The Outsiders: understanding Tottenham Hotspur's daring rebuilding project

PG Spurs

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2013
Messages
148
#21
Interesting read. Good part on tactics... we know that the majority of teams will look to defend against us at home, and even away judging by Arseanal, so it's all about unlocking the door really. Just depends if we have the key now, or need to resort to breaking it down.
 

jackhealy

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
1,280
#23
The reasons given for bigger clubs not buying Eriksen sound like the reasons why they didn't buy Modric. He is bigger than Modric, and he will be surrounded by players who are athletes, so I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out better than Modric.
 

minesadouble

Drove my Chevy to the Levy
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
700
#24
Good, if long, read and I agree shows a grasp of 'soccer' a cut above the usual in either US or frankly UK magazines.

However, the analysis doesn't mention the whole question of the new stadium. The stadium affects our ability to spend now but also our expectation for the future. The 'project' in its entirety is to transition Spurs from a 4-6th place team playing at lovely old WHL to a CL/PL challenging club playing at a 60,000 seater stadium. Apart from our strikers, our first team squad, dominant U-21/U-18 set-up, and the players we have just signed are likely to peak in 3-4 years time, when we plan to be serious players in more ways than one. The skill required by DL/FB/AVB is in achieving CL football this season while planning to win it in a few years time.
 

Chris_D

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
2,641
#25
I'd add Lennon to that side because I think he often adds the cutting edge we need. We missed him at the Arse last week so I hope he's fit again soon.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
45
#27
I'd add Lennon to that side because I think he often adds the cutting edge we need. We missed him at the Arse last week so I hope he's fit again soon.
I'd second that: you can't beat raw pace - except raw pace with a decent cross at the end of it. For Townsend in the team sheet read Townsend/Lennon. I thought Townsend looked really tired during the second half against the scum. We need them both.
 

Chris_D

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
2,641
#29
I'd second that: you can't beat raw pace - except raw pace with a decent cross at the end of it. For Townsend in the team sheet read Townsend/Lennon. I thought Townsend looked really tired during the second half against the scum. We need them both.
The two of them are quite different. Lennon so much more direct but Townsend so much better at shooting. I'd be tempted to try Lennon on the right and Townsend on the left as I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to wingers I want them going for the by line and crossing it to the forwards. We didn't do that enough at the weekend and it left Soldado isolated while Townsend and Chadli cut infield.
 

Misfit

Magnificent bastard.
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
18,251
#30
Bloody nice read. Well laid out Mr. Goodman.

Massive changes and I genuinely believe if we have a little patience and throw off our concerns and get behind them all, we'll have a hell of a team soon.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
668
#31
Like many others, I am familiar with the origin and usage of the word 'soccer'. The fact that it is a bastardisation of 'association' - merely an adjective in differentiating between codes of 'football' - does not mean that it is correct english usage. It is an artificial term originating from the formalisation of the Laws (rules) of football. I repeat, the laws of football.

It is a term of convenience which is a mere one hundred and fifty or so years old, compared to several hundred years of informal and, subsequently, organised football. The fact that it is a useful name in countries with more popular games sharing the name 'football' does not make it the correct name of the game elsewhere. It is not.

It is also worth remembering that rugby is only called 'rugby football' because some idiot (whether or not it was William Webb-Ellis) decided that he would pick the ball up and run with it when playing football. So 'rugby football' was coined to distinguish the new game from 'real' football. So 'rugby football' was used to differentiate that game from football - and not the other way round.

If you're going to preach, it helps to get your facts straight.
No preaching, little fella, just some plain old home truths. Let me enlighten you a bit more. There was a single game of football with varying rules played in the public schools and universities. Handling was allowed. 1863 marked a turning point where an attempt was made to create a single set of rules. Rugby and some other schools opted out. The former group forged the rules of association football and the latter group formulated the rules of rugby football. They weren't, um, 'idiots'. Do you see? Actually handling the ball (though not carrying it) remained a possibility in association football for a few more years.

Soccer is in the dictionary. It is good English usage. It is not a 'bastardisation'. There are a number of different kinds of football. Your notion of 'correct' is, I'm afraid, quite incorrect. Do you get it now...?
.
.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Messages
4,275
Thread starter #32
No preaching, little fella, just some plain old home truths. Let me enlighten you a bit more. There was a single game of football with varying rules played in the public schools and universities. Handling was allowed. 1863 marked a turning point where an attempt was made to create a single set of rules. Rugby and some other schools opted out. The former group forged the rules of association football and the latter group formulated the rules of rugby football. They weren't, um, 'idiots'. Do you see? Actually handling the ball (though not carrying it) remained a possibility in association football for a few more years.

