spud
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2003
- 5,850
- 8,794
The recent frenzy of speculation regarding he future of Martin Jol has led to a number of unanswered questions. Will he be sacked? Will he resign? Has he ‘lost the dressing room’? Has he lost the confidence of the board? In short: what the hell is going on?
Yesterday’s statement by the board was very interesting – not so much for what it said as what it failed to say. For example “…we are an ambitious Club and we want Champions League football at White Hart Lane …” and “we the Board, owe it to the Club and the supporters to constantly assess our position and performance and to ensure that we have the ability to operate and compete at that level”. So far, so good. It goes on to say “For that we need our management and coaching standards to be of the highest quality such that players can fulfil their potential and we can compete with the best.” Again, no argument there.
What you would then expect is a ringing endorsement of the existing management team; something along the lines of “we are confident that Martin and his team have the ability to lead us to the promised land” followed by an assertion that they (the board) will make no further comment on idle speculation. Did we get it? No. What we got was “Martin….. has confirmed to me today that he feels he is equipped with a squad and a determination to take on that challenge.” Translation: Martin thinks that he can do it but we’re not so sure.
In view of this, it is difficult to conclude anything other than we will have a new manager / head coach in the near future unless the position (whatever it is!) changes rapidly. So the real question is therefore whether his departure will be a good or bad thing for the short and long-term ambitions of the club.
Martin is a good coach, as two manager of the year awards in Holland and two fifth place Prem finishes testify. But is he good enough? Some of his tactics have been called into question, and he clearly wouldn’t recognize a good substitution if somebody drew it for him. Plus we have been buying many of the best players available in the last three years; better players, when properly organised, will generally produce better results than their predecessors – especially if they are superior to those playing for the other team.
Other aspects of his reign call his abilities into question. We were frankly lucky to get fifth place last year, and should have been fourth two years ago. It wasn’t ‘lasagnagate’ that cost us, it was a downturn in form leading up to it. And – with one notable exception – we can’t buy a win against the so-called ‘big four’. So he might be good enough to take us to the next level, but the jury is clearly out.
If we assume that his replacement is more able, then the long-term objective (in my opinion, Premier League champions and Champions League winners) should be more attainable. But what about this season?
The key is (obviously) the players. If there are ‘pro-Jol’ and ‘Jol out’ camps, or if the new man is unable to quickly harness the team spirit that we are told is so good, then we are in trouble. But then if those for and against Jol lobbies exist, then we are in trouble anyway.
In short, I haven’t got a clue. All I can say for certain is that our revival began not with Martin Jol or Frank Arneson or the signing of better quality players. Our revival began with the appointment of Daniel Levy as Chairman. I trust him. I believe that he is a fan like us. I believe that he has the best interests of the club uppermost in his mind and that he will do what it takes to get us to where we want to be. So if he, and his board, think that replacing Martin Jol is the thing to do then I am 100% behind him.
I hope that you are too.
Yesterday’s statement by the board was very interesting – not so much for what it said as what it failed to say. For example “…we are an ambitious Club and we want Champions League football at White Hart Lane …” and “we the Board, owe it to the Club and the supporters to constantly assess our position and performance and to ensure that we have the ability to operate and compete at that level”. So far, so good. It goes on to say “For that we need our management and coaching standards to be of the highest quality such that players can fulfil their potential and we can compete with the best.” Again, no argument there.
What you would then expect is a ringing endorsement of the existing management team; something along the lines of “we are confident that Martin and his team have the ability to lead us to the promised land” followed by an assertion that they (the board) will make no further comment on idle speculation. Did we get it? No. What we got was “Martin….. has confirmed to me today that he feels he is equipped with a squad and a determination to take on that challenge.” Translation: Martin thinks that he can do it but we’re not so sure.
In view of this, it is difficult to conclude anything other than we will have a new manager / head coach in the near future unless the position (whatever it is!) changes rapidly. So the real question is therefore whether his departure will be a good or bad thing for the short and long-term ambitions of the club.
Martin is a good coach, as two manager of the year awards in Holland and two fifth place Prem finishes testify. But is he good enough? Some of his tactics have been called into question, and he clearly wouldn’t recognize a good substitution if somebody drew it for him. Plus we have been buying many of the best players available in the last three years; better players, when properly organised, will generally produce better results than their predecessors – especially if they are superior to those playing for the other team.
Other aspects of his reign call his abilities into question. We were frankly lucky to get fifth place last year, and should have been fourth two years ago. It wasn’t ‘lasagnagate’ that cost us, it was a downturn in form leading up to it. And – with one notable exception – we can’t buy a win against the so-called ‘big four’. So he might be good enough to take us to the next level, but the jury is clearly out.
If we assume that his replacement is more able, then the long-term objective (in my opinion, Premier League champions and Champions League winners) should be more attainable. But what about this season?
The key is (obviously) the players. If there are ‘pro-Jol’ and ‘Jol out’ camps, or if the new man is unable to quickly harness the team spirit that we are told is so good, then we are in trouble. But then if those for and against Jol lobbies exist, then we are in trouble anyway.
In short, I haven’t got a clue. All I can say for certain is that our revival began not with Martin Jol or Frank Arneson or the signing of better quality players. Our revival began with the appointment of Daniel Levy as Chairman. I trust him. I believe that he is a fan like us. I believe that he has the best interests of the club uppermost in his mind and that he will do what it takes to get us to where we want to be. So if he, and his board, think that replacing Martin Jol is the thing to do then I am 100% behind him.
I hope that you are too.
