Thomas Frank - Head Coach

[Surfless]

I really like this post. When you break it down, we have a core of players that this or the next manager would just enjoy having. I think it is as many as 15 or 16. Then you have the 4 or 5 other youngsters, not including Gray or Bergval as they're already in the former.

Then you go to work on the rest. If you do it right then you end up with another 2 or 3 elite players as their replacements. Just those 2 or 3 players can become transformative.

thanks for the comment - I appreciate it. I would say that my oversimplified summary of player ability could do some players a disservice - in our squad for instance there's definitely a case for saying that with time either in the league or getting older and wiser, Xavi, Gray, Van Der Ven and Tel could become elite, or somewhere between international and elite. If that were the case then you just have to sustain their development, ensure that you don't fill the roles ahead of them to stunt their progress, and then watch as the four I mentioned step up and are replaced by Moore, Vuskovic, Williams Barnet and Byfield as prospects.

 

[Muttley]

thanks for the comment - I appreciate it. I would say that my oversimplified summary of player ability could do some players a disservice - in our squad for instance there's definitely a case for saying that with time either in the league or getting older and wiser, Xavi, Gray, Van Der Ven and Tel could become elite, or somewhere between international and elite. If that were the case then you just have to sustain their development, ensure that you don't fill the roles ahead of them to stunt their progress, and then watch as the four I mentioned step up and are replaced by Moore, Vuskovic, Williams Barnet and Byfield as prospects.

Exactly, this squad has players of the right age to grow together. Also, the potential behind them is exciting with all those young pups.

I find it hard to be pessimistic about our squad. It just needs some great recruitment alongside.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

Even with the all injuries, I’ve not found myself thinking “I wish we had Johnson still”.

We got good money for a player that is limited.

Its a good deal viewed in the long term.

Is it, really? How much did we pay for him? 47m? He's 24, so theorically closer to his peak years and yet we sold him for 35m. I'm not his greatest fan, but taking a 12m hit on our top scorer at 24 doesn't strike me as a great piece of business.

Of course, since Frank wasn't going to use him, his value would drop further but that's not 'good business' - it's damage control.

 

[Baleforce]

Is it, really? How much did we pay for him? 47m? He's 24, so theorically closer to his peak years and yet we sold him for 35m. I'm not his greatest fan, but taking a 12m hit on our top scorer at 24 doesn't strike me as a great piece of business.

Of course, since Frank wasn't going to use him, his value would drop further but that's not 'good business' - it's damage control.

I believe it’s a profit as far as the books are concerned.

 

[DTA]

We weren't, the 3 bottom teams were already dead, this year the 4 teams between us and relegation are all capable of going on a run of a few games. The other factor is we had a genuine chance at Europa (which got us back into Europe this year), we were bookies favorites to win with United. That's not even taking into account Ange had shown he could get the team to 5th the season before, and we were capable (not consistently) of playing winning football (Frank hasn't)

These are all risk/reward decisions, it may seem like small margins but our situation this season is notably worse than last, by this time we had players coming back from the injuries, the league was "safe", the manager was in 2nd year, fans hadn't turned, each adds up.

Personally I think Levy should have fired Ange in December, but he made a calculated risk call and it paid off, what is the pay off for sticking with Frank? (we aren't going to get to even CL SF), that's where I think he would have pulled trigger.

Also Danso and Tel (who was a major coup at the time)

 

[Mabspurs]

Is it, really? How much did we pay for him? 47m? He's 24, so theorically closer to his peak years and yet we sold him for 35m. I'm not his greatest fan, but taking a 12m hit on our top scorer at 24 doesn't strike me as a great piece of business.

Of course, since Frank wasn't going to use him, his value would drop further but that's not 'good business' - it's damage control.

You have a point but I think the issue is not that we sold him for 35mill (which I think is reasonably his market value - especially with utility primarily to counterattacking sides) but that we bought him for 47!! Having said that, what price his goal in Bilbao???

 

[braineclipse]

As the one who seems to get called out the most, here's how I see it

- Could/should we get better under Frank with time and players coming back? yes

The question is how much better, is that 14th to 8th better, or 14th to 6th better? (this season is a huge missed opportunity to get back in CL), did we really not win against Wolves, Burnley, West Ham, Sunderland, Brentford, Bournemouth because we didn't have Solanke?

And this come back to why Frank was hired over Ange specifically

- My opinion is Frank was seen as a safer pair of hands, he would bring up the floor of the clubs results (so not 17th), I don't think they expected Frank would even match Ange's Europa cup win. He was seen as a guy who could get results out of lesser resources (expectation therefore than more resources would give even better results)

So in that frame, Frank has failed, he has not raised the floor and he has not done better when faced with resource challenges (injuries)

Then the question becomes, what have we seen that says, given another 200M in players (consistent with what Conte/Ange got) we will suddenly improve results, style, position under Frank? and if we don't have a very clear view, the smarter thing is reset and spend that money under another manager

I agree. Rather obviously we can improve under him, players back from injuries, new signings, time, confidence if we can ever get a solid run together (which would be more likely with the previous factors happening).

