Ratings vs Everton

[Bus-Conductor]

Nonsense. That team shape followed a blueprint that Tim used more often than not; it might be fair to say it worked better than when Tim followed it, but to deny the similarity is blinkered. It certainly looked a lot more like some of the teams Tim put out than anything we have previously seen from Poch. For one thing he seems to finally have reached the same conclusion about Capoue as Tim (and everyone else but you).

The most deluded comment though is the last one. Tim at least attempted to get us pressing consistently - something AVB's dull-as-ditchwater sterile possession football never really demanded. Tim struggled to get his approach across because the makeshift centre midfield combinations he was obliged to field lacked the all round qualities of his protoges Mason and Bentaleb-a-year-on, of whom Poch has had the benefit; there was also the supply teacher issue - the likes of Lennon did not feel they had to fight for their place with a coach who had no backing from the board.

Poch's coaching and fitness-training is doubtless also a contributing factor, though personally I suspect the performance owed as much to the good habits and mental attitude that Tim helped instill in our homegrown players.

One thing I am absolutely sure about is that Poch would not have found life easiser if he had taken over directly from AVB than he has following Tim (he would not have had Kane and Bentaleb as options for starters).

Fucking hell. Hard to tell whether you are serious or on a wind up.

The only shape and blueprint that performance followed of Tim's was the one that we are forced by FA rules to play the same amount of players (11), the limited amount of standardised formations currently in vogue, and by our squad limitation by virtue of the fact that finical limitations and FFP rules mean in 6 months Pochettino is largely picking from the same talent pool.

You're claim that Sherwood invented 442 or playing a creative midfielder in a wide role is novel. Even funnier is you're comment about Tim getting us pressing better than AVB. It would have been just as funny if you'd said "Tim got us pressing". Tim is the idiot that called his Sig/paulinho CM2 away at West Ham a "battling" one. Or his Southampton Eriksen/Dembele CM2 one to "compete". That's not a tactical blue print, it's fucking abstract surrealism.

If "Timmy" wanted to press better, maybe a CM with Sandro in it instead of Chadli might have been the better tactical move.

The reason none of Timmy's ideas worked were because he was tactically inept and bereft of coaching know how.

He deserves credit for getting Bentaleb in the team. But then he also continually left his "protege" Bentaleb on the bench rather than playing him, so, not so much credit for bottling it for results, just like AVB had done.

I'm surprised you didn't chuck in Timmy's recent claim that he turned Bale into Ronaldo too. Oddly, in a recent interview when Bale spoke glowingly of AVB, and even name checked Redknapp, he completely forgot to mention the major role Sherwood played in his success.

To think ManU settled for LVG when Sherwood and his new fangled 442 philosophy blue print was available. Crazy.

 

[eddiebailey]

Fucking hell. Hard to tell whether you are serious or on a wind up.

The only shape and blueprint that performance followed of Tim's was the one that we are forced by FA rules to play the same amount of players (11), the limited amount of standardised formations currently in vogue, and by our squad limitation by virtue of the fact that finical limitations and FFP rules mean in 6 months Pochettino is largely picking from the same talent pool.

You're claim that Sherwood invented 442 or playing a creative midfielder in a wide role is novel. Even funnier is you're comment about Tim getting us pressing better than AVB. It would have been just as funny if you'd said "Tim got us pressing". Tim is the idiot that called his Sig/paulinho CM2 away at West Ham a "battling" one. Or his Southampton Eriksen/Dembele CM2 one to "compete". That's not a tactical blue print, it's fucking abstract surrealism.

If "Timmy" wanted to press better, maybe a CM with Sandro in it instead of Chadli might have been the better tactical move.

The reason none of Timmy's ideas worked were because he was tactically inept and bereft of coaching know how.

He deserves credit for getting Bentaleb in the team. But then he also continually left his "protege" Bentaleb on the bench rather than playing him, so, not so much credit for bottling it for results, just like AVB had done.

I'm surprised you didn't chuck in Timmy's recent claim that he turned Bale into Ronaldo too. Oddly, in a recent interview when Bale spoke glowingly of AVB, and even name checked Redknapp, he completely forgot to mention the major role Sherwood played in his success.

To think ManU settled for LVG when Sherwood and his new fangled 442 philosophy blue print was available. Crazy.

I would accuse you of being wilfully obtuse but I suspect it comes naturally.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I would accuse you of being wilfully obtuse but I suspect it comes naturally.