Soccer is in the dictionary. It is good English usage. It is not a 'bastardisation'. There are a number of different kinds of football. Your notion of 'correct' is, I'm afraid, quite incorrect. Do you get it now...?
Your level of condescension is extraordinary. If only you were also correct.

One small point in conclusion. The origin of the word 'soccer' is indeed a bastardisation from 'association', as you pointed out in your original post. Its presence in a dictionary doesn't make it otherwise or, indeed, make it 'good english usage'.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
668
#33
Your level of condescension is extraordinary. If only you were also correct.

One small point in conclusion. The origin of the word 'soccer' is indeed a bastardisation from 'association', as you pointed out in your original post. Its presence in a dictionary doesn't make it otherwise or, indeed, make it 'good english usage'.
Actually I'm only ever condescending to people like you who refuse to have insight into their ignorance and start insulting others as compensation.

You are just plain wrong. Soccer is a perfectly good word. It is a colloquialism not a bastardisation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary it refers to 'the game of football as played under Association rules', Association referring, of course, to the Football Association. When it was first used in this country from the 1880s onwards, it could be spelt 'socker' or 'socca', as well as 'soccer'. The latter became settled usage after the First World War. There is nothing in the dictionary definition that indicates it is anything other than good usage. You are just keen to defend an indefensible position with your ignorance. You think, like not a few others, that 'soccer' is an incorrect Americanism. It isn't.
.
.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Messages
4,275
Thread starter #34
You are just plain wrong. Soccer is a perfectly good word. It is a colloquialism not a bastardisation.
If you believe that, then you should go back to your dictionary to find the meaning of those two words.

Actually I'm only ever condescending to people like you who refuse to have insight into their ignorance and start insulting others as compensation.
Nice try, but I don't recall insulting you in my original post. Condescension is clearly a refuge of first resort to you.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary it refers to 'the game of football as played under Association rules', Association referring, of course, to the Football Association.
No. Referring to the rules of 'association football' as opposed to those of rugby or any other kind of 'football'.

When it was first used in this country from the 1880s onwards, it could be spelt 'socker' or 'socca', as well as 'soccer'. The latter became settled usage after the First World War.
Congratulations on your ability to read a dictionary.

There is nothing in the dictionary definition that indicates it is anything other than good usage. You are just keen to defend an indefensible position with your ignorance. You think, like not a few others, that 'soccer' is an incorrect Americanism. It isn't.
I don't think that at all - as you would know if you had read my initial post. I think that it's an outmoded term derived (bastardised) from the word 'association' by those who wanted to champion the new game of rugby in order to belittle the more established game of football. There is more to understanding a term than merely reading the Oxford English.

'Soccer' doesn't appear in the Laws of the game and isn't an official term. It is unfortunately necessary in places such as north America where they have to distinguish football from other other pre-eminent games carrying the same name. It is unnecessary everywhere else and, in my experience, is mainly used either by by poseurs or those with an antipathy for the game. So I don't like it.

If you consider my position 'indefensible' or consider me ignorant, that's your prerogative. That says more about you than anything that I post ever can. So be my guest: carry on with championing 'soccer' and insulting anybody with the temerity to disagree with you. I'm done with you.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
668
#35
.
.
Spud, you are a silly little person.
1. The dictionary says it is a colloquialism. It does not say it is a bastardisation.
2. You said I was 'preaching'. Go back and read your unpleasant post. I didn't like your attitude then, and I like your attitude even less now. It betokens a small mind.
3. The term is not 'outmoded'. It has been in continuous use from the 1890s to the present, something you are clearly ignorant of.
4. Your ignorance knows no bounds. You say association football was more 'established' than rugby: that's nonsense, the codes diverge and are born at the same time. You also say that those who use the term 'soccer' want to belittle or have an 'antipathy' to the game. That's only in your impoverished world. What utter bilge.
.
.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
668
#36
OK, I've been told to 'watch it'. I feel I was defending a position and I hold to that defence. I think the use of the term 'soccer' is perfectly valid and disagree with spud. However I acknowledge I have been a bit over the top in my criticism of him or her and apologise for that!
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
33,335
#38
.
Please wise up, especially in this, the anniversary year.

'Soccer' is an established English term for 'association foot ball', a term that distinguished it from 'rugby football' or 'rugger'. I remember its use when I was a kid a few decades ago, and it remains correct English usage. Yes, we now also use the term 'football' because we tend these days to refer to rugby football as 'rugby' (whether League or Union). But it is still a casual usage that has been taken up by the media and the public.

In the USA, as in Canada, Australia and Ireland, the word 'soccer' remains necessary because there are other forms of football. It is correct usage for them and for us.
.
.

Also football was called football because it was played on foot rather than horseback. This is why there are varying types of football.
 
Top