What's new

Jose Mourinho

How do you feel about Mourinho appointment

  • Excited - silverware here we come baby

    Votes: 666 46.7%
  • Meh - will give him a chance and hope he is successful

    Votes: 468 32.8%
  • Horrified - praying for the day he'll fuck off

    Votes: 292 20.5%

  • Total voters
    1,426

Phomesy

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
9,188
14,102
I was just talking about the Bayern result in isolation. It was a freak result in a game we had nothing to lose by chasing. I agree that the Brighton result was dreadful along with plenty of others though.

The Bayern game was also the last dying gasp of what the Pochettino years had brought. For 35 minutes we made Bayern look second rate. Could have been 2 or 3 nil up. Ndombele was pinging it around; Winks was pressing high and causing turnovers; Son was causing all sorts of problems - it was the most breathtaking we'd looked for well over a year.

Then they scored. Then Lewandowski his a brilliant strike. Even then we were in the game at 2-4. Then it all fell apart.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
Thanks for the considered reply.

I’m not assuming what I see on the pitch allows me to know PRECISELY what is being done by coaching staff. Just that it allows me to judge effectiveness. I’ve coached kids at a decent level (including at spurs) so whilst I’m not qualified to speak about the ins and outs of elite level football, I have a decent insight into how coaches think and work. That perhaps does make me remotely qualified.
I'm afraid it really doesnt make you qualified. Managing children and managing adults are worlds apart. What you said is akin to saying that an infant school / kindergarten teacher has insight into what being a university professor is like.

As a youth coach how many press conferences have you held? How many times did you have to report to the chairman? How many times have you had to sit a player down and discuss an adult problem like addiction or mental health problems? How many multi-millionaires have you had to forge into a cohesive unit? How many times have you had to field a side in a stadium filled with tens of thousands of howling opposing fans all slavering for the blood of your team? How many times have you had to deal with having to play 7 games over a period of 20 days?

Are you sure you're qualified?

And so I can say that given months to work with a team you would expect those players to exhibit an identity on the pitch. That identity is lacking at the moment.
Again, opinion, not fact and certainly not evidenced-based fact. If you feel it is then you'll have no trouble telling me precisely what day after a new manager arrives that this purported 'identity' should appear. Day 1? Day 12? After 64.8 hours of training? Does it appear more quickly if the manager's salary is above £14,999,999 per annum? If so, by what factor of time is the increased rapidity of identity implementation achieved? What if there's a bonus structure in place that increases salary after a certain criterion is met?

You see, this is the beauty (from your position) of bandying words and phrases like 'identity' and 'long game' about: they are what my old management consultancy tutor called 'weasel' words, but is also what's termed a 'glittering generality' - something that sounds impressive and informed, and meant to elicit an emotional response, but that in reality means precisely nothing. Define 'identity' for me in such a way as to be universally accepted. You can't. No one can. And the fact that this thing you think should already be in place is so nebulous and undefinable automatically disqualifies it from being a quantifiable performance indicator.

There’s no long term vision for the club being effectively worked on with the squad.
And you know this how? Are you part of Spurs' coaching team? Are you perhaps a relative of one of the coaching staff or players and they have directly told you this?

If there were then that would be evident on the pitch. Because that work would be effective.
I refer you to my previous point: when precisely is that scheduled to happen? If your answer is anything other than 'it depends', then you're being disingenuous.

There’s no real need to overthink this.
That's the refrain of those who cannot backup their argument with facts and only speak in vague terms and use the aforementioned 'glittering generalities'. You see it when someone makes a wild statement and then people scrutinise and the defence of the statement becomes, 'don't overthink it'. By saying don't overthink it, what you're really saying is 'don't analyse what I say too closely'.

But let's say that we indeed shouldn't overthink. By the same token we should just as stringently avoid underthinking - and when you deal with generalities, that's precisely what you're failing to do.

Sure there are reasons why progress might be slow and elements might not yet have started. I fully accept that. But the absence of a well drilled back line (exacerbated by persistant chopping and changing) and few patterns of play in midfield, suggest that the types of things the coaches COULD influence, are not in fact being influenced.
How does that follow? You're saying that because you didn't eat breakfast this morning you got knocked down by a bus in the afternoon. Again, you take something you've observed and drawn a conclusion and then accepted that conclusion as the only explanation. There are myriad explanations that could account for the thing that you believe to be a failing. What if Mourinho doesn't think a settled backline in this instance is desirable, for any of myriad reasons? What if the defenders are so tired they can't work effectively no matter how much they may want to? What if we just have stupid defenders? What if there are still some bad apples among the defenders who are deliberately 'phoning it in' on the pitch? See? I've just given you three viable reasons for the bad outcome you've seen that aren't controllable or immediately fixable by the manager. So why is your assessment the only one that you accept as fitting your conclusion - it's not because it fits with your preconceived idea perchance?