Try this:

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/spurs-tv/interviews/we-left-nothing-on-the-pitch---nabil-and-ryan/

Here's Mason (and Bentaleb) thanking McDermott, in a post match interview after last weeks game. Like Bale, he completely forgot to mention Sherwood. Could it be that he wasn't actually Sherwood's protege ?

I doubt Sherwood coached Mason more than a handful of times in his whole (6 year) career with us. He certainly didn't call him back from his Swindon loan and give him half a season, like he didn't with Carroll either.

 

[eddiebailey]

Try this:

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/spurs-tv/interviews/we-left-nothing-on-the-pitch---nabil-and-ryan/

Here's Mason (and Bentaleb) thanking McDermott, in a post match interview after last weeks game. Like Bale, he completely forgot to mention Sherwood. Could it be that he wasn't actually Sherwood's protege ?

I doubt Sherwood coached Mason more than a handful of times in his whole (6 year) career with us. He certainly didn't call him back from his Swindon loan and give him half a season, like he didn't with Carroll either.

Astonishing that you could watch that interview and put that spin on it. Mason does not exactly thank McDermott - in the context of a question about the Academy he says Nabil had commented that McDermott must be buzzing. It would have been a stretch for him to have shoehorned Sherwood into his response. However, he does agree with the interviewer that he and Nabil developed their understanding playing for the U21s. Guess who coached the U21s? And before you say it Sherwood has always been clear that he is a hands on coach. The idea that he worked with Mason on only half a dozen occasions is ludicrous, even allowing for the amount time Ryan spent on loan.

Tim has said that he wanted to recall Carroll (whom he has consistently championed) but was unable to do so. Mason was out with with a long term injury when Tim took over.

It is your refusal to credit Tim with having had any positive impact during his four years at the club that is so pathetic.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Astonishing that you could watch that interview and put that spin on it. Mason does not exactly thank McDermott - in the context of a question about the Academy he says Nabil had commented that McDermott must be buzzing. It would have been a stretch for him to have shoehorned Sherwood into his response. However, he does agree with the interviewer that he and Nabil developed their understanding playing for the U21s. Guess who coached the U21s? And before you say it Sherwood has always been clear that he is a hands on coach. The idea that he worked with Mason on only half a dozen occasions is ludicrous, even allowing for the amount time Ryan spent on loan.

Tim has said that he wanted to recall Carroll (whom he has conistently championed) but was unable to do so. Mason was out with with a long term injury when Tim took over.

It is your refusal to credit Tim with having had any positive impact during his four years at the club that is so pathetic.

I'm not refusing to credit Sherwood for anything that anyone can establish or prove he deserves credit for. But what I do struggle with is people championing him for things which are bogus, like trying to credit him for the way we played Sunday. We didn't put in a single performance under Sherwood that was remotely that coherent or disciplined.

If you look back, you'll see I wanted Sherwood to be given the job, I hoped he'd introduce and integrate the philosophy of the development style of play as well as the players. I have continually given Sherwood credit for introducing Bentaleb, but wish he'd had the courage of that conviction to keep playing him.

I think if Sherwood spent more time worrying about doing a decent job, instead of bitching, whining, spitting venom and back stabbing, he'd maybe make a decent head coach.

For someone who utterly refuses to credit AVB with anything, I would say you're lobbing boulders from your glasshouse.

 

[eddiebailey]

For someone who utterly refuses to credit AVB with anything, I would say you're lobbing boulders from your glasshouse.

Fair point, though I only have AVB's performance as manager to go on, which obviously did not impress me. We obviously have different expectations of football as an aesthetic spectacle. I also thought he got it wrong on squad building - though obviously it is difficult to be certain to what extent those mistakes were entirely his own.

I know few share my view that Tim should have been given longer, however, I would have thought it possible to deplore Tim's performance as manager without seeking to discredit his contribution as Technical Co-ordinator.

My criticism of AVB for the most part remained muted until after his departure, which I did not call for. It was how quickly the knives came out for Tim, making his job more difficult, that put my back up - though I know you were not one of the first or worst offenders there.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Fair point, though I only have AVB's performance as manager to go on, which obviously did not impress me. We obviously have different expectations of football as an aesthetic spectacle. I also thought he got it wrong on squad building - though obviously it is difficult to be certain to what extent those mistakes were entirely his own.

I know few share my view that Tim should have been given longer, however, I would have thought it possible to deplore Tim's performance as manager without seeking to discredit his contribution as Technical Co-ordinator.

My criticism of AVB for the most part remained muted until after his departure, which I did not call for. It was how quickly the knives came out for Tim, making his job more difficult, that put my back up - though I know you were not one of the first or worst offenders there.

