or form. That's entirely your prerogative, mate. But if you don't, I'd love to discuss other explanations for why that historical record above is the case.
As for 'Spurs-y' being applicable to our performances over the last two seasons, not at all. Well, maybe the tail end of last season, but not *at all* this season. But that's my point, which (with all due respect, which is a *lot*) you've sort of dodged past - a couple of seasons being distinct title-chasers, unwilling to capitulate and always willing to fight and do what it takes to win don't invalidate 54 years of the opposite being the case. Especially when that hasn't been accompanied by trophies, either - which previous Spurs sides have secured without replicating the form we're showing in the league now. Surely that's not arguable?
All good. You don't have to proclaim him anything. I can tell you that having witnessed Fergie growing during that time with Utd, and seeing what Poch is doing at our club, I am HAPPY to proclaim him as such. The comparisons are bountiful and start off the pitch with the way the club is run.
You then went on to post all of SAF's achievements as 'proof' that Poch wasn't SAF 'yet'. With the greatest of respects, that was a cheap shot. Of course he isn't 'yet' confirmed as such because he doesn't have the history or years under his belt or trophies yet. But I believe we have the modern equivalent.
Here's a fact for you. Fergie joined Man Utd in Nov 1986 and didn't win his first trophy until may 1990. He quickly turned the culture of the club around, but some details still needed addressing. He can probably thank Mark Robbins for buying him a little time, as without that goal at Forest he was apparently facing the sack. Come to think of it, he can thank Lee Martin too!!! When you take a look at Fergie's first few years at Utd, he did fine work but it still wasn't as spectacular as what Poch has done with us in the same time frame.
Let's see what Poch can achieve next season...but I stick fairly behind my belief that he is our Fergie.
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896...it-really-take-ferguson-three-years-to-get-it
Sure, you can make the argument that Fergie and Poch have similar career trajectories in terms of United and Spurs respectively - no arguing that, or arguing the fact that Poch has brought things to our club that haven't been present in a long, long time. You could also argue that, based on that point, Poch is already our SAF - but *that's* where I disagree. When I say 'our SAF', I don't mean 'our SAF from 1986-1990', I mean 'our SAF from 1986-2013' - imv, only someone of similar longevity, with a similar trophy-winning run and legendary status at our club can undo our historical tendency to be quintessentially human - up and down, strong and weak, triumphant and vulnerable at the same time. Changing our history is fighting 135 years of a certain narrative - a daunting task which needs lots and lots of time.
Which is why I said Poch isn't our SAF yet - because he isn't. That needs time - a lot of it, and success to go with it. Where I differ from people more critical of Poch is that I feel he's earned that time - he is our *best* manager in Premier League history, and that's reason enough to hold on to him tightly, if nothing else. But I also differ from fellow fans who argue that he's already changed our club's nature forever off the back of one good and one great season and a whole lot of off-the-pitch work.
Let me put it this way - if, GHod forbid, Poch left tomorrow, would we be similarly resilient and viewed as a generally trophy-winning, title-challenging club for the next couple of decades? If not, then his impact hasn't been nearly permanent enough to merit calling him 'our SAF' - which, again, is a very big comparison. Huge.
(Also, I liked your post because I appreciated your though-out response, mate - I much prefer that over shouting random words in all-caps, and I have to say that it doesn't behoove you to do so.)
