Ex-Manager watch: Antonio Conte

[djhotspur]

I think it is a general problem, prior to this season, if you compare Conte's points per game in games where he had 5+ days rest vs those where he had less there is consistently a huge difference. I do think other coaches are capable of putting teams out who can make their system work with multiple games per week, even if they don't end up winning the double doing it.

My opinion is that a 3 man midfield would make our defence less exposed, not more, because we'd be putting fires out before they reach our defence. It will also allow us to dominate possession more and win second balls. The 3 CBs may make our defence stronger but they make us weaker as a unit because we can't retain the ball or compete against 3 man midfields with similar fitness/fatigue levels.

yet when we tried it against united it backfired spectacularly because without the right wing backs we cant get out at all.

 

[-Afri-Coy-]

I think it is a general problem, prior to this season, if you compare Conte's points per game in games where he had 5+ days rest vs those where he had less there is consistently a huge difference. I do think other coaches are capable of putting teams out who can make their system work with multiple games per week, even if they don't end up winning the double doing it.

My opinion is that a 3 man midfield would make our defence less exposed, not more, because we'd be putting fires out before they reach our defence. It will also allow us to dominate possession more and win second balls. The 3 CBs may make our defence stronger but they make us weaker as a unit because we can't retain the ball or compete against 3 man midfields with similar fitness/fatigue levels.

Sarr, Bentancur and Bissouma against the “lower teams” and either Skipp or PEH when we need solidity against harder opposition could work.

 

[-Afri-Coy-]

yet when we tried it against united it backfired spectacularly because without the right wing backs we cant get out at all.

I think quality wingbacks are our biggest downfall at the moment. Not so much Perisic, but the rest are dismal and a decent RWB would make a huge difference across the entire system. Domino effect.

 

[Spursfan1414]

yet when we tried it against united it backfired spectacularly because without the right wing backs we cant get out at all.

Again, I think that is a weakness of the system and our it fits our squad. Play a 532 and you've got 2 two, usually one option ahead of you when you win the ball back, even if you're doing a better job in midfield. If you don't have wingbacks who can do the job, you'd be better playing 433.

Clearly, a system that relies on heavily wingbacks is a terrible fit for a squad that doesn't have any of top 6 quality (maybe that's harsh on Peresic). We can debate how much that's on Levy for not buying them or Conte for not adapting but ultimately everything else you do is going to be limited by the fact that that part of the system just does not work. So even if you make an adjustment to solve one problem, you'll probably get issues elsewhere because we're trying to compensate for the fact our wingbacks don't give us what we need.

 

[ILS]

Well they are both levels above alot of our players.

For me they both show a level that we're lacking in the rest of the squad except with the likes of Kane, Romero etc.

We need a Van Dijk or King type player in the back four or three whatever we decide to play next to Romero. In my opinion I believe Romero gets off far too lightly from this board . The bloke is a dickhead! Yes, he is our dickhead but he just needs to reign it in. Some of the challenges he makes, Japhet gets crucified on this board for making similar attempts to win the ball when there is no need. In Romero's case he is meant to be on the way to becoming a world class defender.

In my opinion he could end up being a weakness unless he starts to find the right balance of when to be aggressive and when to be calm in his defending. With his characteristics, he should be our central defender in a three with his ability to pass and play under pressure but he can't be trusted to stay in his position. If we were to switch to a back four, he would really need a composed leader next to him just to remind him what his actual job is.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

Could it be as simple as we were shit before Bentancour and Kuluveski and when they're out we go back to being shit again?

With both of them back I expect some better form.

So Conte has no effect on the team? Why pay him 15m if the real difference maker is Kulu and Bentacur? Might as well let the lads pick the team if the manager has no effect.

 

[Albertbarich]

So Conte has no effect on the team? Why pay him 15m if the real difference maker is Kulu and Bentacur? Might as well let the lads pick the team if the manager has no effect.

Sounds like you have made your mind up.

I think the club has too so I've no doubt you will get your wish sooner rather than later.

 

[mil1lion]

He only played 352 when key players were missing too, otherwise you could bet your house on 343. It's the same stubborn streak that sees Son start every game in the diminishing hope that he won't be a complete passenger.

That's my point though, regardless of formation we often have key players out so I dont think it's the formation. I mean we literally beat arsenal 3-0 with it last season but we did have Bentancur in midfield and Kulusevski at 100%. If he switches formation we still struggle with players out. As for Son, given our shortages up top he hasn't had much other choice. I'm sure with Richarlison and Kulusevski back there's more chance to replace him and he did that against Leicester. We also have to consider his options, I mean not many have impressed enough for him to make many changes. He often makes changes forced by injury but the drop off when starting Gil in place of Kulusevski or Sarr in place of Bentancur is huge. Until the squad is stronger it doesn't matter what system he plays if key players get injured.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

Sounds like you have made your mind up.