I have not tried to discredit Sherwood's contribution as technical director. I have tried establish exactly what that contribution was. And to this day no one has really provided much evidence of any great influence he had. On the other hand there is a body of evidence, including dossiers, pin point presentations, youtube clips, and actual evidence of what we see from all our development and academy games to substantiate John McDermott's stewardship. He instigated the philosophy that is systematically overseen throughout our academy teams including U21's. What Sherwood deserves credit for in this respect I genuinely have no idea. He didn't, to the best anyone cam establish, offer anything innovative in terms of the coaching. That was already happening long before he got here, lead by McDermott and aided by people like Inglethorpe and Ramsey.

In terms of over seeing the loan system, that has been incredibly hit and miss. Many not making any sense, with players ending up sitting on some lower league bench.

The link with Swindon maybe and exception, if that was Sherwood's doing then he deserves credit.

No one has been able to tell us exactly how much coaching Sjerwood did, and more importantly, how good it was.

If he'd just kept his mouth shut and maybe demonstrated some clear ideas or ability to integrate not just a couple of players but the development playing system into the first team, he may just have proved harder to sack.

But he couldn't keep his mouth shut. The constant bullshit; the airing of personal grievances, the rhetoric, juxter posed with the actions, the constant attempt to publicly belittle players, other staff, owners. The self promotion. Coupled with a clear lack of tactical or coached method was just recipe for alienating the fans.

He came with a track record of stirring up problems. I think Levy had already decided he wasn't the force for good you maybe believe, and the 6 month stint as manager was the perfect golden handshake.

 

[eddiebailey]

I have not tried to discredit Sherwood's contribution as technical director. I have tried establish exactly what that contribution was. And to this day no one has really provided much evidence of any great influence he had. On the other hand there is a body of evidence, including dossiers, pin point presentations, youtube clips, and actual evidence of what we see from all our development and academy games to substantiate John McDermott's stewardship. He instigated the philosophy that is systematically overseen throughout our academy teams including U21's. What Sherwood deserves credit for in this respect I genuinely have no idea. He didn't, to the best anyone cam establish, offer anything innovative in terms of the coaching. That was already happening long before he got here, lead by McDermott and aided by people like Inglethorpe and Ramsey.

In terms of over seeing the loan system, that has been incredibly hit and miss. Many not making any sense, with players ending up sitting on some lower league bench.

The link with Swindon maybe and exception, if that was Sherwood's doing then he deserves credit.

No one has been able to tell us exactly how much coaching Sjerwood did, and more importantly, how good it was.

If he'd just kept his mouth shut and maybe demonstrated some clear ideas or ability to integrate not just a couple of players but the development playing system into the first team, he may just have proved harder to sack.

But he couldn't keep his mouth shut. The constant bullshit; the airing of personal grievances, the rhetoric, juxter posed with the actions, the constant attempt to publicly belittle players, other staff, owners. The self promotion. Coupled with a clear lack of tactical or coached method was just recipe for alienating the fans.

He came with a track record of stirring up problems. I think Levy had already decided he wasn't the force for good you maybe believe, and the 6 month stint as manager was the perfect golden handshake.

Not going to bother answering most of that because it is the same old guff you always come out with.

But on the point about how much coaching of the U21s and Nextgen did, according to Sherwood himself a lot, and as to how good he was, I refer you to results and performances. Come to that coaching the first team his results were also pretty good.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Not going to bother answering most of that because it is the same old guff you always come out with.

But on the point about how much coaching of the U21s and Nextgen did, according to Sherwood himself a lot, and as to how good he was, I refer you to results and performances. Come to that coaching the first team his results were also pretty good.

No, it's the same old response to the same old vague guff from you. If no-one can actually answer a question with a straight answer, what do you expect ? I would genuinely like to know what Sherwood did, how he did it etc etc. What is there that we know about Sherwood at our club that we are not giving him credit for ?

What we get from you and a couple of others is made up stuff based on what you think based on Tim's character etc, you imply things or that you know things without ever backing it up.

Bentaleb's introduction - tick
Points per game - tick
Kane selection - tick

Loan system - hit and miss
Scouting - Suarez eg - big fucking miss

U21 - how much day to day coaching and what did he innovate or did he just work within the existing philosophy ?

Technical director - what did this involve and was he a good one ?

First team - You hated AVB's coaching and tactics, but at least there was something tangible to hate for you. With Sherwood it was largely unfathomable. He tried various different formations, numerous player combinations, with no apparent style of play whatsoever - Big ?