I repeat that you're not qualified to make an assessment, none of us is. If any of us were, we'd be doing it, not talking about it on a forum. Elite football management is a highly lucrative occupation. So how come we're all here talking about it if we're so expert? Or could the reason we're not doing it is that we're not qualified?

It’s possible for people with a better eye than I have to disagree with me - sure. Perhaps we’ve been unlucky defensively and there are the seeds of a good thing. It’s possible that there is a midfield identity on and off the ball forming that I haven’t spotted. These are things we could debate using evidence. That evidence is hardly forthcoming...
The evidence will never be forthcoming. What you observe is not direct evidence, no matter how many matches you watch. The febrility of a game will never give you clear insights into what is happening behind the scenes. Again, you're making demands and apportioning blame because it supports your preconceived view not because you have anything that actually backs up your assertion. Again, 'glittering generalities' designed to appeal to the gut instinct and not reason.

If watching matches qualifies anyone to be a football manager, then why are football chairmen not interviewing their season ticket holders whenever they're in the market for a new manager? Why does UEFA have to license coaches? So the roughly five to six years it takes to to become a pro coach is there just as window dressing is it? I've watched every episode of ER, St. Elsewhere, House and Grey's Anatomy - should I post my CV for being a doctor directly to the hospital I'd like to work in or go via the NHS' centralised process? Or should I just turn up in an Operating Room and say, 'clear the way, this surgeon obviously doesn't know what he's doing, so if you could kindly point me to the sharp slicing implements I'll have this operation sorted in a jiffy'.

For reference, here is what dragon1 said:

« He had one tactic let Davies sit deep and aurier roam, there is zero pattern of play not one player has been coached or improved. »
I can't say it any more clearly - this is ITK. It is the result and subject to hearsay, speculation and the last part is unprovable in any case - what constitutes 'improvement'? And none of the players have been coached? So what, they sit around all day at Hotspur Way scratching their backsides and counting how many Big Macs Tanguy can scoff in 10 minutes (that last was satire btw, not an assertion of fact)? Also, wasn't the aforementioned Ndombele put on a special training regime? Does that not constitute coaching? How's that for 'not one player has been coached'?

With respect, I don’t think you’ve thought carefully about the argument. An assumption I have made is that effective coaching will always be visible on the pitch.
When? When? If this is something so easily quantifiable that you feel you're qualified to judge any manager over it, then you should be able to define it. And if it so easily definable, then you can either provide a specific time for when it should arrive or you can't. If you can, I'd ask you to back that up with evidence, which you can't. And if you can't provide a specific time, then your point is invalidated.

And you said it yourself - you made an assumption. What's to say your assumption is right? What else have you made 'assumptions' over? If you're assuming one thing, then everything you base on that assumption is automatically invalidated in the absence of evidence.

That’s because the key end to which coaching strives is improved match performance. Other factors can frustrate that but a clear coaching vision can be seen very quickly on the pitch, even if it’s imperfect. Klopp, Poch and Guardiolas general plan (much as they evolved and were adapted) became evident very quickly.
It's getting a little exasperating to keep saying this, but you're talking in generalities. There is no definition for the thing you keep mentioning. On what day did Klopp's vision come fully into play? What was the 50% point? Did every player all at once suddenly start delivering that 'vision' at the same time? I keep having to say it (to the point that I'm boring myself with it!) - you're not pointing to anything concrete. Quantify this 'vision' for me, this 'identity'. Put it in measurable terms that I can compare against and which would be universally accepted.

I could flip the question and ask you whether you discern any long term plan OR improved performance over the past 10 weeks.

If not (or very little) why do you think that might be? I fully accept the lack of a #9 will be frustrating efforts but that is a small component of a bigger plan...Coaches at an elite level work on entire team shape on and off the ball and at the moment it is hard to see what the plan is. How will we play when players come back and the plan starts to click?
Flip the question all you like, it's not me that's made any claims or assertions of fact. That's a classic and rather hackneyed evasion technique - essentially you're demanding that I make your argument for you. I've not set any kind of performance criteria for the manager and believe that doing so (if it were even quantifiable) is premature, so why should I validate your opinion which I disagree with?

