The price is too high

[TheChosenOne]

There is definitely a lot of all our yesterday's when it comes to how entertaining it is.

Pre Premier League the game clearly did exist but rule changes (back pass, offside and general protection from cloggers), and better playing conditions means in general the game is more entertaining. Add in the fact that unless you were at the game you didn't see much at all and even a poor performance can be more exciting when you are there. So that's all those years ruled out.

The 90s - Spurs were terrible.

Hoddle years - Definitely not the period fans are reminiscing of.

Jol - A good period and the beginning of the end of being totally shit. The football was average for the most part but more fondly remembered when compared to the before times.

Ramos - Nope.

Redknapp - Maybe the closest to the percieved ideal so far. For the most part attacking football but as often completely lacking shape at all. A couple of years of what people seem to want.

AVB and Tim - ?

Poch - We'd nearly all take the first part of his reign for ever no doubt. Mostly attacking front football with a young team, what wasn't to like. How about that young team getting older and not being renewed and the football getting progressively less good from the moment the team left WHL to the point where it really isn't much, if any, better than you are seeing now.

So in summary it's been mostly absolulte rubbish except about 4 seasons in the last 30 and most that came before that is newsreel stuff and memories that didn't happen.

Jacques Santini with his 38% win rate ? P13 W5 D4 L4 ---

 

[al_pacino]

Jacques Santini with his 38% win rate ? P13 W5 D4 L4 ---

Didn't forget him but he wasn't worth even an emoji.

Was exited by his appointment at the time. Then France were absolutely horrible at the Euros and some of that excitement ebbed.

 

[TheChosenOne]

Didn't forget him but he wasn't worth even an emoji.

Was exited by his appointment at the time. Then France were absolutely horrible at the Euros and some of that excitement ebbed.

I can't laugh enough... S'funny.. the weirdest shit going on when those gobshites down the road were on one of their good spells.

 

[rez9000]

There is no correlation between successful football and playing negative football. In fact, in most instances, successful teams are highly entertaining.

There is no price to pay to see Spurs win something and we shouldnt indulge the notion that this is a necessary evil we have to suffer.

And yet (and forgive me if I'm wrong) didn't you say in the Mourinho thread that Jose has played the same tactics everywhere he's gone? So, if there is no correlation between successful and negative football, how do you account for the 20 trophies he's won?

If we follow your logic and only entertaining football wins trophies, then Mourinho's football actually is entertaining, because he's won so much.

It's either that, or there actually is a correlation between successful football and negative football and so it may well be a necessary evil we can bear if it results in trophies.

So, which is it?

 

[Ionman34]

And yet (and forgive me if I'm wrong) didn't you say in the Mourinho thread that Jose has played the same tactics everywhere he's gone? So, if there is no correlation between successful and negative football, how do you account for the 20 trophies he's won?

If we follow your logic and only entertaining football wins trophies, then Mourinho's football actually is entertaining, because he's won so much.

Or there actually is a correlation between successful football and negative football.

So, which is it?

 

[CowInAComa]

And yet (and forgive me if I'm wrong) but didn't you say in the Mourinho thread that Jose has played the same tactics everywhere he's gone? So, if there is no correlation between successful and negative football, how do you account for the 20 trophies he's won?

If we follow your logic and only entertaining football wins trophies, then Mourinho's football actually is entertaining, because he's one so much.

Or there actually is a correlation between successful football and negative football.

So, which is it?

Nope. There isn't a correlation.

Across the leagues and cups of Europe over the last 15-20 years the vast majority are won by football playing teams.

You can't draw an association between negative football and success.

 

[rez9000]

Nope. There isn't a correlation.

Across the leagues and cups of Europe over the last 15-20 years the vast majority are won by football playing teams.

You can't draw an association between negative football and success.

So those 20 trophies Mourinho has won were what, mirages?

EDIT: Also, were those won by Simeone mirages too?

2nd EDIT: Oh, and Benitez? He deploys the counter attack a fair bit.

3rd EDIT: Cowboy? Are you there?

 

[CowInAComa]

So those 20 trophies Mourinho has won were what, mirages?

EDIT: Also, were those won by Simeone mirages too?

2nd EDIT: Oh, and Benitez? He deploys the counter attack a fair bit.

3rd EDIT: Cowboy? Are you there?

They have accounted got it the majority of trophies over the last 20 years? Not even close.

You're trying to be clever but I'm not sure you know what correlation means. There is none.

 

[NEVILLEB]

It’s certainly boring and even victories feel hollow.

I don’t like him as a person as I don’t respect bullies but he has been incredibly successful. If he can bring in the right players as he showed last summer then maybe he can get us flying again.