Can you point me to where Sherwood says how much coaching he did ?

 

[jolsnogross]

The biggest and most important difference to anything Sherwood managed, was the structure, discipline, cohesion and coherence with which we played, and won that game. That was very much unlike Tim. Despite Tim having more games than it's taken Pochettino to extract that, and Tim having the benefit of building on the structure of AVB, as opposed to Pochettino having to re-introduce structure after Tim's Adebayor inspired, lottery themed, holiday camp.

It sounds like it really pissed you off to see us doing so well against Everton with two strikers and a team that would just "run around a bit". The making of Potch will be his pragmatism and attacking intent (two strikers) rather than the AVB-esque married-to-my-system bullshit we've had to endure for far too long, with a brief respite during Sherwood's tenure. We had plenty of structure, discipline, cohesion and coherence when we beat Newcastle, Sunderland, Southampton twice, Stoke, ManU - many of those with 3 goals+ scored.

It took Potch a few games too long to get there, but I'll take his Kane-inspired "lottery-themed" Everton performances any day over the dry and ineffectual system approach you and AVB prefer. It helps to shift some of the focus on to our possession and not just when we don't have the ball - the pitch didn't seem too narrow on Sunday when we attacked with some intent.

God bless @eddiebailey for going several rounds with your guff there.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

Fair point, though I only have AVB's performance as manager to go on, which obviously did not impress me. We obviously have different expectations of football as an aesthetic spectacle. I also thought he got it wrong on squad building - though obviously it is difficult to be certain to what extent those mistakes were entirely his own.

I know few share my view that Tim should have been given longer, however, I would have thought it possible to deplore Tim's performance as manager without seeking to discredit his contribution as Technical Co-ordinator.

My criticism of AVB for the most part remained muted until after his departure, which I did not call for. It was how quickly the knives came out for Tim, making his job more difficult, that put my back up - though I know you were not one of the first or worst offenders there.

Care to expand on that? How did it make Tim's job more difficult? Why do you think the "knives came out for Tim"?

Has it been any different for Pochettino? Seems like a pretty vocal minority wanted Pochettino out after just a few PL games.

I was one who assumed, from the start, that Sherwood was a caretaker, who could earn his way into the job, but he was not hired to be the permanent manager/head coach. I think Sherwood's experience last year showed he is not prepared to be a manager at this level - and it was a myriad of things, from a lack of a cohesive tactics/philosophy/strategy, to poor man-management, to poor media presence, to probably poor ability to work with Levy (at this level). Sherwood may have had good ideas, but he was spectacularly poor at conveying those ideas effectively. He essentially alienated most everyone whose support he needed to earn the job.

 

[Mr Pink]

It sounds like it really pissed you off to see us doing so well against Everton with two strikers and a team that would just "run around a bit". The making of Potch will be his pragmatism and attacking intent (two strikers) rather than the AVB-esque married-to-my-system bullshit we've had to endure for far too long, with a brief respite during Sherwood's tenure. We had plenty of structure, discipline, cohesion and coherence when we beat Newcastle, Sunderland, Southampton twice, Stoke, ManU - many of those with 3 goals+ scored.

It took Potch a few games too long to get there, but I'll take his Kane-inspired "lottery-themed" Everton performances any day over the dry and ineffectual system approach you and AVB prefer. It helps to shift some of the focus on to our possession and not just when we don't have the ball - the pitch didn't seem too narrow on Sunday when we attacked with some intent.

God bless @eddiebailey for going several rounds with your guff there.

You're completely confused to be honest. Don't confuse formations/systems with application and attitude. Without answering too much for BC, I doubt he minds one way or the other providing there's a structure to our play, that we work in a cohesive way off the ball and there's a clear understanding collectively.

There certainly was on Sunday, we pressed high up the pitch, and the midfield worked hard but were also disciplined - nothing like just running around a bit.

The point here is that none of Sherwood's games really resembled what we saw on Sunday. Swansea and Newcastle away were good performances but they were still nothing like what we saw on Sunday.

As for the rest, we were relying on the individual brillance of Adebayor for the most part and coming up against the better sides we got slaughtered because there was no structure.

 

[eddiebailey]

As for the rest, we were relying on the individual brillance of Adebayor for the most part and coming up against the better sides we got slaughtered because there was no structure.