If you don’t think good coaching/ clear strategy could have made a bigger impact than we are seeing right now, then that is the crux of our disagreement. Fair dos - in the absence of any compelling arguments, I’ll take solace in my experience working with coaches and talking to elite players.
What elite players? You said you've coached youth. Who? In what competition? What competitions have you won? How many times have you won them?

The crux of our disagreement is not that at all. My disagreement with you is that you aren't equipped with the qualifications, experience, knowledge, or history of success (unless you've been hiding your light under an enormous bushel) to be able to judge Mourinho's tenure, most particularly this early in his tenure and that this is just window dressing for indulging your gut instinct that you don't believe he is the right person for the job. The thing of it is, that you have every right to believe that if you wish. But trying to convince others that there's some quantifiable reason for it is disingenuous almost to the point of being specious and spurious at the same time.

For balance, the only coherent argument I’ve heard is that our players were burned out after years under poch. However there are enough players in the squad who spent 12 months or less under poch that this shouldn’t play a huge role in the absence of visible playing strategy.
And once again, it's I-didn't-eat-breakfast-and-so-I-got-hit-by-a-bus-in-the-afternoon. You're trying to apply something quantifiable to something inherently nebulous and trying to present that as fact, when it's nothing but opinion... and uninformed opinion at that.

I agree with all this but it has no bearing on the strategy / coaching players are receiving currently.

As I have said, let’s give Mourinho a preseason. He will work really hard to come up with a plan and put it in place. Things will get better, I’m sure. But that doesn’t negate criticism of the weak leadership currently being shown.

There’s nothing inconsistent with saying that things are bad right now but will improve after a full preseason and some time.
But you're not doing that. You're judging him now. If you believe he should have a preseason, talking about the absence of an 'identity' and other nebulous concepts serves nothing. Either you think he should have a preseason and so you should reserve judgement, or you want to judge him, in which case you don't believe he should have a preseason. Which is it?
 
Last edited:

olliec

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2012
3,574
11,763
I'm afraid it really doesnt make you qualified. Managing children and managing adults are worlds apart. What you said is akin to saying that an infant school / kindergarten teacher has insight into what being a university professor is like.

As a youth coach how many press conferences have you held? How many times did you have to report to the chairman? How many times have you had to sit a player down and discuss an adult problem like addiction or mental health problems? How many multi-millionaires have you had to forge into a cohesive unit? How many times have you had to field a side in a stadium filled with tens of thousands of howling opposing fans all slavering for the blood of your team? How many times have you had to deal with having to play 7 games over a period of 20 days?

Are you sure you're qualified?

Again, opinion, not fact and certainly not evidenced-based fact. If you feel it is then you'll have no trouble telling me precisely what day after a new manager arrives that this purported 'identity' should appear. Day 1? Day 12? After 64.8 hours of training? Does it appear more quickly if the manager's salary is above £14,999,999 per annum? If so, by what factor of time is the increased rapidity of identity implementation achieved? What if there's a bonus structure in place that increase salary after a certain number criteria is met?

You see, this is the beauty (from your position) of bandying words and phrases like 'identity' and 'long game' about: they are what my old management consultancy tutor called 'weasel' words, but is also what's termed a 'glittering generality' - something that sounds impressive and informed, and meant to elicit an emotional response, but that in reality means precisely nothing. Define 'identity' for me in such a way as to be universally accepted. You can't. No one can. And the fact that this thing you think should already be in place is so nebulous and undefinable automatically disqualifies it from being a quantifiable performance indicator.

And you know this how? Are you part of Spurs' coaching team? Are you perhaps a relative of one of the coaching staff or players and they have directly told you this?

I refer you to my previous point: when precisely is that scheduled to happen? If your answer is anything other than 'it depends', then you're being disingenuous.

That's the refrain of those who cannot backup their argument with facts and only speak in vague terms and use the aforementioned 'glittering generalities'. You see it when someone makes a wild statement and then people scrutinise and the defence of the statement becomes, 'don't overthink it'. By saying don't overthink it, what you're really saying is 'don't analyse what I say too closely'.

But let's say that we indeed shouldn't overthink. By the same token we should just as stringently avoid underthinking - and when you deal with generalities, that's precisely what you're failing to do.