I think the club has too so I've no doubt you will get your wish sooner rather than later.

No, my mind isn't made up. I'm simply asking you a question based on your claim that only Benta and Kulu are the difference between our two respective forms. It's totally cool if you don't want to discuss it, but please don't put words or opinions into my mouth. I've been pretty clear in my posts about the situation. (We should be asking more from both Conte AND Levy).

 

[Albertbarich]

No, my mind isn't made up. I'm simply asking you a question based on your claim that only Benta and Kulu are the difference between our two respective forms. It's totally cool if you don't want to discuss it, but please don't put words or opinions into my mouth. I've been pretty clear in my posts about the situation. (We should be asking more from both Conte AND Levy).

Fair enough.

It was an observation more than an opinion. Our form turned when they arrived and it's gone wrong this season when they have barely been fit at the same time

 

[Trix]

Sounds like you have made your mind up.

I think the club has too so I've no doubt you will get your wish sooner rather than later.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

Fair enough.

It was an observation more than an opinion. Our form turned when they arrived and it's gone wrong this season when they have barely been fit at the same time

I totally agree, mate; them being missing hasn't helped us at all, but it does raise the question I posed earlier. If we are to commit and provide players to Conte, is it unreasonable to want us to be better than we were under Nuno, with or without the ex-Juve boys? He's still had players provided beyond them, but we're regressing. It can't just be the players--even the new ones aren't pulling up trees. Conte must take some responsibility for this, as well as Levy for not backing him more when we've had the chance.

 

[Albertbarich]

I totally agree, mate; them being missing hasn't helped us at all, but it does raise the question I posed earlier. If we are to commit and provide players to Conte, is it unreasonable to want us to be better than we were under Nuno, with or without the ex-Juve boys? He's still had players provided beyond them, but we're regressing. It can't just be the players--even the new ones aren't pulling up trees. Conte must take some responsibility for this, as well as Levy for not backing him more when we've had the chance.

I don't disagree.

My reason for not really want to debate is it just feels pointless. Trixs reply was interesting because I just feel like we're all in limbo until the inevitable conclusion.

 

[Tezza1978]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

I take it you can't say any more on this mate so I won't be asking!

I hope that WLBs ITK last night still holds and we have a chance of this window going from "0 to 100" (!)

 

[arthurgrimsdell]

No manager at Spurs can afford to think long-term. The chairman will sack them if they even have the temerity to deliver a par finish.
There is no 'probably' about it here by the way. Conte will pick the players he feels are the best ones to get a result in the game. If we had a chairman with some long term thinking who was prepared to allow a rebuild then our manager (whoever they may be) could start to think long-term. I agree with you that Conte isn't traditionally a 'long term' manager. However even if we brought in an (e.g.) Thomas Franke, he would also only be able to focus on the here and now, as slipping to an 8th place finish would see the chairman sack him.

Conte is not a manager at all. He never was. He is Head Coach, which gives him the responsibility to use those players in his squad to get the best results for the club he is capable of, playing the best football he is capable of, and developing the assets at his disposal to the best of his ability to make his squad better. He also can give advice (but not orders) on what he could use to improve the squad.

As an individual, he is very political and uses his profile and public utterances to attempt to get what he wants in the way of additions to and removals from his squad. This is to be expected. However he has to convince his boss, the Managing Director of Football, Fabio Paratici, in order for the club to approve the changes to the squad that he wants, and Fabio Paratici has first to agree with him and then to convince the board, not least Daniel Levy, that the acquisitions and disposals are within budget and are conducive to the long-term goals everyone who matters (i.e. not you or I) have agreed upon at the outset.

You state that Daniel Levy has not allowed a rebuild, but there has been a multitude of changes in and out since Mauricio Pochettino said the a painful rebuild was necessary. You suggest that the Chairman does not have long term thinking, but this is clearly untrue: the state of the Club and its standing within the game is light years ahead of what it was when ENIC took over. This is evidenced by your comment about "slipping to an 8th place finish". Eighth place would have been regarded as big success when ENIC took over.

