What's new

Spurs fans should fear four years of Mourinho’s small-minded cynicism

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,115
46,080
It’s funny because when at Wembley last season we pushed our FB’s right up the pitch with a diamond in midfield and predictably left acres of space in behind ( which luckily for us didn’t lead to us being 3 or 4 down at HT due to Liverpool’s wastefulness in front of goal), we were deemed naive.

I remember Neville going on and on about it. Now we try a more pragmatic ( and in my view correct) approach without our best player and best midfielder and we’re panned by the same critics.

Personally I’ve always wanted us to have a more flexible approach to certain teams after seeing us suffer in exactly the same way again and again.

Like everyone I’d prefer us to take on, dominate and beat all before us no matter the opposition like City have and now Liverpool, but there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
 

jbstarr14

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2010
1,506
5,165
Not yet, but that's at least in part because he has inherited a squad shaped to play a particular way, even if that way has gone a bit off track over the past year.

Many people here (and in the press) have very oversimplified notions of how Mourinho's teams play football, as one can see by some rather brash and dopey posts on this thread. He's not a footballing idealist like Pochettino or AVB, with a theory-based approach leading to an idealised style of play. He's a pragmatic coach and tactician, more reactive than prescriptive, as you said, in the sense that he sets up his team to suit the opposition and the situation. He gets away with this because he has an unusually wide-ranging understanding of how opponents play - and I suspect he also has an unusually clear ability to convey instructions to his players.



I'm not clear how there is a connection being being a tactician and a reactive manager, as opposed to a purist, and requiring more money to deliver results. It's inconsistent with the [unjustified] accusations that his teams play hoof-ball or are otherwise anti-football, because that is more typical of managers who are stuck perpetually at middle-level clubs, e.g., Tony Pulis and Sam Allardyce, where limited tactics are adopted as a substitute for top players.

The purse-strings were pretty tight at Man Utd when Mourinho was there: he didn't get many of the key players he wanted.

I don't have a problem with direct football, as long as it is played with precision, e.g., Alderweireld's weighted aerial balls to Dele, as opposed to whacking the ball in a general upfield direction for a big striker to chase. I enjoy watching robust and organised defensive displays, too. But both need to be part of a toolbox that also includes skilful dribbling, passing and moving, vision and improvisation.

There's an argument that being pragmatic wins you trophies, because your teams can deal with a broader range of challenges, whereas a purist/theorist manager will stick to his principles, even when it means losing way too many semi-finals.

In the 3rd and 4th year of his tenure, Pochettino visibly realised that: we started to sit back and play counter-attacking football when it was needed, especially when Kane was injured. It was part of his development as a manager.



I don't have a problem with his personality. He's acerbic and he doesn't speak in clichés, both of which are big pluses for me.

I don't know whether his approach has been left behind. I also don't know how much his approach has changed in the past few years. We'll just have to wait to find out.

Incidentally, I also don't buy the simplistic line that Pochettino was let down by our lack of player trading over a couple of summers. We had a dauntingly good squad and it was extremely difficult to attract anyone who would strengthen it meaningfully without paying salaries we could not afford, until we were established in a 60k stadium. The only players who should arguably have been replaced, but weren't, were the ones who left - Walker and Dembélé - but Pochettino thought we had a suitable replacement in Trippier and Dembélé is unique, which made him irreplaceable. I think people underestimate how much our best 2-3 seasons were due to Dembélé's influence.

My own theory of what went wrong for Pochettino is that he was unable to adjust to the differing demands of coaching a squad full of older, more experienced players. His combination of extreme control-freak and fatherly confidant works really well with talented 20-year-olds. If you're a player who has been in his team for 4-5 years and you're closer to 30 than 20, you expect to be treated differently and taken more seriously. It's notable that the older player who stayed fiercely loyal to Pochettino was Lloris, who was accorded more respect as captain.

I also think it likely that the rigours of his training methods are great for optimising the development of young players, but lead to wear and tear and exhaustion in older players. Here's a thought: it seems that Vertonghen and Rose, also Alderweireld to a lesser extent, are starting to slow down and lose their effectiveness at 30-32. That's relatively young. How much of that is the result of 4-5 years of extreme training?

Pochettino is not a flexible man. For all his overweening ego, Mourinho is.
Great post. ?
 

newbie

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2004
6,052
6,343
Not yet, but that's at least in part because he has inherited a squad shaped to play a particular way, even if that way has gone a bit off track over the past year.

