The Overlap - some interesting comments from Ange

[mudshark]

I agree, but Ange said he studied previous winners, saw they all played defensive, put it to the players, and they bought into it.
Like he said, 17th place no one wanted to take some of the blame, but winning the EL? Everyone wanted to take some credit.

He's such a liar. Remember the crap he talked about the ear-cupping he aimed at the fans? Just wanted them to sing up, apparently....
Van de Ven stated categorically that it was he and Romero who pitched the more defensive approach. I know who I believe.

 

[Finney Is Back]

You probably never heard it, because to this day he has never ever said he 'threw the league.' He said there was a focus on winning the EL, which was again said by VDV in his interview with Neville which is also backed up in the teams that were put out vs the teams that were put out the same week in the EL knock outs.

That doesn't mean he didn't want to win games in the league, but rightly the priority was winning the EL games and as such certain important players were rested for these games. There is a clear difference.....

We had nothing at all to play for in the league once we'd beaten Brentford and Man Utd. When players have nothing to play for in one competition and everything to play for in another it is also natural for players to try to ensure they don't get injured in the games where there is effectively nothing to play for.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Goodness me...the excuses for all those hapless losses, even when we DID have a decent team fielded....maybe we should bring Ange back, after all he clearly showed what we missed when he was at Forest earlier this season

 

[DeanoAustin]

We had nothing at all to play for in the league once we'd beaten Brentford and Man Utd. When players have nothing to play for in one competition and everything to play for in another it is also natural for players to try to ensure they don't get injured in the games where there is effectively nothing to play for.

There will always be reasons/excuses (depending on your point of view) offered for poor performance.

The fact of the matter remains that 22 losses out of 38 league games is absolutely unacceptable for a club like Tottenham Hotspur. A 17th placed finish is absolutely unacceptable for a club like Tottenham Hotspur. Nothing will explain that away that doesn't reflect poorly on the competence of the coach and players.

We talk about mentality and culture being a problem at Spurs. The minute you start to think that 17th and 22 losses is acceptable in any circumstances is the minute that your standards and expectations have slipped enormously/dangerously.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

There will always be reasons/excuses (depending on your point of view) offered for poor performance.

The fact of the matter remains that 22 losses out of 38 league games is absolutely unacceptable for a club like Tottenham Hotspur. A 17th placed finish is absolutely unacceptable for a club like Tottenham Hotspur. Nothing will explain that away that doesn't reflect poorly on the competence of the coach and players.

We talk about mentality and culture being a problem at Spurs. The minute you start to think that 17th and 22 losses is acceptable in any circumstances is the minute that your standards and expectations have slipped enormously/dangerously.

I have a little bit of sympathy for the argument that Ange normalised losing because in fairness, we can’t know that what he did, didn’t normalise losing. That said, I just don’t agree with it. The players won a trophy, they had a winning feeling. They knew that everything they went through was worth it. And then they started this season pretty well. Which leads me to think that actually the reason for the slide is hiring a wildly unsuited manager to the size of the club, who never got buy in from the players, and was trusted to stay on long past it becoming clear that he wasn’t getting through to the players.

Saying Ange normalised losing then feels to me a bit like saying he’s responsible for the injuries this year. It feels like a way to have an overly negative view on someone who actually won us a trophy, and when actually I think the board need to take a lot of the blame for hiring not only someone that wasn’t good enough to replace him, but someone who was completely different in style and preparation. The squad have been whiplashed from one thing to the other when they didn’t need to be, and I think that’s the real cause of all this.

17th is unacceptable, of course. Ange also said that. But these discussions always arrive back to the point of saying that, and it’s just a context free statement. We suffered an injury crisis the likes of which I have never seen any club suffer, and we forced to play actually unfit players. During that run, we become a target for other teams who know we won’t have as much gas in the tank, and they up their intensity to roll us over. It’d actually quite heartening that when we needed to win to allow us to focus on the Europa, we knocked off Ipswich, United and Brentford very comfortably to secure our position.

So I just don’t think he normalised losing. He actually won something. And then he still managed to hold the respect of the squad through a tremendous losing run to the point where he could motivate them to win a high pressure final, where everyone actually says for the first time the players arrived at a final believing they *would* win. I am totally fine with saying Ange was not the long term guy for us. He probably wasn’t our Fergie. (I think that’s Poch). But I think letting him go after that win, after everything the players went through with him, was one of the stupidest decisions this club has made. We would have been nowhere near as bad this season with Ange opposed to Frank, because those players would have had ultimate belief in what he told them to do. He promised them they would be winners after coming through the toughest season of their lives, and it happened. We threw that away, for someone wildly unsuited to our club to ‘change the culture’. Maddening.