I would say the structure Tim adopted was one aimed to get the best out of Adebayor and Eriksen, which worked; what he failed to do was get the rest of the team to adequately perform the roles they had been assigned. As coach he takes some responsibility, but some lies with the player, and we will probably never know where most responsibility should be assigned. It seems odd that everyone sympathises with Poch's travails in getting the players on board, but in Tim's case it is all his fault.

Tim said from the start that he wanted to give the team an identity but that against the big teams you had to set put to counter them. I would have like to have seen if some of his tactical ideas would have come off, but dodgy sendings off and individual brainfarts by players will scupper the best laid plans.

 

[jolsnogross]

You're completely confused to be honest. Don't confuse formations/systems with application and attitude. Without answering too much for BC, I doubt he minds one way or the other providing there's a structure to our play, that we work in cohesive way off the ball and there's a clear understanding collectively.

There certainly was on Sunday, we pressed high up the pitch, and the midfield worked hard but were also disciplined - nothing like just running around a bit.

The point here is that none of Sherwood's games really resembled what we saw on Sunday. Swansea and Newcastle away were good performances but they were still nothing like what we saw on Sunday.

As for the rest, we were relying on the individual brillance of Adebayor for the most part and coming up against the better sides we got slaughtered because there was no structure.

No, I'm not confused. I just disagree with you.

Running about a bit was Redknapp's way of media-splaining his dissatisfaction with Pavlyuchenko's application - maybe if he'd said something about Pav's performance not matching his "immense philosophy" he'd have won you over. But it seemed fairly clear that "running about a bit" meant to play as Kane did on Sunday and not as Pav had been doing.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that Sherwood (or Redknapp) didn't have structure or lacked tactics. Sherwood showed quite a bit of tactical flexibility from game to game, in fact. And it didn't always come off, but you have to be willfully blind to not see why he was playing two strikers against Southampton away, or why he played Eriksen in a midfield two, or why he played Walker in right mid against Chelsea (which backfired). It too easy and lazy to just dismiss him as clueless, even though he's gone now and it could just be left alone.

Certainly Potch has not had it go all his own way up to now, and while many are suggesting that application and attitude are to blame, I'm suggesting the formation/system have also played an important part of it - as in getting dicked by Liverpool at home, losing to WBA and Newcastle. We may not have lost those had he started those games as he ended them - with two bloody strikers. The formation of one-up-front for those home games contributed to the malaise I think - if the games were worth chasing at the end with two up front and higher intensity, then why hot chase them from the start? (as we did against Everton)

 

[danielneeds]

I would say the structure Tim adopted was one aimed to get the best out of Adebayor and Eriksen, which worked; what he failed to do was get the rest of the team to adequately perform the roles they had been assigned. As coach he takes some responsibility, but some lies with the player, and we will probably never know where most responsibility should be assigned. It seems odd that everyone sympathises with Poch's travails in getting the players on board, but in Tim's case it is all his fault.

Tim said from the start that he wanted to give the team an identity but that against the big teams you had to set put to counter them. I would have like to have seen if some of his tactical ideas would have come off, but dodgy sendings off and individual brainfarts by players will scupper the best laid plans.

Yeah, to be fair, we were doing OK at home to Citeh until the terrible Rose penalty and sending off, and at home at Chelsea until Vertonghen slipped. The Liverpool match was a shambles, but they were playing with almost superhuman levels of confidence at that point.

 

[Mr Pink]

No, I'm not confused. I just disagree with you.

Running about a bit was Redknapp's way of media-splaining his dissatisfaction with Pavlyuchenko's application - maybe if he'd said something about Pav's performance not matching his "immense philosophy" he'd have won you over. But it seemed fairly clear that "running about a bit" meant to play as Kane did on Sunday and not as Pav had been doing.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that Sherwood (or Redknapp) didn't have structure or lacked tactics. Sherwood showed quite a bit of tactical flexibility from game to game, in fact. And it didn't always come off, but you have to be willfully blind to not see why he was playing two strikers against Southampton away, or why he played Eriksen in a midfield two, or why he played Walker in right mid against Chelsea (which backfired). It too easy and lazy to just dismiss him as clueless, even though he's gone now and it could just be left alone.

Certainly Potch has not had it go all his own way up to now, and while many are suggesting that application and attitude are to blame, I'm suggesting the formation/system have also played an important part of it - as in getting dicked by Liverpool at home, losing to WBA and Newcastle. We may not have lost those had he started those games as he ended them - with two bloody strikers. The formation of one-up-front for those home games contributed to the malaise I think - if the games were worth chasing at the end with two up front and higher intensity, then why hot chase them from the start? (as we did against Everton)

I didn't say he was clueless. I said there was little to no structure at all. Where I agree with Eddie is that he did get the best out of Adebayor and Eriksen, credit for that. He got us playing with a bit more freedom and that's ok to an extent, getting the best out of certain individuals - buts its not a long term sustainable plan.

