Supporters

[JimmyG2]

The non-thinking man's guide to football analysis:

The following negative expressions have all been applied by 'supporters' recently on Spurs Community to members of the Tottenham squad. I have been trying to work out whether they are as uninformed, meaningless and dismissive as they seem.

Crap All purpose general term for player below the level of expectation. Often in conjunction with Darren Bent, our top scorer and 8^th in the Premiership at the moment. Certain players never fall into this category even when they have an off day; Ledley, Wilson and Robbie for example. Some players always fall into this category even when they play well; JJ and Darren spring to mind.

Shite Like 'crap' but more forceful.

Rubbish Like 'crap' but less forceful. Applied to someone you don't like but not the one you hate most. So Jenas is 'rubbish' but Bentley is 'shite' or visa versa. Fill in your own favourites as appropriate.

Garbage Player with multiple footballing deficits. I think that this is going out of favour now that recycling separates the valuable elements from the waste material.

Waste of space Philosophically quite hard this one since a space is empty anyway. Taken to mean that a player is occupying a space that would be better filled by another player.
So inferior occupation of a space rather than a waste. Usually JJ and previously Bentley.

Wanker A player who does not pass to his fellow players. He only plays with himself. Previously applied to referees on false medical assumptions.

Goes missing Announced over the tannoy, appears on the team sheet and is present during the warm up but when the game starts mysteriously disappears. Usually JJ.

Fails to turn up. Often applied to a team whose bus breaks down on the M1. Can also apply to an individual, usually JJ, who makes the team sheet but not the warm up or the match.

Lacks mobility Slow, cumbersome, overweight, stumbles into opponents and team mates alike.
Always with reference to Tom Huddlestone.

Headless chicken Athletic and quick but can't pass or shoot. The opposite of Huddlestone. Usually applied to Zokora. Can't head a ball either presumably.​

​

Anonymous A player whose Mum forgot to wash his shirt and has to wear a spare, or JJ.

Invisible Like anonymous but more so.​

​

Inconsistent Ah, JJ again. Some dispute as to whether he is consistently inconsistent or inconsistently consistent. Plays excellently in one game and then is just very good in the next. Statistics show that we are better with him but never let the facts get in the way of a good fall guy.​

​

Blip Winning 1-0 with eight minutes to go and losing 2-1. More recently winning 2-0 with half an hour to go and losing 5-2.

I am sure contributors can supply their own examples and apply them to their 'favourites'.

I conclude that almost all of these terms are in fact just as uninformed, meaningless and dismissive as they actually seem.


Please note that no 'Darrens' or 'Jermaines' were killed in the writing of this column.

 

[lilly white]

boring night in with a few tins of stella was it m8 :roll:

 

[YidoCraig]

boring night in with a few tins of stella was it m8 :roll:

^^

 

[JimmyG2]

boring night in with a few tins of stella was it m8 :roll:

I think your comment is a waste of space m8

 

[bigspurs]

I found it quite amusing actually.

 

[Maske2g]

Didn't read every line, but surely if 99% of our supporters would say Big TOm lacks mobility, that would give more credit to that argument?

An how else would you put it? If you said he had the turning circle of a tank, or that he ran like he had piles, that would be more insulting, right?

So how would you say that Tom has a great range of passing, play better when he gets lots of room, but in a hectic game, his lack of mobility works agains him?

 

[JimmyG2]

Didn't read every line, but surely if 99% of our supporters would say Big TOm lacks mobility, that would give more credit to that argument?

An how else would you put it? If you said he had the turning circle of a tank, or that he ran like he had piles, that would be more insulting, right?

So how would you say that Tom has a great range of passing, play better when he gets lots of room, but in a hectic game, his lack of mobility works agains him?

Excellent, if I agreed with you I would have said it just like that. However I think that his passing and shooting skills more than compensate for his other faults.
'Lack of mobility' is actually an acceptable description of one of our players. At least it is an objective comment that can be discussed or related to other aspects of his game.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Didn't read every line, but surely if 99% of our supporters would say Big Tom lacks mobility, that would give more credit to that argument?

An how else would you put it? If you said he had the turning circle of a tank, or that he ran like he had piles, that would be more insulting, right?

So how would you say that Tom has a great range of passing, play better when he gets lots of room, but in a hectic game, his lack of mobility works agains him?

The reason the phrase adds no credit to the argument is because it's an auto-pilot phrase, uttered by people who have heard or read it from others and haven't given the matter any of their own thought, based on their own observation.

And it doesn't describe anything especially usefully. It's shorthand, or, better, a short cut. Which is another way of saying that any post containing it tells us nothing that we haven't heard already. It's just a comment that exists so someone can vent.