How does that follow? You're saying that because you didn't eat breakfast this morning you got knocked down by a bus in the afternoon. Again, you take something you've observed and drawn a conclusion and then accepted that conclusion as the only explanation. There are myriad explanations that could account for the thing that you believe to be a failing. What if Mourinho doesn't think a settled backline in this instance is desirable, for any of myriad reasons? What if the defenders are so tired they can't work effectively no matter how much they may want to? What if we just have stupid defenders? What if there are still some bad apples among the defenders who are deliberately 'phoning it in' on the pitch? See? I've just given you three viable reasons for the bad outcome you've seen that aren't controllable or immediately fixable by the manager. So why is your assessment the only one that you accept as fitting your conclusion - it's not because it fits with your preconceived idea perchance?

I repeat that you're not qualified to make an assessment, none of us is. If any of us were, we'd be doing it, not talking about it on a forum. Elite football management is a highly lucrative occupation. So how come we're all here talking about it if we're so expert? Or could the reason we're not doing it is that we're not qualified?

The evidence will never be forthcoming. What you observe is not direct evidence, no matter how many matches you watch. The febrility of a game will never give you clear insights into what is happening behind the scenes. Again, you're making demands and apportioning blame because it supports your preconceived view not because you have anything that actually backs up your assertion. Again, 'glittering generalities' designed to appeal to the gut instinct and not reason.

If watching matches qualifies anyone to be a football manager, then why are football chairmen not interviewing their season ticket holders whenever they're in the market for a new manager? Why does UEFA have to license coaches? So the roughly five to six years it takes to to become a pro coach is there just as window dressing is it? I've watched every episode of ER, St. Elsewhere, House and Grey's Anatomy - should I post my CV for being a doctor directly to the hospital I'd like to work in or go via the NHS' centralised process? Or should I just turn up in an Operating Room and say, 'clear the way, this surgeon obviously doesn't know what he's doing, so if you could kindly point me to the sharp slicing implements I'll have this operation sorted in a jiffy'.

I can't say it any more clearly - this is ITK. It is the result and subject to hearsay, speculation and the last part is unprovable in any case - what constitutes 'improvement'? And none of the players have been coached? So what, they sit around all day at Hotspur Way scratching their backsides and counting how many Big Macs Tanguy can scoff in 10 minutes (that last was satire btw, not an assertion of fact)? Also, wasn't the aforementioned Ndombele put on a special training regime? Does that not constitute coaching? How's that for 'not one player has been coached'?

When? When? If this is something so easily quantifiable that you feel you're qualified to judge any manager over it, then you should be able to define it. And if it so easily definable, then you can either provide a specific time for when it should arrive or you can't. If you can, I'd ask you to back that up with evidence, which you can't. And if you can't provide a specific time, then your point is invalidated.

And you said it yourself - you made an assumption. What's to say your assumption is right? What else have you made 'assumptions' over? If you're assuming one thing, then everything you base on that assumption is automatically invalidated in the absence of evidence.

It's getting a little exasperating to keep saying this, but you're talking in generalities. There is no definition for the thing you keep mentioning. On what day did Klopp's vision come fully into play? What was the 50% point? Did every player all at once suddenly start delivering that 'vision' at the same time? I keep having to say it (to the point that I'm boring myself with it!) - you're not pointing to anything concrete. Quantify this 'vision' for me, this 'identity'. Put it in measurable terms that I can compare against and which would be universally accepted.

Flip the question all you like, it's not me that's made any claims or assertions of fact. That's a classic and rather hackneyed evasion technique - essentially you're demanding that I make your argument for you. I've not set any kind of performance criteria for the manager and believe that doing so (if it were even quantifiable) is premature, so why should I validate your opinion which I disagree with?

What elite players? You said you've coached youth. Who? In what competition? What competitions have you won? How many times have you won them?

The crux of our disagreement is not that at all. My disagreement with you is that you aren't equipped with the qualifications, experience, knowledge, or history of success (unless you've been hiding your light under an enormous bushel) to be able to judge Mourinho's tenure, most particularly this early in his tenure and that this is just window dressing for indulging your gut instinct that you don't believe he is the right person for the job. The thing of it is, that you have every right to believe that if you wish. But trying to convince others that there's some quantifiable reason for it is disingenuous almost to the point of being specious and spurious at the same time.

