- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
Well give some examples. What is this thought based on? Surely if it was that simple as a team adapting then someone would have done something about the way the English national side play, as during every International tournament it is pointed out how much more comfortable the continental and South American sides are on the ball. If the best players this country has to offer struggle to play the intricate, quick passing game we see the likes of Spain and Argentina playing, then what makes you think a coach can come along and do so at Spurs?
It seems that football history is littered with cases of good coaches going to new clubs and failing. Why do you think this is? They can't have just become bad coaches. Why did such a good coach as Wenger fail at Nancy? What happened at Monaco? He didn't go from being a Championship winning coach to an idiot in the space of a few seasons. The reason he gave was that they bought the wrong players. What happend to Hector Cuper. Took Valencia to 2 CL final twice in a row, but at inter and Mallorca he couldn't make the same impact. And most significantly what about Caparos. Took Sevilla from division 2, to 6th in La Liga, but when he got a "bigger" opportunity with Depor, things didn't work out.
The point is, good coaches can and very often do, fail to succeed with good groups of players. The key reason for this, is that it isn't just about having good players, but the right players, the players that suite the way a particular coach wants to play. Therefore the most important part of the Coach and Director of Football relationship surely has to be a shared appreciation of the same kind of players. Now when I look at the player we have in our squad and compare them to those in the Sevilla squad i see two very different groups. Hence, given the 3 years of team building we've undergone since 2004 and the fact we have been 5th twice, i see him as an odd appointment. I think for Ramos to succeed he has to be given the opportuinty to bring in a number of new players, which is against the whole point of our structure.
Okay, although my point is a more general one about life, descriptions of life and the differences therein. I think you argue a good case but lose sight of the difference between the argument you construct and the reality about which you construct it.
In other words you make a good case but along the way their are too many ifs, buts and wherefores meaning it all ends with a definite maybe rather than a conclusive definitive.
I hope that makes sense? It's as if you looked back on your life and argued that your reached your current destination down a single line. In one sense you did, it's completely inevitable that you are who you are and if you drew a line through all the significant points it would indeed be singular, however into the future it branches in a myriad directions and in the past there's the ghost lines of all the decisions you didn't make or paths you didn't follow.
The situation at Spurs is far more complex than the simple line you try to draw linking the several dots.