Who is the best Spurs manager/coach of the Premier League era?

[THFC6061]

Heikki Kovalainen.

He once won a Grand Prix in a McLaren, but few people will try to argue that he's any better than average (I'd be surprised if they even tried that). Put him in the fastest car in the world and suddenly he seems like a decent driver.

Put any competent driver in the fastest F1 car in the world and they will win a race.

The balance has changed during the past few decades to favor the car over the driver.

Back in the day, Fangio could climb into virtually any car on the grid and win a Grand Prix race.

 

[ArcspacE]

Heikki Kovalainen.

I take your Heiki and raise you a Panis

 

[milo]

He never had Berbatov and Carrick together - yet still managed 5th with the midfield colossi Malbranque, Tainio and Zokora

Redknapp DIDN'T get the best of Bale - he found out his true ability by near luck and couldn't drop him afterwards - he actually almost sent him out on loan to Forest - and only played him because twitter legend BAE was injured and Rose was unvailable / pants. He also started him at LB initially and simply picked up on his earlier from from those initial weeks under Jol - Please don't re-write history now.

Bale (150% Comolli signing) started very well under Jol (that freekick in the NLD, etc.) and got injured - why so many choose to ignore that in favour of Arry The Innocent is beyond me

What about the countless players he alienated?

I think that is a very one sided way of looking at Bale's development under Redknapp. He didn't come to the club fully formed and although he had been unlucky with injuries, his form had been pretty poor here until he got his break under Redknapp. At the time of the rumoured loan move to Forest was proposed you couldn't move for people on here who said that Bale was a curse and should never play for us again. The fact is Bale became the player he is under Redknapp.

 

[ArcspacE]

I think that is a very one sided way of looking at Bale's development under Redknapp. He didn't come to the club fully formed and although he had been unlucky with injuries, his form had been pretty poor here until he got his break under Redknapp. At the time of the rumoured loan move to Forest was proposed you couldn't move for people on here who said that Bale was a curse and should never play for us again. The fact is Bale became the player he is under Redknapp.

If he was indeed was the mastermind man-manager galore - why did he wait for BAE to be injured in order to see his true qualities? Surely he must have seen his ability in training, etc. The 'curse' was mere knee-jerk on a message board, imv - and the fact he wanted to send him out on loan means he didn't rate him one bit. Bale was always going to become that player given regular games which he got lucky with when BAE was out.

 

[Parklaner81]

Jol. I think that getting the team that he had at his disposal to finish fifth in 2006 was tougher than Redknapp getting his team finishing fourth in 2010 or 2012.

Sums it for me. Voted Jol too.

 

[Baleforce]

I take your Heiki and raise you a Panis

hell, Massa nearly won a world title, and he's an incompetent driver

 

[joey55]

Heikki Kovalainen.

He once won a Grand Prix in a McLaren, but few people will try to argue that he's any better than average (I'd be surprised if they even tried that). Put him in the fastest car in the world and suddenly he seems like a decent driver.

I'd use this same argument to say that our managers, Jol and Harry, were every bit as good, or better, than those of the clubs that finished above us. Yet I think the majority of our fans in both the cases of Harry and Jol thought it was them who were holding us back and often came out with the "what have they ever won" argument. Of Jol in particular it was said that he's "taken us as far as he can." But in reality it was far more likely that he'd taken us as far as the club could go in it's condition at the time. The same is true of Harry. So be replacing them was always going to be a step backwards unless the club itself changes (basically has a lot more money to spend).

 

[Harry_Perkins]

I think that is a very one sided way of looking at Bale's development under Redknapp. He didn't come to the club fully formed and although he had been unlucky with injuries, his form had been pretty poor here until he got his break under Redknapp. At the time of the rumoured loan move to Forest was proposed you couldn't move for people on here who said that Bale was a curse and should never play for us again. The fact is Bale became the player he is under Redknapp.

Don't agree with that, Milo. He was superb early on under Jol. Arc has that right. No one who saw those early games bought 'the curse' nonesense. He just happened to come into a struggling team and ended up coming back into one that was only just turning it around under Redknapp. There was no issue with his early performances. He then briefly struggled for confidence and form when he was trying to get back in. Where Arc is wrong is not giving Redknapp considerable praise for rebuilding that and then getting him up to a different level entirely, even compared to the early good performances under Jol.

 

[ArcspacE]

Of Jol in particular it was said that he's "taken us as far as he can." But in reality it was far more likely that he'd taken us as far as the club could go in it's condition at the time. The same is true of Harry. So be replacing them was always going to be a step backwards unless the club itself changes (basically has a lot more money to spend).

I think up until the point we can match top wages and players - we'd have to rely on the manager to take us beyond the sum of our parts - someting Redknapp never reallty managed to achieve on a large scale, imv and Jol did at times during his first 5th season but wasn't offered enough time in the end. That is why, I believe AVB is a move in the right direction and someone who is aiming to implement a medium-to-long term plan and approach

 

[jts1882]

People seem to be asking three different questions: who was their favourite manager, who had the best team, and who made the most of what he had and improved the team available. The first two are easy, Jol and Redknapp.

The last, which is what the question asks, is more difficult. We know the results 'Arry achieved in the league, we know how he improved a number of younger players, and got us over the hurdle of beating the top teams. Against that he didn't rotate effectively leading to late season slumps in the last two seasons and he disregarded the lesser competitions (the Doneskh games in particular still rankle). Under Jol we had a far weaker team, yet still almost overtook Arsenal in the league despite a wage bill less than half theirs. Jol got twice the points per million pounds spent on wages that Wenger did. Against Jol was an inability to win the big games. Both played an attractive style of football, both lacked full support from the club in the transfer market, both entertained the possibility of other jobs (Saudi Sportswashing Machine, England) while our manager, neither won a trophy. I think its possible to make a good case for either being better by emphasising different criteria. In the end I picked 'Arry because of the better performance in the bigger games. He did have the better players, but he also helped them become better players.