I also think we can play better more attractive football under him with those things in place. I mean rather obviously if we had a fully fit Maddison, Kulusevski, Kudus and say a new really good attacking signing we would play better football, it would be hard not to.

Agreed too on the likely reason he was hired. That would match well with what he's done in the past. And again, given time and resources (signings/fewer injuries) he will probably succeed at that (as you say the extent of that is still i uncertain).

I guess this also goes back to what we think the club needs. For me the rather obvious answer is to find some kind of repeat of what happened under Pochettino. Get us punching above our weight, not just raising the floor (though that too needs to happen). I've had my doubts about Frank being able to do that, very much remains in the "yet to be seen" category. I'm not saying he can't, but it's a job he's only done at Brentford from a very different starting point with very different circumstances.

If there are other candidates that are seen as more likely to do that job I think that means the decision to replace him (come the summer) should be made. Particularly as you say he has failed at that raise the floor part of the job here so far.

Another reason for me would be that while rough patches will pretty much happen for any manager investing heavily in the plans of a manager that would quite likely be one rough patch away from being under serious pressure to be sacked again is a really tricky spot to be in.

Another reason is that imo come the summer we have some big decisions on how we want to build the squad and team for the future. Quality over quantity time, possibly big decisions on individuals already here. This is the time to put a marker down and decide how we want to play over the next years and I personally want a different style of football to what Frank seems to offer. That's not just style over results, that's because I think that's the most likely path to success for us.

 

[braineclipse]

I am pretty sure you don't dislike the guy... indeed he has such an affable nature and personality, that anyone disliking him personally must have some sociological or psychological deficit. It's just that you have nailed your flag firmly on the mast and - has been the case for as long this board has been up - everything you say is an attempt to justify and validate why that flag is flying. And before you say that I am doing likewise, my position has always been clear... any assessment that I make of Frank's competence or otherwise needs to wait until he has close to a decent squad available with square pegs in square holes....

They only "stack up" in your mind because you want to them to stack up... for your agenda. In any other mind, especially someone who has learnt statistical significance, they are an irrelevant comparison.

Seriously???. Tel is the best example you can use? A player whose impact has been negligible under BOTH Ange and Frank. As for the Palhinha/Bentancur pivot... it coincided with the best away record in the league while it was in play... but that is obviously also irrelevant...

Nice try... when did Romero criticise Frank? In both occasions, his anger was solely directed at the administration and the board.

So Bissouma having his pocket picked like a 6 year old in a schoolyard or Dragusin being unable to hoof a ball beyond the half way line when under no pressure is - in some way - Frank's fault???? I mean, come on, my friend!! If you cannot see how ridiculous an argument that is, then there is no scope of a discussion.... Even the MOTD2 commentator felt he needed to mention it; but he doesn't know anything as well, I guess...

The only "fudging argument" actually goes like this... having a whole first team out injured - including all creative players bar one who only now is (understandably) getting to grips with the premier league.... irrelevant to our results; they are all Frank's fault! Having to play the likes of Porro and Richi to cope with the EPL and CL games when we only have three fullbacks/strikers and one of each of those (two actually for the strikers) was injured practically all season is Frank's fault! He is to blame when they inevitably get injures. The fact that we have possibly the most unbalanced squad in the league with a glut of 8's but no deep playmaker, no backup LB, no proper 10 and no experienced left winger is irrelevant... the lack of progression is all because of horseshoes. And then the cherry (picking) on the cake... "same squad that was 5th 18 months ago." Of course, the fact that the same (actually superior) squad was 17th just 8 months ago is obviously irrelevant...

There's literally not a single person here claiming that it's all Frank's fault. There's literally not a single person here claiming that injuries, imbalances in the squad or where we finished last year is irrelevant.

You having to argue against these straw men to me only illustrates how difficult it currently is to actually defend Frank on the merits.

We're currently 14th. If the levels of performances and results so far this season continues I'm guessing we'll finish around 14th? I can understand an argument that it's too early to evaluate Frank's work here though I don't agree. But if we were to evaluate it based on his job here (instead of arguing with straw men) surely it has to be based on what he's done so far.

When Frank was hired, if we had said that there would be real difficult injury problems would 14th at this point have been seen as acceptable/good/progress to you? Was that a realistic good enough aim to have when he was hired?

 

[braineclipse]

Exactly, this squad has players of the right age to grow together. Also, the potential behind them is exciting with all those young pups.