 

[mudshark]

It's all ifs, buts and maybes. My own completely untestable view (and I'm not suggesting anybody else need share it) is that if Levy had lost his mind and allowed him to stay on, we'd actually have been in the bottom 3, just as Forest were under him. There's nothing definitive to say that's what would have happened, of course; that's the nature of a hypothetical, but that's my firm feeling. Others will feel differently and are perfectly entitled to that standpoint. Maybe it would have been better in the end, though, even if I am correct, because perhaps then the club would have been forced to act earlier than they did to make a change. Provided they didn't still land on Frank as the man for the job, that is...

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

It's all ifs, buts and maybes. My own completely untestable view (and I'm not suggesting anybody else need share it) is that if Levy had lost his mind and allowed him to stay on, we'd actually have been in the bottom 3, just as Forest were under him. There's nothing definitive to say that's what would have happened, of course; that's the nature of a hypothetical, but that's my firm feeling. Others will feel differently and are perfectly entitled to that standpoint. Maybe it would have been better in the end, though, even if I am correct, because perhaps then the club would have been forced to act earlier than they did to make a change. Provided they didn't still land on Frank as the man for the job, that is...

Genuinely, you think an Ange with a deeper squad this year and fewer injuries than last year would have done a worse job than Frank up to this point? When he had us 5th in his first season? I appreciate you say it’s a feeling but it just seems overly negative.

 

[mudshark]

Genuinely, you think an Ange with a deeper squad this year and fewer injuries than last year would have done a worse job than Frank up to this point? When he had us 5th in his first season? I appreciate you say it’s a feeling but it just seems overly negative.

Well, I am very negative about him, so that's why

 

[DeanoAustin]

I have a little bit of sympathy for the argument that Ange normalised losing because in fairness, we can’t know that what he did, didn’t normalise losing. That said, I just don’t agree with it. The players won a trophy, they had a winning feeling. They knew that everything they went through was worth it. And then they started this season pretty well. Which leads me to think that actually the reason for the slide is hiring a wildly unsuited manager to the size of the club, who never got buy in from the players, and was trusted to stay on long past it becoming clear that he wasn’t getting through to the players.

Saying Ange normalised losing then feels to me a bit like saying he’s responsible for the injuries this year. It feels like a way to have an overly negative view on someone who actually won us a trophy, and when actually I think the board need to take a lot of the blame for hiring not only someone that wasn’t good enough to replace him, but someone who was completely different in style and preparation. The squad have been whiplashed from one thing to the other when they didn’t need to be, and I think that’s the real cause of all this.

17th is unacceptable, of course. Ange also said that. But these discussions always arrive back to the point of saying that, and it’s just a context free statement. We suffered an injury crisis the likes of which I have never seen any club suffer, and we forced to play actually unfit players. During that run, we become a target for other teams who know we won’t have as much gas in the tank, and they up their intensity to roll us over. It’d actually quite heartening that when we needed to win to allow us to focus on the Europa, we knocked off Ipswich, United and Brentford very comfortably to secure our position.

So I just don’t think he normalised losing. He actually won something. And then he still managed to hold the respect of the squad through a tremendous losing run to the point where he could motivate them to win a high pressure final, where everyone actually says for the first time the players arrived at a final believing they *would* win. I am totally fine with saying Ange was not the long term guy for us. He probably wasn’t our Fergie. (I think that’s Poch). But I think letting him go after that win, after everything the players went through with him, was one of the stupidest decisions this club has made. We would have been nowhere near as bad this season with Ange opposed to Frank, because those players would have had ultimate belief in what he told them to do. He promised them they would be winners after coming through the toughest season of their lives, and it happened. We threw that away, for someone wildly unsuited to our club to ‘change the culture’. Maddening.

I've not blamed Ange for the injuries. That's for a medical person to evaluate.

We did have an uptick in our away form for a couple of months. Our home form this year, 2 wins from 14, has been a continuation of what we saw from November last year. The stadium right now is a horrible place to be. I've just realised in my last 14 league games, we've drawn 6 and lost 8. I haven't seen us win in the league at home since Aston Villa last November. For the players, getting beaten and booed every week must create an awful feeling and it's a habit that's very hard to break because it's been ingrained over 15 months. That started with Ange. He isn't the main architect of our current predicament or even a primary one but, for me, he definitely has responsibility.

I like listening to Ange. I found the podcast very, very interesting and didn't take the offence that some others did to some of the stuff he said. For me, he's just a guy doing an interview giving an honest opinion. I am forever grateful for the EL win. I think he's a good manager to a certain level and that level is very high albeit I do believe that he gets exposed against the very top level in England. I don't think he's a macaron or tactically illiterate.