I saw no signs of us working cohesively off the ball, and there was just no discernible structure whatsoever. You need to have an approach/methodology that everyone is buying into, not just focusing on individuals otherwise you'll never be greater than the sum of your parts.

We know what Pochettino is about, and that's why we hired him. We've now seen his style implemented properly for the first time on Sunday and it was nothing like what we saw under Sherwood.

To claim otherwise is just plain footballing ignorance IMO.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I would say the structure Tim adopted was one aimed to get the best out of Adebayor and Eriksen, which worked; what he failed to do was get the rest of the team to adequately perform the roles they had been assigned. As coach he takes some responsibility, but some lies with the player, and we will probably never know where most responsibility should be assigned. It seems odd that everyone sympathises with Poch's travails in getting the players on board, but in Tim's case it is all his fault.

Tim said from the start that he wanted to give the team an identity but that against the big teams you had to set put to counter them. I would have like to have seen if some of his tactical ideas would have come off, but dodgy sendings off and individual brainfarts by players will scupper the best laid plans.

Not to mention completely counter intuitive selections and tactics designed to get the best out of one, very unreliable, player. What does the team do when that player can't play or, as in Adebayor's frequent case, only turns up in body, and you've geared your whole ethos around getting the best out of one player.

That's called not having a structure IMO. That's fine if you're Redknapp and you have Modric, VDV, King, Bale as well, not very clever when you just have Adebayor and a bit of an Eriksen.

 

[jolsnogross]

I didn't say he was clueless. I said there was little to no structure at all. Where I agree with Eddie is that he did get the best out of Adebayor and Eriksen, credit for that. He got us playing with a bit more freedom and that's ok to an extent, getting the best out of certain individuals - buts its not a long term sustainable plan.

I saw no signs of us working cohesively off the ball, and there was just no discernible structure whatsoever. You need to have an approach/methodology that everyone is buying into, not just focusing on individuals otherwise you'll never be greater than the sum of your parts.

We know what Pochettino is about, and that's why we hired him. We've now seen his style implemented properly for the first time on Sunday and it was nothing like what we saw under Sherwood.

To claim otherwise is just plain footballing ignorance IMO.

Confused first, and ignorant now. You really like to foster debate, huh?

I'll go one more round:

It's not like Potch has invented high-energy off-the-ball movement. There isn't a manager in the league who doesn't want his team to work off-the-ball so as to prevent them from scoring and re-gain possession. There isn't a manager in the league who doesn't want the team to do that coherently rather than like a bunch of headless chickens. The questions are, can he implement it, can he build a team spirit, can he achieve things?

The evidence from Everton is that he can, and he abandoned the one-up-front formation to do it and played round pegs in round holes too. That had not always been happening. If Potch's style is to play a couple of forwards and have the team work hard, then I'm all for it and he should go far with that. In fact, he should've gone for it earlier.

You could review the totality of Sherwood's Spurs games and Potch's Spurs games and only a personal dislike of Sherwood would lead you to think he was vastly out of his depth by comparison. He didn't get the chance to continue and I'm fine with that, although like Eddie, I'd probably have given him that chance.

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

 

[Mr Pink]

Confused first, and ignorant now. You really like to foster debate, huh?

I'll go one more round:

It's not like Potch has invented high-energy off-the-ball movement. There isn't a manager in the league who doesn't want his team to work off-the-ball so as to prevent them from scoring and re-gain possession. There isn't a manager in the league who doesn't want the team to do that coherently rather than like a bunch of headless chickens. The questions are, can he implement it, can he build a team spirit, can he achieve things?

The evidence from Everton is that he can, and he abandoned the one-up-front formation to do it and played round pegs in round holes too. That had not always been happening. If Potch's style is to play a couple of forwards and have the team work hard, then I'm all for it and he should go far with that. In fact, he should've gone for it earlier.

You could review the totality of Sherwood's Spurs games and Potch's Spurs games and only a personal dislike of Sherwood would lead you to think he was vastly out of his depth by comparison. He didn't get the chance to continue and I'm fine with that, although like Eddie, I'd probably have given him that chance.

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

I'll say it again, if you think what we saw on Sunday resembled performances under Sherwood - yeah I would say that's pretty ignorant.