Jol/Comolli - Like we didn't know already...

[joey55]

I'm not arguing that we could have signed Drenthe and Heinze - once Real were in for them, they were always going to Spain. The argument is about whether you need to balance the signing of young players with more experienced players, as Real did by signing both Drenthe & Heinze.

We signed Bale, we already had Lee & BA-E. Should we have signed Petrov as well? My personal view is that given he was coming off a serious knee injury, and that Man City apparently offered him ridiculous money with no get-out clauses if his knee goes again, he was probably too much of a risk.

Similarly, we signed Kaboul, we knew Ledley & TG were, ahem, injuryprone. Was Rocha good enough insurance? Or should we have signed Distin as well? My personal view is probably yes, but I acknowledge that that is partly hindsight based on Kaboul's erratic defending.

As I've argued above, if we're going to sign young talent, we also need more specialist coaches like Ricardo Moniz. I'd be delighted if Naybet came back as a specialist defensive coach, he's precisely what we need.

I'd really like someone to give me an example of a coach or coaching set up, that has successfully developed a group of young players and done it not in a super club environment, or without a base of top quality players to develop them alongside. I just think there is almost a child like/computer game mentallity that we can buy up some of the best young players around, coach them well and a few years later we'll have moulded them into a top 4 side. Yet there is a serious lack of precedents of clubs that have done this. I have a reasonable knowledge of European football and I can't think of any and even if I could, I'm certain they'd not have faced competition anything like as strong as the Premiership top 4. I look at the obvious examples from recent years, such as Man Utd, Arsenal and Ajax etc and look at the environments in which their youngsters have been brought through and really see very little similarity with our own situation. I just feel our fans have seen other clubs develop youngsters and hoped we can do the same, but haven't really been as comparitve as they should have been. Is it just about bringing in the right coaching staff and the right young players? Possibly, but i seriously doubt it.

 

[yanno]

I'd really like someone to give me an example of a coach or coaching set up, that has successfully developed a group of young players and done it not in a super club environment, or without a base of top quality players to develop them alongside. I just think there is almost a child like/computer game mentallity that we can buy up some of the best young players around, coach them well and a few years later we'll have moulded them into a top 4 side. Yet there is a serious lack of precedents of clubs that have done this. I have a reasonable knowledge of European football and I can't think of any and even if I could, I'm certain they'd not have faced competition anything like as strong as the Premiership top 4. I look at the obvious examples from recent years, such as Man Utd, Arsenal and Ajax etc and look at the environments in which their youngsters have been brought through and really see very little similarity with our own situation. I just feel our fans have seen other clubs develop youngsters and hoped we can do the same, but haven't really been as comparitve as they should have been. Is it just about bringing in the right coaching staff and the right young players? Possibly, but i seriously doubt it.

Good points, but I think there are several issues here.

Firstly, I don't think you're arguing that good coaches can't improve young players. Watching Taarabt in pre-season, it's clear he has bags of ability but poor decision-making. How can this be improved? By coaching, and giving him game time where senior players can encourage and chide him (as appropriate), and when we can afford to let him make a mistake and then analyze his play with him afterwards. Away in Cyprus, when we had a healthy led from the first leg, was an ideal opportunity to give him a game. Jol gave him the last five minutes and then criticized him afterwards.

Secondly, I'm sure you're right that experienced players can help talk younger players through matches. I saw the ageing Gullit do this at Chelsea. Even limited players like Everton's Alan Stubbs, seem to perform this function for their clubs. When Jol was banging on about the lack of a defensive leader a fortnight ago, I believe he was primarily thinking of Dawson. He's played enough top-flight games that he should be able to organize our defence. When Kaboul starts playing his own game, Dawson should be telling him to stay tight (as should our coaching staff). But Dawson doesn't seem able to be that defensive leader. Lee may be experienced but he never opens his mouth. And Chimbo always looks in his own sweet world. Oh for a big-mouthed veteran like Gary Neville.