And once again, it's I-didn't-eat-breakfast-and-so-I-got-hit-by-a-bus-in-the-afternoon. You're trying to apply something quantifiable to something inherently nebulous and trying to present that as fact, when it's nothing but opinion... and uninformed opinion at that.

But you're not doing that. You're judging him now. If you believe he should have a preseason, talking about the absence of an 'identity' and other nebulous concepts serves nothing. Either you think he should have a preseason and so you should reserve judgement, or you want to judge him, in which case you don't believe he should have a preseason. Which is it?
Blimey! The length!
 

SPURSLIFE

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2011
1,578
2,132
I'm afraid it really doesnt make you qualified. Managing children and managing adults are worlds apart. What you said is akin to saying that an infant school / kindergarten teacher has insight into what being a university professor is like.

As a youth coach how many press conferences have you held? How many times did you have to report to the chairman? How many times have you had to sit a player down and discuss an adult problem like addiction or mental health problems? How many multi-millionaires have you had to forge into a cohesive unit? How many times have you had to field a side in a stadium filled with tens of thousands of howling opposing fans all slavering for the blood of your team? How many times have you had to deal with having to play 7 games over a period of 20 days?

Are you sure you're qualified?

Again, opinion, not fact and certainly not evidenced-based fact. If you feel it is then you'll have no trouble telling me precisely what day after a new manager arrives that this purported 'identity' should appear. Day 1? Day 12? After 64.8 hours of training? Does it appear more quickly if the manager's salary is above £14,999,999 per annum? If so, by what factor of time is the increased rapidity of identity implementation achieved? What if there's a bonus structure in place that increase salary after a certain number criteria is met?

You see, this is the beauty (from your position) of bandying words and phrases like 'identity' and 'long game' about: they are what my old management consultancy tutor called 'weasel' words, but is also what's termed a 'glittering generality' - something that sounds impressive and informed, and meant to elicit an emotional response, but that in reality means precisely nothing. Define 'identity' for me in such a way as to be universally accepted. You can't. No one can. And the fact that this thing you think should already be in place is so nebulous and undefinable automatically disqualifies it from being a quantifiable performance indicator.

And you know this how? Are you part of Spurs' coaching team? Are you perhaps a relative of one of the coaching staff or players and they have directly told you this?

I refer you to my previous point: when precisely is that scheduled to happen? If your answer is anything other than 'it depends', then you're being disingenuous.

That's the refrain of those who cannot backup their argument with facts and only speak in vague terms and use the aforementioned 'glittering generalities'. You see it when someone makes a wild statement and then people scrutinise and the defence of the statement becomes, 'don't overthink it'. By saying don't overthink it, what you're really saying is 'don't analyse what I say too closely'.

But let's say that we indeed shouldn't overthink. By the same token we should just as stringently avoid underthinking - and when you deal with generalities, that's precisely what you're failing to do.

How does that follow? You're saying that because you didn't eat breakfast this morning you got knocked down by a bus in the afternoon. Again, you take something you've observed and drawn a conclusion and then accepted that conclusion as the only explanation. There are myriad explanations that could account for the thing that you believe to be a failing. What if Mourinho doesn't think a settled backline in this instance is desirable, for any of myriad reasons? What if the defenders are so tired they can't work effectively no matter how much they may want to? What if we just have stupid defenders? What if there are still some bad apples among the defenders who are deliberately 'phoning it in' on the pitch? See? I've just given you three viable reasons for the bad outcome you've seen that aren't controllable or immediately fixable by the manager. So why is your assessment the only one that you accept as fitting your conclusion - it's not because it fits with your preconceived idea perchance?

I repeat that you're not qualified to make an assessment, none of us is. If any of us were, we'd be doing it, not talking about it on a forum. Elite football management is a highly lucrative occupation. So how come we're all here talking about it if we're so expert? Or could the reason we're not doing it is that we're not qualified?

The evidence will never be forthcoming. What you observe is not direct evidence, no matter how many matches you watch. The febrility of a game will never give you clear insights into what is happening behind the scenes. Again, you're making demands and apportioning blame because it supports your preconceived view not because you have anything that actually backs up your assertion. Again, 'glittering generalities' designed to appeal to the gut instinct and not reason.