However, for me, "finishing 17th and losing 22 games" does not require any context. It's unacceptable regardless of pretty much any context. The minute you say "it's unacceptable but we had injuries" or "it's unacceptable but only happened because we wanted the EL", you're contradicting yourself and making it acceptable.

 

[Raziel]

Genuinely, you think an Ange with a deeper squad this year and fewer injuries than last year would have done a worse job than Frank up to this point? When he had us 5th in his first season? I appreciate you say it’s a feeling but it just seems overly negative.

Mate, he didn't win a single game for Forest, you want to go back and look at his last 10 for us?

Frank at least got that initial decent run of away results, Ange wouldn't have.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Mate, he didn't win a single game for Forest, you want to go back and look at his last 10 for us?

Frank at least got that initial decent run of away results, Ange wouldn't have.

But I really don’t know why Forest matters? It was a mad decision for all concerned. Maranakis fired a guy the players liked playing for. They weren’t crying out for what Ange offers. And he never should have joined them.

I can see my way to saying something like the way Ange plays might have gotten more exposed in the league this year, if he relies on tricky dribblers and full backs in central areas rather than physical beasts. But that’s a question of whether he’d adapt at all given the lay of the land that became clear this year. And maybe he would have. But I would see the argument the other way.

What I don’t see is that because he failed at Forest it somehow proves definitively something about him one way or the other, other than he shouldn’t have let his pride drag him back to work after Spurs too quickly. There is so much context around clubs and this need to just write off a manager in a black and white way I just don’t go for.

We know what Ange is. He is a high risk, high reward motivator who encourages the players to be brave and transmits ultimate belief to them. He isn’t going to compromise for a short term relief. Within that, there is a ton of context on what was going on around him at the clubs he is a part of.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

I've not blamed Ange for the injuries. That's for a medical person to evaluate.

We did have an uptick in our away form for a couple of months. Our home form this year, 2 wins from 14, has been a continuation of what we saw from November last year. The stadium right now is a horrible place to be. I've just realised in my last 14 league games, we've drawn 6 and lost 8. I haven't seen us win in the league at home since Aston Villa last November. For the players, getting beaten and booed every week must create an awful feeling and it's a habit that's very hard to break because it's been ingrained over 15 months. That started with Ange. He isn't the main architect of our current predicament or even a primary one but, for me, he definitely has responsibility.

I like listening to Ange. I found the podcast very, very interesting and didn't take the offence that some others did to some of the stuff he said. For me, he's just a guy doing an interview giving an honest opinion. I am forever grateful for the EL win. I think he's a good manager to a certain level and that level is very high albeit I do believe that he gets exposed against the very top level in England. I don't think he's a macaron or tactically illiterate.

However, for me, "finishing 17th and losing 22 games" does not require any context. It's unacceptable regardless of pretty much any context. The minute you say "it's unacceptable but we had injuries" or "it's unacceptable but only happened because we wanted the EL", you're contradicting yourself and making it acceptable.

Yeah, to be fair I do think it’s acceptable with both the injuries and then the desire to actually win the trophy and salvage success from a horrible season. I can appreciate why people disagree. But we played Reguillon towards the back end of the season in the league. I did not care one jot that we finished 17th, because we won a trophy.

I think it doesn’t really happen because it’s rare that a big club is so obviously completely out of contention of anything (because of the injuries) that they then get the opportunity to focus on something like he did. He’s also a risk taker, and a bit of an outsider, who was willing to go for something in a way more traditional profiles wouldn’t. And I’m thankful that he did.

I do understand the argument that the losses have made the ground toxic. But the whole point of what Ange did was to get us to that parade, which was absolutely the least toxic day in Tottenham’s history for 40+ years. We literally went through hell, all of the struggle, all of the toxicity and made it. And then we threw it all away because very smart people thought they were making the rational decision to sack the trophy winning manager who the players respected for taking them on that journey for someone who was completely underqualified to manage our club. It is way more toxic this season than it was last season.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Yeah, to be fair I do think it’s acceptable with both the injuries and then the desire to actually win the trophy and salvage success from a horrible season. I can appreciate why people disagree. But we played Reguillon towards the back end of the season in the league. I did not care one jot that we finished 17th, because we won a trophy.

I think it doesn’t really happen because it’s rare that a big club is so obviously completely out of contention of anything (because of the injuries) that they then get the opportunity to focus on something like he did. He’s also a risk taker, and a bit of an outsider, who was willing to go for something in a way more traditional profiles wouldn’t. And I’m thankful that he did.