Thirdly, you're also correct that even those great young ManU, Arse and Ajax teams had old heads around. But much as I hate to admit, Wenger does seem to get his young players playing good football even with just a couple of old heads around. And I know the gooner propaganda overstates how young their teams are. But their team in the Carling Cup this week, away at a difficult ground (Sheff Utd), only really had Gilberto as an old head, and Gilberto is so out of favour with Wenger that he made Fabianski captain. Yet their football was very similar to that played by their first team.

It's a difficult one. Signings like Naybet and Davids were largely about geting some top-class experience on the pitch. It's just a shame they were right at the end of their career. Against that, the likes of Keane do seem to be maturing as players - he's a senior pro, and he's largely behaving like one. We need the likes of Jenas to start stepping up too.

 

[SpurSince57]

We had/have defensive issues yet Jol could still field Lee, Rocha and Stalteri who have all won European leagues/cups, plus Gardner who has extensive Premiership experience.

It was his choice to play Ekotto, Kaboul, Dawson or Chimbonda.
I have sympathy for Jol where injury has robbed him of his experienced players but none where he has chosen to leave them out.

Salty was out injured for a fair chunk of last season, and for the first two-thirds of it—the first half, certainly—Chimbonda looked a clear improvement. Lee was injured at the start of the season and then had to take over at RB for three games, and it was during that spell that it became increasingly apparent that BAE wasn't up to scratch. Gardner's PL experience is not as extensive as you might think considering he's been here six years, and he's hardly a model of infallibility himself—he's also injured more often than not. Rocha's OK, a good deal better than many were claiming last season, but he hasn't given the impression that he's the assertive type who'll take command. The same goes for Lee. Dawson really ought to be stepping up, but he seems absolutely lost without someone to hold his hand. I'm not sure whether I was more pleased or annoyed at the way his game improved after Chimbonda took over from Kaboul on Wednesday. Captain? My eye.

So far this season injuries have meant we've had to play 5 different CBs and 4 different LBs. That's more of each than in the whole of 2005-2006. Last season we were struggling to put out the same defence and midfield for more than about three games on the trot.

Has there also been pressure on Jol to play these new signings? We're told not, but then we get told a lot of things.

 

[gibbs131]

Lol. Jol didnt even make the comments. Its BS.

 

[SpurSince57]

There's certainly no quotation marks around 'Elano' or 'Petrov'.

I'm waiting for the book to come out.

 

[joey55]

Good points, but I think there are several issues here.

Firstly, I don't think you're arguing that good coaches can't improve young players. Watching Taarabt in pre-season, it's clear he has bags of ability but poor decision-making. How can this be improved? By coaching, and giving him game time where senior players can encourage and chide him (as appropriate), and when we can afford to let him make a mistake and then analyze his play with him afterwards. Away in Cyprus, when we had a healthy led from the first leg, was an ideal opportunity to give him a game. Jol gave him the last five minutes and then criticized him afterwards.

Secondly, I'm sure you're right that experienced players can help talk younger players through matches. I saw the ageing Gullit do this at Chelsea. Even limited players like Everton's Alan Stubbs, seem to perform this function for their clubs. When Jol was banging on about the lack of a defensive leader a fortnight ago, I believe he was primarily thinking of Dawson. He's played enough top-flight games that he should be able to organize our defence. When Kaboul starts playing his own game, Dawson should be telling him to stay tight (as should our coaching staff). But Dawson doesn't seem able to be that defensive leader. Lee may be experienced but he never opens his mouth. And Chimbo always looks in his own sweet world. Oh for a big-mouthed veteran like Gary Neville.

Thirdly, you're also correct that even those great young ManU, Arse and Ajax teams had old heads around. But much as I hate to admit, Wenger does seem to get his young players playing good football even with just a couple of old heads around. And I know the gooner propaganda overstates how young their teams are. But their team in the Carling Cup this week, away at a difficult ground (Sheff Utd), only really had Gilberto as an old head, and Gilberto is so out of favour with Wenger that he made Fabianski captain. Yet their football was very similar to that played by their first team.

It's a difficult one. Signings like Naybet and Davids were largely about geting some top-class experience on the pitch. It's just a shame they were right at the end of their career. Against that, the likes of Keane do seem to be maturing as players - he's a senior pro, and he's largely behaving like one. We need the likes of Jenas to start stepping up too.