If watching matches qualifies anyone to be a football manager, then why are football chairmen not interviewing their season ticket holders whenever they're in the market for a new manager? Why does UEFA have to license coaches? So the roughly five to six years it takes to to become a pro coach is there just as window dressing is it? I've watched every episode of ER, St. Elsewhere, House and Grey's Anatomy - should I post my CV for being a doctor directly to the hospital I'd like to work in or go via the NHS' centralised process? Or should I just turn up in an Operating Room and say, 'clear the way, this surgeon obviously doesn't know what he's doing, so if you could kindly point me to the sharp slicing implements I'll have this operation sorted in a jiffy'.

I can't say it any more clearly - this is ITK. It is the result and subject to hearsay, speculation and the last part is unprovable in any case - what constitutes 'improvement'? And none of the players have been coached? So what, they sit around all day at Hotspur Way scratching their backsides and counting how many Big Macs Tanguy can scoff in 10 minutes (that last was satire btw, not an assertion of fact)? Also, wasn't the aforementioned Ndombele put on a special training regime? Does that not constitute coaching? How's that for 'not one player has been coached'?

When? When? If this is something so easily quantifiable that you feel you're qualified to judge any manager over it, then you should be able to define it. And if it so easily definable, then you can either provide a specific time for when it should arrive or you can't. If you can, I'd ask you to back that up with evidence, which you can't. And if you can't provide a specific time, then your point is invalidated.

And you said it yourself - you made an assumption. What's to say your assumption is right? What else have you made 'assumptions' over? If you're assuming one thing, then everything you base on that assumption is automatically invalidated in the absence of evidence.

It's getting a little exasperating to keep saying this, but you're talking in generalities. There is no definition for the thing you keep mentioning. On what day did Klopp's vision come fully into play? What was the 50% point? Did every player all at once suddenly start delivering that 'vision' at the same time? I keep having to say it (to the point that I'm boring myself with it!) - you're not pointing to anything concrete. Quantify this 'vision' for me, this 'identity'. Put it in measurable terms that I can compare against and which would be universally accepted.

Flip the question all you like, it's not me that's made any claims or assertions of fact. That's a classic and rather hackneyed evasion technique - essentially you're demanding that I make your argument for you. I've not set any kind of performance criteria for the manager and believe that doing so (if it were even quantifiable) is premature, so why should I validate your opinion which I disagree with?

What elite players? You said you've coached youth. Who? In what competition? What competitions have you won? How many times have you won them?

The crux of our disagreement is not that at all. My disagreement with you is that you aren't equipped with the qualifications, experience, knowledge, or history of success (unless you've been hiding your light under an enormous bushel) to be able to judge Mourinho's tenure, most particularly this early in his tenure and that this is just window dressing for indulging your gut instinct that you don't believe he is the right person for the job. The thing of it is, that you have every right to believe that if you wish. But trying to convince others that there's some quantifiable reason for it is disingenuous almost to the point of being specious and spurious at the same time.

And once again, it's I-didn't-eat-breakfast-and-so-I-got-hit-by-a-bus-in-the-afternoon. You're trying to apply something quantifiable to something inherently nebulous and trying to present that as fact, when it's nothing but opinion... and uninformed opinion at that.

But you're not doing that. You're judging him now. If you believe he should have a preseason, talking about the absence of an 'identity' and other nebulous concepts serves nothing. Either you think he should have a preseason and so you should reserve judgement, or you want to judge him, in which case you don't believe he should have a preseason. Which is it?
What a lot of waffle. At the end of the day we aren't doing very well are we.
 

HedgieSpur

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2020
1,470
4,971
I'm afraid it really doesnt make you qualified. Managing children and managing adults are worlds apart. What you said is akin to saying that an infant school / kindergarten teacher has insight into what being a university professor is like.

As a youth coach how many press conferences have you held? How many times did you have to report to the chairman? How many times have you had to sit a player down and discuss an adult problem like addiction or mental health problems? How many multi-millionaires have you had to forge into a cohesive unit? How many times have you had to field a side in a stadium filled with tens of thousands of howling opposing fans all slavering for the blood of your team? How many times have you had to deal with having to play 7 games over a period of 20 days?

Are you sure you're qualified?

Again, opinion, not fact and certainly not evidenced-based fact. If you feel it is then you'll have no trouble telling me precisely what day after a new manager arrives that this purported 'identity' should appear. Day 1? Day 12? After 64.8 hours of training? Does it appear more quickly if the manager's salary is above £14,999,999 per annum? If so, by what factor of time is the increased rapidity of identity implementation achieved? What if there's a bonus structure in place that increase salary after a certain number criteria is met?