I will take this season as long as he brings in real quality next summer.

 

[walworthyid]

Are we above winning the league cup now? Are you having a laugh?

No. Im not saying that at all. Im saying that winning the carling Cup in isolation is not worth watching us play terrible football every week.

If we had won the carling Cup under poch at our best it would have been a tangible bit of success that was a reflection and a reward for the progress that we had made.

Under Jose, it would be a trinket for him to add to his list. In the grand scheme of things it wouldn't mean anything at all.

I would play and lose in the champions league final in a period of great football over winning a carling Cup under the current regime.

Football surely isn't just about winning no matter how you do it, every week? A point has to come where the style with which you do it means something? Actually enjoying watching your team must have some value?

 

[rez9000]

They have accounted got it the majority of trophies over the last 20 years? Not even close.

You're trying to be clever but I'm not sure you know what correlation means. There is none.

Yeeeeeeah, I'm not sure you want to pull on the correlation definition thread, buddy. I think you may be surprised by what it actually means, not what you think it means. More to the point, I think you may be surprised to know just how incorrect you actually are when you apply the term to an actual analysis.

By the way, posting the definition taken from the OED or some other dictionary really isn't going to help you.

 

[OPModric]

I find it funny how people are moaning about our style of play yet we have been shit ever since Dembele left

We had fallen apart before then but Dembele was kind of keeping it together

For the first time at the start of this season we were playing attacking football(yes we fucking were) since Dembele left

However it has been back to usual since the City game

The only difference between now and the last 2 and half years, the media and opposing fans are calling us boring, to which I lose respect for those who say Mourinho has us playing boring football.

I fell out love with spurs long before Mourinho came and our style of play but to say this is on him is WRONG and its the same people who believe the sun shines out of Poch's Arse

I have seen Tottenham under achieve for 12 years and because we dont spend as much as the big teams above us, people us that as an excuse for our lack of success. Yet our squad has fucking been amazing in that time and our players have been fucking amazing in that time

As I said before Poch and Harry were both weren't good managers tactically hence why they didn't do well in the cup competitions

The reason why we are shit is because our spine is shit. We paid more for Sissoko than Wijnaldum and all does is run in to space and then struggle to make a pass, Winks (I dont think knows what he is) has been turned in to a DM even though he is shit there and our CB's outside of Toby are either still learning or fucking Mental

We never replaced, Toby, Jan, Victor and Moussa. We have been shit ever since who can't string two passes together and keep playing it long because our CB's dont trust the CM's to move it forward

TL-DR - We were shit long before Mourinho, ever since Dembele and Wanyama left and our defenders stop defending, especially a fucking set piece.

I want to agree with this post a thousand times.

 

['O Zio]

Nope. There isn't a correlation.

Across the leagues and cups of Europe over the last 15-20 years the vast majority are won by football playing teams.

You can't draw an association between negative football and success.

You can't draw a correlation between defensive football and failure either. There are plenty of examples of defensive minded teams being successful throughout history.

Plus even if for argument's sake we say youre correct about the last 15 years, there are all kinds of other factors you're not taking into account. For example, I'd say the last 15 years has largely been characterised by the gap between the traditionally successful teams and the rest becoming wider and wider. Other than the odd exception, the major leagues in Europe are now mostly dominated by 1 or 2 teams who win every year. The top teams in most of the big leagues are now so vastly superior to the majority of other teams in the league, that they're able to play aggressive attacking football and play the opposition off the park. For the same reason, the other teams resort to sitting back and trying not to concede, which results in a bit of a vicious cycle.

That doesnt mean attacking football is more successful, it means that superior teams in a mismatch are able to play with more freedom than a team like us who need to battle for any kind of success that might be in the cards.

 

[CowInAComa]

You can't draw a correlation between defensive football and failure either. There are plenty of examples of defensive minded teams being successful throughout history.

Plus even if for argument's sake we say youre correct about the last 15 years, there are all kinds of other factors you're not taking into account. For example, I'd say the last 15 years has largely been characterised by the gap between the traditionally successful teams and the rest becoming wider and wider. Other than the odd exception, the major leagues in Europe are now mostly dominated by 1 or 2 teams who win every year. The top teams in most of the big leagues are now so vastly superior to the majority of other teams in the league, that they're able to play aggressive attacking football and play the opposition off the park. For the same reason, the other teams resort to sitting back and trying not to concede, which results in a bit of a vicious cycle.

That doesnt mean attacking football is more successful, it means that superior teams in a mismatch are able to play with more freedom than a team like us who need to battle for any kind of success that might be in the cards.