But could they still have done that had they not been part of the Arsenal dynasty. What I mean is, had Wenger and his coaches had the same 11 players, but they weren't affiliated with Arsenal and had never stepped foot on any Arsenal training ground and therefore not trained with the Arsenal players and not absorbed the Arsenal ethos and standards, could or would they have been the same team. Wouldn't this team look back at past Arsenal youth teams (only last year for examle) and perhaps feel they have a different level of expectation to those of other clubs? Do they not have to compete and train on a daily basis with players Like Fabregas, who in turn had to train with Vieira, who in turn had to train with the names I listed earlier. I'm have no doubts Wenger is a top coach, with a speacial ability with young players, but the conditions need to be right for even him to work his magic. I think the key difference between what he's done it at Arsenal and what he tried to do at Monaco, is that he realised the importance of continuity and environment. Arsenal might have lost £40 million in the space of a year on the Henry deal, but looking at how their youngsters have progressed in that year, maybe they gained something worth more than money.

 

[gibbs131]

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_2843959,00.html

 

[Bingy]

Kaboul and Taarabt are both 'quality' players....but, for one reason or another, they have not 'lit up' the Premiership, yet! Both have been mentioned as future stars and such a recomendation is not easily earned....so jave faith in these guy's and have patience with the new management team.....Yes, not too easy, I know, but.....TRY COYS!

 

[Bus-Conductor]

We had/have defensive issues yet Jol could still field Lee, Rocha and Stalteri who have all won European leagues/cups, plus Gardner who has extensive Premiership experience.

It was his choice to play Ekotto, Kaboul, Dawson or Chimbonda.
I have sympathy for Jol where injury has robbed him of his experienced players but none where he has chosen to leave them out.

Great point, and one that keeps getting ignored whenever it's made - and he could also have put davids ahead of them - another player who's won everything. But Jol decided that despite getting beat every week away from home davids was surplus.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Yes that would be fair.

But from every post you've made on the subject in the last couple of months has suggested that the term "inherent value" is a name (not literally) for our tansfer policy. "Inherent value" is what the club want from our policy (as confirmed by Levy in Jan, though I now wish I relly didn't quote that particular phrase). So the basic term "inherent value" is over stated, simply because it seems to have become what we refer to our transfer policy as. But the concept of "inherent value" has in no way been over stated. It is absolutely key to how Enic have taken the club forward. When you say we need to make some modifications, in more simple and realistic terms, we need to, at this stage in our development, work outside of the transfer policy that has served us so well. Will Enic do that? Is it in their best interests to do that? I'm not sure it is. Obviously it depends on what is on the table in terms of takeover offers, but if I were Enic i'd be more interested in an exit strategy than a further long term committment.

When I (or you) say our policy is clearly "inherent value biased" it's as good a name for it as any. I don't see why you regret using the term, it is the best description of our core transfer policy - which most of us with a brain would endorse. I just don't think it has been an exclusive policy.

As someone else has already said in this thread (worcestersauce I think) I don't think it has always been a case of a single policy dictating every signing. I think you/we have to accept that most of the type of player that would be an improvemnt on what we have been signing would be the type of player that would not have chosen us when faced with the choices on offer.

Buying players like Berbatov and Zokora & Chimbonda (aged 26-8 I think) represents potential top drawer (arguable but at least at the time of purchase understandable) peak age signings with much higher chance of non inherent value retaining percentage. Offering Berbatov and Chimbonda new contracts instead of cashing in in the summer suggests a more long term football biased strategy (though of course it could be argued that the club is a more attractive proposition with it's tangible assets in place ? but I think this is a weak argument in these cases)

The next 10-12 months will be very interesting. What I can't believe is that ENIC haven't already had offers, or at least been sounded out several times. And why if so they haven't looked to exit in the last few months. Unless they really believed they were going to push into the CL this year. Hard to believe considering they didn't add a single top drawer/senior international proven player and they already had doubts about the manager from last year.