You see, this is the beauty (from your position) of bandying words and phrases like 'identity' and 'long game' about: they are what my old management consultancy tutor called 'weasel' words, but is also what's termed a 'glittering generality' - something that sounds impressive and informed, and meant to elicit an emotional response, but that in reality means precisely nothing. Define 'identity' for me in such a way as to be universally accepted. You can't. No one can. And the fact that this thing you think should already be in place is so nebulous and undefinable automatically disqualifies it from being a quantifiable performance indicator.

And you know this how? Are you part of Spurs' coaching team? Are you perhaps a relative of one of the coaching staff or players and they have directly told you this?

I refer you to my previous point: when precisely is that scheduled to happen? If your answer is anything other than 'it depends', then you're being disingenuous.

That's the refrain of those who cannot backup their argument with facts and only speak in vague terms and use the aforementioned 'glittering generalities'. You see it when someone makes a wild statement and then people scrutinise and the defence of the statement becomes, 'don't overthink it'. By saying don't overthink it, what you're really saying is 'don't analyse what I say too closely'.

But let's say that we indeed shouldn't overthink. By the same token we should just as stringently avoid underthinking - and when you deal with generalities, that's precisely what you're failing to do.

How does that follow? You're saying that because you didn't eat breakfast this morning you got knocked down by a bus in the afternoon. Again, you take something you've observed and drawn a conclusion and then accepted that conclusion as the only explanation. There are myriad explanations that could account for the thing that you believe to be a failing. What if Mourinho doesn't think a settled backline in this instance is desirable, for any of myriad reasons? What if the defenders are so tired they can't work effectively no matter how much they may want to? What if we just have stupid defenders? What if there are still some bad apples among the defenders who are deliberately 'phoning it in' on the pitch? See? I've just given you three viable reasons for the bad outcome you've seen that aren't controllable or immediately fixable by the manager. So why is your assessment the only one that you accept as fitting your conclusion - it's not because it fits with your preconceived idea perchance?

I repeat that you're not qualified to make an assessment, none of us is. If any of us were, we'd be doing it, not talking about it on a forum. Elite football management is a highly lucrative occupation. So how come we're all here talking about it if we're so expert? Or could the reason we're not doing it is that we're not qualified?

The evidence will never be forthcoming. What you observe is not direct evidence, no matter how many matches you watch. The febrility of a game will never give you clear insights into what is happening behind the scenes. Again, you're making demands and apportioning blame because it supports your preconceived view not because you have anything that actually backs up your assertion. Again, 'glittering generalities' designed to appeal to the gut instinct and not reason.

If watching matches qualifies anyone to be a football manager, then why are football chairmen not interviewing their season ticket holders whenever they're in the market for a new manager? Why does UEFA have to license coaches? So the roughly five to six years it takes to to become a pro coach is there just as window dressing is it? I've watched every episode of ER, St. Elsewhere, House and Grey's Anatomy - should I post my CV for being a doctor directly to the hospital I'd like to work in or go via the NHS' centralised process? Or should I just turn up in an Operating Room and say, 'clear the way, this surgeon obviously doesn't know what he's doing, so if you could kindly point me to the sharp slicing implements I'll have this operation sorted in a jiffy'.

I can't say it any more clearly - this is ITK. It is the result and subject to hearsay, speculation and the last part is unprovable in any case - what constitutes 'improvement'? And none of the players have been coached? So what, they sit around all day at Hotspur Way scratching their backsides and counting how many Big Macs Tanguy can scoff in 10 minutes (that last was satire btw, not an assertion of fact)? Also, wasn't the aforementioned Ndombele put on a special training regime? Does that not constitute coaching? How's that for 'not one player has been coached'?

When? When? If this is something so easily quantifiable that you feel you're qualified to judge any manager over it, then you should be able to define it. And if it so easily definable, then you can either provide a specific time for when it should arrive or you can't. If you can, I'd ask you to back that up with evidence, which you can't. And if you can't provide a specific time, then your point is invalidated.

And you said it yourself - you made an assumption. What's to say your assumption is right? What else have you made 'assumptions' over? If you're assuming one thing, then everything you base on that assumption is automatically invalidated in the absence of evidence.

It's getting a little exasperating to keep saying this, but you're talking in generalities. There is no definition for the thing you keep mentioning. On what day did Klopp's vision come fully into play? What was the 50% point? Did every player all at once suddenly start delivering that 'vision' at the same time? I keep having to say it (to the point that I'm boring myself with it!) - you're not pointing to anything concrete. Quantify this 'vision' for me, this 'identity'. Put it in measurable terms that I can compare against and which would be universally accepted.