Those who are now arguing for long-term thinking in reality want the opposite: short term thinking to get success short-term, (apparently measured by "trophies" alone) partly because they know that Conte has to date only worked for short term success, and he is regarded as "elite", but can only work with a world-class team, and partly because fans tend to want that all the time.
Has Daniel Levy made mistakes in appointing the last three head coaches? Yes. In spades.

However, I for one, doubt that he thought any of those failed coaches were short-term appointments when he made them. The coaches themselves would have been in no doubt about the parameters they were expected to work within. They failed. We have had to watch three years or so of dross (some might extend that to four) with few occasional exceptions, usually only for short periods within matches.

If Antonio Conte thinks that he cannot now work within the parameters he was set, and has accepted publicly on a number of occasions, then he should leave. If his boss feels that he has failed in the goals he was set, then he should be sacked. If neither of those are true, by all means carry on, but don't use "long-term project" as an excuse for dire (no pun intended) performances.

 

[Scott Spur]

This is a must read......

The Great Con of Tottenham Hotspur - World of Hotspur

Share This: As fans’ restlessness and unease grows, Tottenham’s ownership seems primed to double down on their failed policies of the past 22 years. And while some may perceive Tottenham’s chronic malaise as neglect, or ineptitude, a closer look reveals far worse; everything is going exactly...

worldofhotspur.com

 

[SpursJord]

I posted it earlier in the takeover thread I believe! It seemed a more relevant place for it. However I maintain it is well worth the read.

 

[Dakes]

Well they are both levels above alot of our players.

For me they both show a level that we're lacking in the rest of the squad except with the likes of Kane, Romero etc.

It's night and day

 

[carlosspurs]

Conte is not a manager at all. He never was. He is Head Coach, which gives him the responsibility to use those players in his squad to get the best results for the club he is capable of, playing the best football he is capable of, and developing the assets at his disposal to the best of his ability to make his squad better. He also can give advice (but not orders) on what he could use to improve the squad.

As an individual, he is very political and uses his profile and public utterances to attempt to get what he wants in the way of additions to and removals from his squad. This is to be expected. However he has to convince his boss, the Managing Director of Football, Fabio Paratici, in order for the club to approve the changes to the squad that he wants, and Fabio Paratici has first to agree with him and then to convince the board, not least Daniel Levy, that the acquisitions and disposals are within budget and are conducive to the long-term goals everyone who matters (i.e. not you or I) have agreed upon at the outset.

You state that Daniel Levy has not allowed a rebuild, but there has been a multitude of changes in and out since Mauricio Pochettino said the a painful rebuild was necessary. You suggest that the Chairman does not have long term thinking, but this is clearly untrue: the state of the Club and its standing within the game is light years ahead of what it was when ENIC took over. This is evidenced by your comment about "slipping to an 8th place finish". Eighth place would have been regarded as big success when ENIC took over.

Those who are now arguing for long-term thinking in reality want the opposite: short term thinking to get success short-term, (apparently measured by "trophies" alone) partly because they know that Conte has to date only worked for short term success, and he is regarded as "elite", but can only work with a world-class team, and partly because fans tend to want that all the time.
Has Daniel Levy made mistakes in appointing the last three head coaches? Yes. In spades.

However, I for one, doubt that he thought any of those failed coaches were short-term appointments when he made them. The coaches themselves would have been in no doubt about the parameters they were expected to work within. They failed. We have had to watch three years or so of dross (some might extend that to four) with few occasional exceptions, usually only for short periods within matches.

If Antonio Conte thinks that he cannot now work within the parameters he was set, and has accepted publicly on a number of occasions, then he should leave. If his boss feels that he has failed in the goals he was set, then he should be sacked. If neither of those are true, by all means carry on, but don't use "long-term project" as an excuse for dire (no pun intended) performances.

What are the long term goals ?

What does hiring and firing consecutive managers indicate (all of them changed their view on the parameters)?

Agree none of the coaches were likely seen as short-term, but if they have all been sacked I suggest that there is a clear fault in the strategy , which takes as back to the first point - what is the long term goals and who's responsible for the failure to reach them? Can't see how it's feasible to lay this at the feet of the managers. How we sack a manager to go back round again, is inconceivable. Its like Groundhog Day .. Levy would sack Levy

 

[cjbyid]

This is a must read......

The Great Con of Tottenham Hotspur - World of Hotspur

Share This: As fans’ restlessness and unease grows, Tottenham’s ownership seems primed to double down on their failed policies of the past 22 years. And while some may perceive Tottenham’s chronic malaise as neglect, or ineptitude, a closer look reveals far worse; everything is going exactly...

worldofhotspur.com

Read it earlier, it's brilliant.