Personally my hunch is that unless an absoloutely "dizzying" offer comes along they will stick around and continue to add value for a little while longer.

One thing I don't get. Why didn't ENIC try to take the club out of the public domain and taken as big a slice of the pie as possible for themselves when they had the opportunity (at least the way I undersand it they could have done). Surely it would have made more sense if they were planning an exit strategy sometime soon ?

 

[joey55]

They have just bought another chunk of the club of Alan Sugar. They can't be sure of getting an offer which is attractive to them. So they've bought more of the club, but not all. It's just a simple case of not putting all their eggs in one basket.

As for all your other points i can't be bothered to go through them all again. All transfers made in the last 4 years will fall into the financial model I've outlined. There isn't a single one that doesn't. Also I only told you a few weeks ago that Zokora and Berbatov were 25 when we signed them (21.12.1980 and 30.1.1981). But, like with the term "inherent value", I wish I didn't mention the significance of of age. We will still sign older players if we can do so on a deal that fits into our financial model. However, the constraints of our model mean that aquiring quality in the 27-31 age bracket is very difficult for us. Similarly to my other regrets, on this topic, is the day I mentioned Chimbonda as a possible exception. He almost certainly isn't, but he'd be the most borderline case.

When you say "stick around and add value a little longer," what can they reallistically do to add to the intrinsic value of the business? They obviously wont take an offer they aren't happy with, but if the right offer comes along, i can't forsee a better time for them to leave.

 

[TopSpurMan]

Personally I think that value is a big influence in the club - we value players that will eventually make a profit but not necessarily add to the 'value' in performance of the club week in week out.

The point that this value policy misses altogether though is that players can be improved into value and our coaching does not improve players at all. We take good players and make them worse possibly through lack of experience around them, poor fitness and poor training.

As I have said before one good point about getting Ramos in is that he is such a high earner that if anyone stands in his way DC or a player he would be seriously expensive to piss off.

 

[SpurSince57]

Personally I think that value is a big influence in the club - we value players that will eventually make a profit but not necessarily add to the 'value' in performance of the club week in week out.

The point that this value policy misses altogether though is that players can be improved into value and our coaching does not improve players at all. We take good players and make them worse possibly through lack of experience around them, poor fitness and poor training.

As I have said before one good point about getting Ramos in is that he is such a high earner that if anyone stands in his way DC or a player he would be seriously expensive to piss off.

We made them so much worse that we achieved our highest consecutive league finishes in over twenty years and two of our best calendar years at home ever. Our points haul over the last twelve games last season equalled the best ever.

But of course, feel free to re-write history and parrot the new 'wisdom'.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

They have just bought another chunk of the club of Alan Sugar. They can't be sure of getting an offer which is attractive to them. So they've bought more of the club, but not all. It's just a simple case of not putting all their eggs in one basket.

As for all your other points i can't be bothered to go through them all again. All transfers made in the last 4 years will fall into the financial model I've outlined. There isn't a single one that doesn't. Also I only told you a few weeks ago that Zokora and Berbatov were 25 when we signed them (21.12.1980 and 30.1.1981). But, like with the term "inherent value", I wish I didn't mention the significance of of age. We will still sign older players if we can do so on a deal that fits into our financial model. However, the constraints of our model mean that aquiring quality in the 27-31 age bracket is very difficult for us. Similarly to my other regrets, on this topic, is the day I mentioned Chimbonda as a possible exception. He almost certainly isn't, but he'd be the most borderline case.

When you say "stick around and add value a little longer," what can they reallistically do to add to the intrinsic value of the business? They obviously wont take an offer they aren't happy with, but if the right offer comes along, i can't forsee a better time for them to leave.

Not putting all their eggs in one basket ? If they are planning an exit strategy owning as much of the club as they possibly can is going to make the logistics of the sale easier and maximise their profit as there will be a mark up on any shares owned with any take over (it's a no lose situation as far as share price goes, so why wouldn't they want more - of course this would only apply if they are indeed planning an immediate getaway as anything longer they couldn't predict the future share price).