Flip the question all you like, it's not me that's made any claims or assertions of fact. That's a classic and rather hackneyed evasion technique - essentially you're demanding that I make your argument for you. I've not set any kind of performance criteria for the manager and believe that doing so (if it were even quantifiable) is premature, so why should I validate your opinion which I disagree with?

What elite players? You said you've coached youth. Who? In what competition? What competitions have you won? How many times have you won them?

The crux of our disagreement is not that at all. My disagreement with you is that you aren't equipped with the qualifications, experience, knowledge, or history of success (unless you've been hiding your light under an enormous bushel) to be able to judge Mourinho's tenure, most particularly this early in his tenure and that this is just window dressing for indulging your gut instinct that you don't believe he is the right person for the job. The thing of it is, that you have every right to believe that if you wish. But trying to convince others that there's some quantifiable reason for it is disingenuous almost to the point of being specious and spurious at the same time.

And once again, it's I-didn't-eat-breakfast-and-so-I-got-hit-by-a-bus-in-the-afternoon. You're trying to apply something quantifiable to something inherently nebulous and trying to present that as fact, when it's nothing but opinion... and uninformed opinion at that.

But you're not doing that. You're judging him now. If you believe he should have a preseason, talking about the absence of an 'identity' and other nebulous concepts serves nothing. Either you think he should have a preseason and so you should reserve judgement, or you want to judge him, in which case you don't believe he should have a preseason. Which is it?

In your quest to prove a point, you're coming across rather smug and sanctimonious imo. The guy simply said in his opinion he'd expect us to play with an identity. Just say "I disagree" and live and let live ffs.
 

-Afri-Coy-

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2012
5,838
18,570
In your quest to prove a point, you're coming across rather smug and sanctimonious imo. The guy simply said in his opinion he'd expect us to play with an identity. Just say "I disagree" and live and let live ffs.

We don't have time or a place for simple replies here, we need to debate at length. :ROFLMAO:
 

SpunkyBackpack

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2005
7,831
9,372
Day 4-

Debate has now shifted to whether running a nursery is sufficient qualification for managerial critique and the length of posts has both increased and decreased markedly. Accusations of smugness have found their way into the conversation and even at this early stage i fear the quality of discourse is only going to degrade. Spirits are ok and i remain hopeful that things can still take a positive turn. I have many toilet rolls to keep me sane.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
In your quest to prove a point, you're coming across rather smug and sanctimonious imo. The guy simply said in his opinion he'd expect us to play with an identity. Just say "I disagree" and live and let live ffs.
With respect (and with due respect to @LeParisien ) he namechecked me in a discussion that I wasn't really engaged with. I was responding to a lengthy post in which multiple points were raised and with which I disagreed. What you've done is inferred the tone, when in actuality, myself and LeParisien agree on many other things - we just happen to disagree on this one.

And ultimately, this is a discussion forum. Saying 'I disagree' is not a discussion.

Just want to say I've really enjoyed locking horns with you on this @LeParisien
 

Ionman34

SC Supporter
Jun 1, 2011
7,182
16,793
With respect (and with due respect to @LeParisien ) he namechecked me in a discussion that I wasn't really engaged with. I was responding to a lengthy post in which multiple points were raised and with which I disagreed. What you've done is inferred the tone, when in actuality, myself and LeParisien agree on many other things - we just happen to disagree on this one.

And ultimately, this is a discussion forum. Saying 'I disagree' is not a discussion.

Just want to say I've really enjoyed locking horns with you on this @LeParisien
I've actually quite enjoyed reading it. It's rather nice to read an argument where each side is presented eloquently and respectfully.

And before anyone picks me up on it, an argument is two people expressing differing views, as opposed to a fight.

Healthy argument is a good thing.
 

shelfboy68

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2008
14,566
19,651
Us not letting Poch go to Man Utd I suspect. He sulked and it went to shit. It's the only thing that works time wise
Maybe mate I can't remember when all that talk started but doubt he will get the job now seeing as Olly is starting to slowly get it together.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,646
93,314
Maybe mate I can't remember when all that talk started but doubt he will get the job now seeing as Olly is starting to slowly get it together.
Probably around the time he was meeting Utd officials in service stations.
 
Top