 

[scaramanga]

hell, Massa nearly won a world title, and he's an incompetent driver

[-X

He just likes facing the wrong way on a racing track.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

I'd use this same argument to say that our managers, Jol and Harry, were every bit as good, or better, than those of the clubs that finished above us. Yet I think the majority of our fans in both the cases of Harry and Jol thought it was them who were holding us back and often came out with the "what have they ever won" argument. Of Jol in particular it was said that he's "taken us as far as he can." But in reality it was far more likely that he'd taken us as far as the club could go in it's condition at the time. The same is true of Harry. So be replacing them was always going to be a step backwards unless the club itself changes (basically has a lot more money to spend).

To be fair, he was sacked because we were 3rd bottom. Excuses a plenty for that also, of course, but I've never really bought it. The signs were there from the previous season which we mostly spent in midtable. The late rally to finish above the much of a muchness in midtable just papered over the cracks. What happened with Ramos didn't help but we'd already lost 2 games by that stage and looked very poor indeed.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Comfortably Jol.

He came pretty close to 'Arry's 4th place with a far inferior squad. I'd love to have seen what Jol could have done with the team 'Arry underperformed with last season.

We finished 2 points behind Arsenal in 05/06.... and 2 ahead of Blackburn. The next year, 8 points behind Arsenal, 5 points ahead of Reading, 4 ahead of Bolton! I think that puts things into perspective!

 

[ArcspacE]

Blackburn had a good team back then - Sparky was on form

So did Bolton wtih Anelka, Okocha, etc.

 

[indianspur]

We finished 2 points behind Arsenal in 05/06.... and 2 ahead of Blackburn. The next year, 8 points behind Arsenal, 5 points ahead of Reading, 4 ahead of Bolton! I think that puts things into perspective!

puts what into perspective? that we finished 2 points behind an Arse team that had tremendous players (year after the invincible season), the next year we were 8 behind but we played in europe and took it seriously as well as a run to the league cup semis?

two 5th place finishes at that time with the squads we had was a tremendous achievement. Jol was nowhere near perfect but to be sacked for a poor start to his 3rd full year was grossly unfair on him and what he had achieved to that point.

 

[joey55]

To be fair, he was sacked because we were 3rd bottom. Excuses a plenty for that also, of course, but I've never really bought it. The signs were there from the previous season which we mostly spent in midtable. The late rally to finish above the much of a muchness in midtable just papered over the cracks. What happened with Ramos didn't help but we'd already lost 2 games by that stage and looked very poor indeed.

But Jol has said himself that he was aware they were trying to replace him int he summer. The Ramos thing really wasn't a knee jerk reaction to losing 2 games. It's not as if Jol could have become a bad manager over night. The decision that Jol wasn't good enough had clearly been already made. On top of that Harry has clearly stated that he was approached about the Spurs job when Jol was in charge.

 

[joey55]

I think up until the point we can match top wages and players - we'd have to rely on the manager to take us beyond the sum of our parts - someting Redknapp never reallty managed to achieve on a large scale, imv and Jol did at times during his first 5th season but wasn't offered enough time in the end. That is why, I believe AVB is a move in the right direction and someone who is aiming to implement a medium-to-long term plan and approach

The highlighted part is to me is the key way in which managers should be judged, as they don't all have the same opportunities in terms of finances and general lure of the clubs. I think this is the big issue and where I firmly believe our fans and board have got in majorly wrong. I think it was proved beyond doubt this was the case with Ramos and are on course to do so again with AVB. I think managers like Jol and Harry are so good as usually they get teams playing above the level which is expected of them. I think replacing them was always going to be a backwards step as there are very few managers around who could or would have done better.

If AVB does fail at Spurs are really hope it puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea of tactical and coaching genius's who can use their skills on the training ground to bridge the gap in finances between us and the top teams. I really think the idea should already be dead and buried. I don't even believe in the idea of finding some sort of super scout who will help us sign the best players cheaply, before the big clubs are aware of them, so we can compete at the top. It's not a romantic idea of football and is very cynical, but ultimately I think it's 100% true that our future far more depends on off the field financial success, rather than via the football side of things. Once we have a bigger stadium and the improved sponsorship deals that come with it etc and more financial restrictions are put on the clubs owned by Sugar Daddies, the I think we'll have a much better chance of success.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Blackburn had a good team back then - Sparky was on form

Yes but this is partly the point. They did that well thanks to a sterling efforts of a particular manager because, by rights, they simply didn't have the resources to be anywhere near us or Arsenal. As I said, it puts Jol's achievements in perspective. Yes, he was better than those who went before him at Spurs (who, in fairness, didn't quite get the same backing as Jol but had enough to get have been able to manage the occasional one off top 6 finish) but not much to say he did any better than the likes of Coppell, Allardyce, Moyes, Hughes, Curbishley, Redknapp (at West Ham and Pompey) Burley, Souness who all had teams in and around the top 6 in that period but with a fraction of the resources Jol had. Again, it puts Jol's and our achievements in perspective.

 

[ArcspacE]

Those teams never finished above us though and had some very good players at the time - let's keep perspective of that too, please

Reading had one good season - much like so many other promoted teams have done in the past

Sparky has been struggling ever since to replicate that form eslewhere (with much bigger spending budgets, mind you)

Jol on the other hand - has been pefroming well in most clubs ever since we left WHL and seems to be onto something at Fulham again. fudging hell, the has a much better strike force than us on a fraction of the budget.

 

[jts1882]

Its funny that Jol has lost a key midfielder to a richer club and signed Berbatov.