I try to avoid those, just as I try to avoid posting "RIP" when someone dies, or "what he said" under a huge, unedited quotation when I agree with someone, or "get in" when we score, or "fuck" when they score. Because it's self-indulgent and it wastes everyone else's time clicking on the thread, only to find that nothing but content-free drivel has been added.

If I want to write about Huddlestone's speed or lack of it (which I often do), I will use virtually any other phrase I can dream up before I will resort to writing "lack of mobility". Posting a cliche is lazy. I don't like lazy writing. Lazy writing is really what JimmyG2's article is about.

Huddlestone is actually pretty quick once he gets up to speed. I've repeatedly seen him track a fast fullback or winger up the touchline, to keep them from delivering a pass or a cross. He tracks back OK too, when he can be arsed. His problem is that his heavy frame prevents him from accelerating in an instant.

So he has to think quickly and use his anticipation, so he can start off in the right direction a split-second earlier. That's a characteristic typical of highly experienced and seasoned players, especially central defenders, who use their knowledge to read the game and move toward where they are needed. A younger player we had who had a gift for this was Michael Carrick, but generally it comes with years.

Huddlestone hasn't had years yet. He'll learn to compensate for his lack of acceleration. I'm more concerned about whether he'll learn to cope with his lack of combativeness.

 

[Rizza]

i also thought that was a funny article, keep up the good work

 

[KenilworthSpur]

Poor JJ.....

 

[DC_Boy]

good stuff jg - have some rep

and for the record jj is consistently consistent, in fact he is one of the most consistently consistent players we have in our team

 

[Chimbo!]

good stuff jg - have some rep

and for the record jj is consistently consistent, in fact he is one of the most consistently consistent players we have in our team

very true DC Boy and the column made me laugh to be fair because tbh it is so true.

 

[DC_Boy]

very true DC Boy and the column made me laugh to be fair because tbh it is so true.

Chimbo

 

[Coyboy]

good stuff jg - have some rep

and for the record jj is consistently consistent, in fact he is one of the most consistently consistent players we have in our team

Thanks, I don't know why any of bother posting as you know everything.

 

[tony_parkes]

The reason the phrase adds no credit to the argument is because it's an auto-pilot phrase, uttered by people who have heard or read it from others and haven't given the matter any of their own thought, based on their own observation.

And it doesn't describe anything especially usefully. It's shorthand, or, better, a short cut. Which is another way of saying that any post containing it tells us nothing that we haven't heard already. It's just a comment that exists so someone can vent.

I try to avoid those, just as I try to avoid posting "RIP" when someone dies, or "what he said" under a huge, unedited quotation when I agree with someone, or "get in" when we score, or "fuck" when they score. Because it's self-indulgent and it wastes everyone else's time clicking on the thread, only to find that nothing but content-free drivel has been added.

If I want to write about Huddlestone's speed or lack of it (which I often do), I will use virtually any other phrase I can dream up before I will resort to writing "lack of mobility". Posting a cliche is lazy. I don't like lazy writing. Lazy writing is really what JimmyG2's article is about.

Huddlestone is actually pretty quick once he gets up to speed. I've repeatedly seen him track a fast fullback or winger up the touchline, to keep them from delivering a pass or a cross. He tracks back OK too, when he can be arsed. His problem is that his heavy frame prevents him from accelerating in an instant.

So he has to think quickly and use his anticipation, so he can start off in the right direction a split-second earlier. That's a characteristic typical of highly experienced and seasoned players, especially central defenders, who use their knowledge to read the game and move toward where they are needed. A younger player we had who had a gift for this was Michael Carrick, but generally it comes with years.

Huddlestone hasn't had years yet. He'll learn to compensate for his lack of acceleration. I'm more concerned about whether he'll learn to cope with his lack of combativeness.

Agreed with a lot of what you wrote, particularly the bit I've highlighted at the end.

Hudd can be slow but it's his inability to impose himself on his opposite number that detracts so much from his other virtues. There are other players who will fight for the right to have posession of the football, once they've got it they would kill for Hudd's passing ability.

Alas Tom doesn't seem able to do both.

 

[JimmyG2]

[/b]

Agreed with a lot of what you wrote, particularly the bit I've highlighted at the end.

Hudd can be slow but it's his inability to impose himself on his opposite number that detracts so much from his other virtues. There are other players who will fight for the right to have posession of the football, once they've got it they would kill for Hudd's passing ability.
Alas Tom doesn't seem able to do both.

If we could find someone with the skills of Huddleston and the combativeness of Palacios we would have a world class player worth 30/4o million. We need to win the ball and work it to him and he needs to find the space to operate in. Its a team game after all.
I dont expect everyone to do everything but I do expect the team to make best use of the skills available and Huddlestons skills are exceptional.
He is still a young player and his weaknesses cxan be worked on.