And what pisses me off immensely is that comments like Jol's fuel the - incorrect - theory that we are only interested in buying kids, developing them, selling them on at vast profit and buying 5 more and starting again.

The reality is our transfer policy incompasses a very wide spectrum and is fundamentaly no different to Arsenal, Chelsea, manU and Liverpool (or Ajax PSV etc). We buy promising kids of 15 and pick up Naybets and davids of 32/33 and most ages in between. Including players like Lee, Chimbonda & Murphy in the 27-31 bracket. The truth is that that zone is the hardest zone for anyone to buy into and is avoided by many. It comes with the highest risk of getting low value for money. Players in this zone will be of quality (otherwise you wouldn't be interested) that will nearly always come at biggish salary as their fee will often be smallish and they know this could be their last major contract. And a major injury says you are stuck witrh that salary for 3 years potentially.

We can all see we need a quality Goalie, CB and specialist Ball winning/play breaking midfielder desperately. Preferably all but at least one one be a true leader. We don't even have to go into the high risk zone to get one. They don't have to be 29 but if that's what it takes then so be it. t is now getting to the point where we are almost being forced to because Man City and West Ham could become mini chelsea's, and just to stay in the second tier we have to compete with them.

But the big question is: what if we do and it doesn't work for one of several reasons ?

 

[Spursking]

The Story Has Been Denied, But If It Was True, I Am Glad Jol Did Not Get His Wishes, Because The Players We Have Signed Are Absolutely Quality Players For The Future, And Are Good Investments For Thfc. The Only Transfer I Question Is Darren Bent For £16.5mill. He Will Probably Come Good, But It Is A Clear Overprice.

 

[Barmy_in_Palmy]

I aM alsO glaD thaT yoU arE happY, buT whY dO wE neeD everY worD tO havE A capitaL letteR?

 

[etcheverry]

I haven't forgotten what Jol's done for us. I just think the board deserve all the credit. Money players etc. I think any average manager could of got us 5th with what Jol had at his disposal.
I don't rate Jol at all. Look at Robbo's statement in the sun today about defending. That tells you all you need to know about Jol. All talk, no action

an average manager would have played the nippiest wingers (even on their wrong side)
jol played mids like mendes,jenas, ghaly which made us more solid, thus enabling fifth placed finishes

If he had class he would walk away, and prove what a great coach he is with a new team. If he's asked by reporters, he should say something like: "I don't want to discuss that, but I enjoyed my time at THFC and am looking forward to my next job wherever it may be". That would be classy, not saying how great he is and everyone else is incompetent.

but everyone else is, incompetent

doh

Anyway, so long as I can say Comolli is incompetent, that's the main thing. Comolli is incompetent.

the incompetence stems from levy. if we our club is run solely to make money, and any on-pitch success being a nice bonus, then how can we compete. to compete you have to buy experience as well as prospects.

When did the buying of good young players, become a serious accusation? I have got no problem with that policy at all, our difficulty is getting the very best established players who funnily enough don't yet see us as a worthwhile destination compared to Real, Barca, Milan, Man Utd and now even Chelsea or Liverpool, after that there's older players past their best and I think we've already tried that haven't we.

yeah the likes of naybet, ginola.. what useless lumps they turned out

One more point about Jol's comments. Given that we paid him £4-5 million, you'd have thought we'd have tried to get some sort of confidentiality clause inserted into the agreement. After all, BMJ is not Heather Mills McCartney. He's not gagging to spill his guts out on GMTV's sofa, especially if we offered him a bit more cash. Even Mourinho accepted a no-Premier League for a season clause in exchange for another wedge.

u must be kidding, surely. jol was always gonna get his contract paid up, and it would have taken ALOT more for him to be silenced. after all, the board did try to blame the current preformances solely on jols coaching, something, quite absurd given levys recruitment strategy.

the book should be a good 'un, crocodile leather bound..

 

[TopSpurMan]

We made them so much worse that we achieved our highest consecutive league finishes in over twenty years and two of our best calendar years at home ever. Our points haul over the last twelve games last season equalled the best ever.

But of course, feel free to re-write history and parrot the new 'wisdom'.