Many people here (and in the press) have very oversimplified notions of how Mourinho's teams play football, as one can see by some rather brash and dopey posts on this thread. He's not a footballing idealist like Pochettino or AVB, with a theory-based approach leading to an idealised style of play. He's a pragmatic coach and tactician, more reactive than prescriptive, as you said, in the sense that he sets up his team to suit the opposition and the situation. He gets away with this because he has an unusually wide-ranging understanding of how opponents play - and I suspect he also has an unusually clear ability to convey instructions to his players.



I'm not clear how there is a connection being being a tactician and a reactive manager, as opposed to a purist, and requiring more money to deliver results. It's inconsistent with the [unjustified] accusations that his teams play hoof-ball or are otherwise anti-football, because that is more typical of managers who are stuck perpetually at middle-level clubs, e.g., Tony Pulis and Sam Allardyce, where limited tactics are adopted as a substitute for top players.

The purse-strings were pretty tight at Man Utd when Mourinho was there: he didn't get many of the key players he wanted.

I don't have a problem with direct football, as long as it is played with precision, e.g., Alderweireld's weighted aerial balls to Dele, as opposed to whacking the ball in a general upfield direction for a big striker to chase. I enjoy watching robust and organised defensive displays, too. But both need to be part of a toolbox that also includes skilful dribbling, passing and moving, vision and improvisation.

There's an argument that being pragmatic wins you trophies, because your teams can deal with a broader range of challenges, whereas a purist/theorist manager will stick to his principles, even when it means losing way too many semi-finals.

In the 3rd and 4th year of his tenure, Pochettino visibly realised that: we started to sit back and play counter-attacking football when it was needed, especially when Kane was injured. It was part of his development as a manager.



I don't have a problem with his personality. He's acerbic and he doesn't speak in clichés, both of which are big pluses for me.

I don't know whether his approach has been left behind. I also don't know how much his approach has changed in the past few years. We'll just have to wait to find out.

Incidentally, I also don't buy the simplistic line that Pochettino was let down by our lack of player trading over a couple of summers. We had a dauntingly good squad and it was extremely difficult to attract anyone who would strengthen it meaningfully without paying salaries we could not afford, until we were established in a 60k stadium. The only players who should arguably have been replaced, but weren't, were the ones who left - Walker and Dembélé - but Pochettino thought we had a suitable replacement in Trippier and Dembélé is unique, which made him irreplaceable. I think people underestimate how much our best 2-3 seasons were due to Dembélé's influence.

My own theory of what went wrong for Pochettino is that he was unable to adjust to the differing demands of coaching a squad full of older, more experienced players. His combination of extreme control-freak and fatherly confidant works really well with talented 20-year-olds. If you're a player who has been in his team for 4-5 years and you're closer to 30 than 20, you expect to be treated differently and taken more seriously. It's notable that the older player who stayed fiercely loyal to Pochettino was Lloris, who was accorded more respect as captain.

I also think it likely that the rigours of his training methods are great for optimising the development of young players, but lead to wear and tear and exhaustion in older players. Here's a thought: it seems that Vertonghen and Rose, also Alderweireld to a lesser extent, are starting to slow down and lose their effectiveness at 30-32. That's relatively young. How much of that is the result of 4-5 years of extreme training?

Pochettino is not a flexible man. For all his overweening ego, Mourinho is.

the last bit i think you really hit the nail on the head

"My own theory of what went wrong for Pochettino is that he was unable to adjust to the differing demands of coaching a squad full of older, more experienced players. His combination of extreme control-freak and fatherly confidant works really well with talented 20-year-olds. If you're a player who has been in his team for 4-5 years and you're closer to 30 than 20, you expect to be treated differently and taken more seriously. It's notable that the older player who stayed fiercely loyal to Pochettino was Lloris, who was accorded more respect as captain."
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
the last bit i think you really hit the nail on the head

"My own theory of what went wrong for Pochettino is that he was unable to adjust to the differing demands of coaching a squad full of older, more experienced players. His combination of extreme control-freak and fatherly confidant works really well with talented 20-year-olds. If you're a player who has been in his team for 4-5 years and you're closer to 30 than 20, you expect to be treated differently and taken more seriously. It's notable that the older player who stayed fiercely loyal to Pochettino was Lloris, who was accorded more respect as captain."
Thanks: I've been trying to promote that idea here since late last season and I think you're the first person who has picked up on it! Everyone talks about player trading and formations. I suspect the older players started to resent being treated like youngsters and being given rigid orders.
 

newbie

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2004
6,052
6,343
Thanks: I've been trying to promote that idea here since late last season and I think you're the first person who has picked up on it! Everyone talks about player trading and formations. I suspect the older players started to resent being treated like youngsters and being given rigid orders.

i was thinking that before, when I was young we had a manager who was great when we were kids 18-21 not so good when we became men he didnt adapt.


I wonder also if poch burnt out he was 24-7 football!
 
Top