Correct :doesn't equal failure. Now point out where I said anything that suggested you couldn't win playing negative football.

 

[CowInAComa]

Yeeeeeeah, I'm not sure you want to pull on the correlation definition thread, buddy. I think you may be surprised by what it actually means, not what you think it means. More to the point, I think you may be surprised to know just how incorrect you actually are when you apply the term to an actual analysis.

By the way, posting the definition taken from the OED or some other dictionary really isn't going to help you.

Could argue about dictionary definitions. But do you want to continue to indulge in twisting words and semantics when you are fully aware of exactly the point I made? Maybe argue that instead of playing to your crowd.

And i stand by it. There is no reason to believe negative football will equate to success or is a price to pay for it.

And I stand by the fact that *most* successful teams play entertaining football.

 

['O Zio]

Correct. Now point out where I said anything that suggested you couldn't win playing negative football.

That's not what I said you said, but you've spent the last 2 or 3 posts you've made making the point that there isn't a correlation between negative football and winning, while there is one between attacking football and winning. I'm arguing that there's no correlation between any of it. You can win in both ways and in fact many people do. Just depends on the circumstances of the team in question. A team that is massively superior to the opposition (Bayern, Pep's Barcelona, PSG eetc can get away with flashy football. We don't have anything like that luxury because we arent that superior to most of our opponents.

 

[HildoSpur]

No. Im not saying that at all. Im saying that winning the carling Cup in isolation is not worth watching us play terrible football every week.

If we had won the carling Cup under poch at our best it would have been a tangible bit of success that was a reflection and a reward for the progress that we had made.

Under Jose, it would be a trinket for him to add to his list. In the grand scheme of things it wouldn't mean anything at all.

I would play and lose in the champions league final in a period of great football over winning a carling Cup under the current regime.

Football surely isn't just about winning no matter how you do it, every week? A point has to come where the style with which you do it means something? Actually enjoying watching your team must have some value?

Winning things is very enjoyable - or at least I imagine it is considering I can barely remember the last time we did. Win at any cost is fine by me. The football under Poch in the last year or two was pretty awful also by the way.

 

[King of Otters]

I don’t know if it’s a combination of other factors (lockdown, continued absence of fans), but I definitely feel as disengaged with Spurs as I have for a long time.

This feeling predates Mourinho, and is maybe a time of life thing, but the football we play is making it harder and harder for me to invest fully in Mourinho’s Spurs.

I’m not as far along the line as you, @spud but probably not that far behind. Pretty sure there are plenty of other people feeling similar as well.

 

['O Zio]

And I stand by the fact that *most* successful teams play entertaining football.

Successful teams play the football that they need to play. Teams who insist on playing attractive football above all else and refuse to adapt to the situation are very often the teams that don't quite make it. Part of having the so-called "winning mentality" is being able to swallow your pride and get your hands dirty to do what it takes to get over the line.

I'm not saying we need to park the bus every second of every game, but compromising is what it will take if we're going to win the league in the modern game.

 

[Ionman34]

No. Im not saying that at all. Im saying that winning the carling Cup in isolation is not worth watching us play terrible football every week.

If we had won the carling Cup under poch at our best it would have been a tangible bit of success that was a reflection and a reward for the progress that we had made.

Under Jose, it would be a trinket for him to add to his list. In the grand scheme of things it wouldn't mean anything at all.

I would play and lose in the champions league final in a period of great football over winning a carling Cup under the current regime.

Football surely isn't just about winning no matter how you do it, every week? A point has to come where the style with which you do it means something? Actually enjoying watching your team must have some value?

It does.

I have enjoyed a fair bit of our Football this season, just as I haven’t enjoyed some of it. In much the same way I’ve enjoyed our wins whilst not enjoying our failures.

If the endgame is that we win a trophy, or trophies, whilst enjoying some and not enjoying others, I’ll take that over failure to win anything all day long.

I enjoyed games under Poch and Redknapp, whilst finding some of our games under them either abject borefests or, at times, embarrassing defeats. Ultimately we won nothing with both. Mourinho’s way is different, but has as much to enjoy as it doesn’t. The difference is that my focus isn’t solely on what I don’t like, whilst completely ignoring the positives, unlike those who seem to be flocking to this thread. Nor do I completely ignore the fact that we are in a cup final, in a title race and we’ll placed in 2 other cup competitions in JM’s first full season, all whilst he is still developing the style and mentality of the team. The only other team in the country that can claim the same is Man City, and Pep has been working with them for years, after spending over half a billion.

And you lot claim you’re not entitled?