I do understand the argument that the losses have made the ground toxic. But the whole point of what Ange did was to get us to that parade, which was absolutely the least toxic day in Tottenham’s history for 40+ years. We literally went through hell, all of the struggle, all of the toxicity and made it. And then we threw it all away because very smart people thought they were making the rational decision to sack the trophy winning manager who the players respected for taking them on that journey for someone who was completely underqualified to manage our club. It is way more toxic this season than it was last season.

Yeah, fair enough mate. I disagree on some of your conclusions or assumptions but can see the logic in your argument and I'm making some assumptions too which I'm sure you and others will disagree with. Ange's is certainly a very complicated and polarising legacy.

Good discussion and some very fair points.

 

[Kane]

I really don’t know why Forest matters? He should never have taken the job.

But take it, he did. By choice. I would imagine he knows more about football than you and I ever will. So maybe his knowledge and judgement isn't as good as we thought? And whether you or I like it or not, he will be judged on that to some extent in footy accordingly. You say 'Forest doesn't matter', yet I have to believe that Forest suddenly would matter a whole lot if he'd been a roaring success there, agree?

Same with Poch to some degree. Some think his relative lack of success since leaving us doesn't really matter. Again, if he'd won lots of trophies since leaving us, I reckon it would matter and mean whole lot, no?

 

[Bishop]

But take it, he did. By choice. I would imagine he knows more about football than you and I ever will. So maybe his knowledge and judgement isn't as good as we thought? And whether you or I like it or not, he will be judged on that to some extent in footy accordingly. You say 'Forest doesn't matter', yet I have to believe that Forest suddenly would matter a whole lot if he'd been a roaring success there, agree?

Same with Poch to some degree. Some think his relative lack of success since leaving us doesn't really matter. Again, if he'd won lots of trophies since leaving us, I reckon it would matter and mean whole lot, no?

Its all reactive reasoning. It doesn't matter because they don't want it to matter as it doesn't fit the narrative he is tying himself too.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Its all reactive reasoning. It doesn't matter because they don't want it to matter as it doesn't fit the narrative he is tying himself too.

Bore off mate, I’m trying to have reasoned arguments where I always try and see the other side too. I’m not trying to offer up a ‘narrative’ I’m trying to offer my opinion as you are welcome to also do. I don’t know who ‘they’ are that you refer to? A group of people who have the temerity to defend Ange?

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

But take it, he did. By choice. I would imagine he knows more about football than you and I ever will. So maybe his knowledge and judgement isn't as good as we thought? And whether you or I like it or not, he will be judged on that to some extent in footy accordingly. You say 'Forest doesn't matter', yet I have to believe that Forest suddenly would matter a whole lot if he'd been a roaring success there, agree?

Same with Poch to some degree. Some think his relative lack of success since leaving us doesn't really matter. Again, if he'd won lots of trophies since leaving us, I reckon it would matter and mean whole lot, no?

Absolutely! He took it and it was clearly a mistake. My point was that it was 8 games, after the transfer window closed, in the middle of the season, taking over from a manager who the players liked and whose football they felt comfortable with.

So maybe a better phrase is not that it doesn’t matter at all, rather it doesn’t confirm anything about Ange being bad, having had his time, being on a downward spiral etc etc. I think it was a bad decision to take the job, and it shows that as much as people know about football, ego and pride also comes into it and you can’t outrun human instincts sometimes. And maybe also as he says he simply hates being at home with nothing to do. But in that case he should have shown more patience for a better job to come up.

I’m not even sure Poch hasn’t been a success. In every role he takes a few months to instill his values and a foundation to build off, and then you start to see results. I would still have him back in a heartbeat, and what’s he’s done at PSG or Chelsea or USMNT doesn’t put me off in the slightest.

I would always ask; what is the context and what are the expectations at those clubs? If a manager has fallen way below expectations in spite of the context - as I believe Frank has done with us - then I’d say the did a bad job. But even then, Frank is going to be good for some club. It won’t take away what he did for Brentford.

 

[Bishop]

Bore off mate, I’m trying to have reasoned arguments where I always try and see the other side too. I’m not trying to offer up a ‘narrative’ I’m trying to offer my opinion as you are welcome to also do. I don’t know who ‘they’ are that you refer to? A group of people who have the temerity to defend Ange?

The narrative being that you think Ange would have worked in the 3rd season because. You think that the circumstances would have magically fitted to make his 3rd season unlike the latter half of his first and the majority of his 2nd. It just doesn't actually fit the events that occurred. I don't see his Nottingham Forest stint as significant but its just more evidence that his MO was unchanged.

I get it that you want to be hopeful, but your reasoning is very selective. You'be decided it would have been a particular way just because you wanted it to be that way.