Quote all the statistics you like, the facts remain that we take raw talent like Jenas who is or was the Lennon of his day and we do not improve them. Robinson at his peak before he joined us and suffering a shockingly prolonged loss of form. Chimbonda, wonderful player at Wigan and now failing to track back and seemingly unable to play for 90minutes. Anyone that improved substantially like Carrick was sold for a profit, useful for a feeder club not appropriate for a top 4 aspirant.

Our defensive problems did not start this season, they have been there for a while, they have simply got worse and that is not because the players are playing better together as a unit, it is because they are playing worse.

You clearly have a lot of Spurs knowledge but I hope that in some months time you are not trotting out stats of number of points that clubs have been relegated or stayed up on. We have to be bigger than that!

 

[SpurSince57]

Quote all the statistics you like, the facts remain that we take raw talent like Jenas who is or was the Lennon of his day and we do not improve them. Robinson at his peak before he joined us and suffering a shockingly prolonged loss of form. Chimbonda, wonderful player at Wigan and now failing to track back and seemingly unable to play for 90minutes. Anyone that improved substantially like Carrick was sold for a profit, useful for a feeder club not appropriate for a top 4 aspirant.

Our defensive problems did not start this season, they have been there for a while, they have simply got worse and that is not because the players are playing better together as a unit, it is because they are playing worse.

You clearly have a lot of Spurs knowledge but I hope that in some months time you are not trotting out stats of number of points that clubs have been relegated or stayed up on. We have to be bigger than that!

No, our defensive problems didn't start this season. They started last season when we couldn't field a settled back four and midfield because of injuries (and let's leave aside the selling of Carrick and the fading of Davids). We were also trying to play more attractive attacking football, something in which we succeeded; unfortunately, Jol wasn't the first Spurs coach who was unable to balance this with solid defence. Let's hope Ramos can break the mould. But to be fair to Jol, we certainly didn't have the consistent unit we had in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, two seasons in which, by Spurs standards, we did remarkably well defensively.

It was hardly Jol's fault that Carrick was sold, and if it turns out that the new version of his departure is what really happened the shit is really going to hit the fan. A lot of people will tell you that Robinson wasn't all that at Leeds, and as far as Chimbonda is concerned, I didn't see many Wigan games in 2005-2006, life being too short, but I suspect he wasn't pressing forward quite as much. At any rate, he was excellent for us until about two-thirds of the way through last season, and then started going walkabout at set pieces, failing to track back, and displaying alarmingly Atouba-esque tendencies. Curiously, this coincided with our great run-in! I was never that convinced by Jenas.

But my point is, whilst Jol certainly did have his failings, particularly a tendency to be over-cautious, often a great Plan A but a non-existent Plan B, to write him off in the way some appear to be doing is both ridiculous and unfair. This season we've actually played better than in several of the corresponding fixtures last year, only to be undone by total stupidity from the usual suspects, a failure to take chances, and a bit of shit luck, in that order. It's simply ludicrous to suggest, as some appear to be doing, that our success over the past three seasons has been in spite of Jol, than partly because of him.

 

[TopSpurMan]

I would never suggest that our success and it has been great success over the past 2 seasons has been in spite of Jol and not because of him. The Jol Arnseon partnership worked well, they worked together - problems arise only when the DOF and the manager do not work well together and it is probably no secret that DC and Jol did not like or particularly respect each other, and so did not work well.

My point is if you have part of the responsibility apportioned to a DOF and part to the manager then how come the manager gets all the blame when things do not go according to plan?

My other point is that there is a coaching structure in place that should keep the players fit to play football for 90minutes not 60 or 80. I have always felt over past 2 seasons that the players display very differant levels of fitness whilst that is generally accepted the lowest level of fitness is simply not very high.

The problems are deeper than the manager it is in the overall structure and it all needs to change. Ramos has come in with Gus and a new fitness coach, the only old part of the jog saw is DC and either he has to go or his position changed. In fairness paying 4-5m is indicitive that it is probably going as a DC not doing what he wants to be done probably will not be acceptable anyway.