I find it hard to be pessimistic about our squad. It just needs some great recruitment alongside.

Definitely agree. And I think any manager that would actually be right for us would look at this squad along with a starting point of lowered short term expectations and think that they could really do something special here.

I also think the continued development of these really talented players should be a key priority for us. The way I see it if we do a properly good job at that it could be a huge difference maker. I think our recruitment of younger players and the work done at the academy level has been really impressive in recent years.

Where we probably disagree would be my lack of conviction on Frank being the right man to develop these players. For sure he has a very good track record of developing players at Brentford. But I think we have young players here who will benefit more from playing a different style to what Frank played a Brentford and so far here.

That's what he and Brentford got so right. A clear style of play, recruiting players including players who needed time to develop who suited that style very well. We need that alignment too. To be fair perhaps Frank can be that man, I just haven't seen him do it yet.

 

[braineclipse]

I'm firmly in the camp that Frank is doing what he is doing out of necessity at the moment, so I resonate with most of your post above.

If you take the view that footballers come in broadly 4 categories, those being Elite, International, Domestic, and Prospect, the reasons for Frank's pragmatism is that the squad has:

1 Elite Player - Romero
19 International - Vicario, Dragusin, Danso, Palhinha, Simons, Bissouma, Richie, Maddison, Udogie, Solanke, Kudus, Kulusevski, Gallagher, Porro, Spence, Sarr, Bentancur, Micky, Muani.
2 Domestic - Davies and Austin
6 Prospects - Kinsky, Gray, Bergvall, Tel, Odobert, Sousa.

When you then look at the injuries it drops to 1 Elite, 8 International, 1 Domestic and 5 prospects.

So basically Frank has to pick a team from 15 players five of which are kids within the first team squad, and this is going to be the case for the next month at least in all cases bar Spence.

That requires pragmatism. Now is not a time as a fan to be crowing for our beautiful Spurs back. Now is a time to get 13 more points on the board, secure our league position and then have a long hard look at the non playing staff at senior level to understand what they are doing. Our academy, our recruitment, and our player sales are underperforming, and all need review. Lange doesn't feel like the answer to me, though I know nothing of his actual performance day to day, obviously. Vinai is too new to have any real responsibility for the situation bar the outrageous statement of intent that was his open letter to fans, which on reflection now just looks stupid, really.

Finally to the manager - I really do think he can take us to better places - he's really clever, really structured and knows what he wants. Those saying he is out of his depth are doing him a disservice - we are the very definition of a poison chalice right now, and its to his credit that he's not letting things get to him in the media. He's doing what he believes is necessary to get us out of a dog fight, and I for one back him to achieve that. Could be famous last words, but I doubt it. I absolutely don't think there's a caretaker or an out of work manager who mid season could do better.

I agree on the here and now. As long as there are some positives, the players are on board. He's the kind of manager we would bring in to a situation like this to manage it imo. And for sure with the limited options there is a need for pragmatism.

Where I'm not sure we agree is that I struggle to see what he's done in his career to think that he's the right man for the future past the summer? Or are you talking just here and now, this season?

 

[thfcsteff]

I do wonder whether the stylistic topic is as prominent with the Spurs leadership team as it is with the fans. My head is currently in a place where I would live without not having the ultimate Spurs football philosophy for a while. I'd happily give it 2 or 3 seasons and see where it takes us. There is a strong argument that Spurs have got absolutely nowhere having these "attractive football" principles for decades. We also witnessed the best teams who played the best football winning the majority of trophies, but not all. That endorsed our argument until recently where football is now totally attritional and it's a Crystal Palace that wins the FA Cup against a Emirates Marketing Project parking the bus. Also the officiating just adds to the reason why City aren't cup holders. Referees impact way too many football results nowadays.

We're probably in a place where we can park the stylistic argument for a while. Hopefully, the PL shifts again and we can get back to craving that attractive football again. That is at least 2 years away.

I think everything you've said there is accurate TBH. Results and winning are everything these days (and for some it has always been that way).

I think you'll get your 2/3 years, maybe more. In fairness, bar Ange's two seasons, we had several seasons prior where the 'philosophy' was binned off.

I think there's a fair argument for saying that people like me are too rooted in our wants and philosophies, that 'that style' and 'those ways' are in the past because the game is...well, the game isn't quite about that anymore.

I made the decision to stop hoping that TF will morph into a manager who plays football what I consider to be 'the Tottenham way', and I have done so based on three things:
1) it is unfair to expect him to suddenly become something he isn't.
2) if he has top players to execute the system he wants to play, there will at least be some excitement.
3) i want to try and enjoy this club whenever possible.

Here's hoping he can catch some breaks and we can go on a run. That'd be great.