Playing 'the right way' has made football fans spoilt and entitled.

[Trix]

That’s true that wage spend is more important. Though I would say net spend absolutely has a place. By wages Liverpool have also overachieved. So have we mind, massively so actually. Under Poch as well.

Monaco are another club who won a league playing attacking football without massive finances, in fact their win came as they were selling off assets left right and centre.

The point is I don’t think Danny’s statement is less relevant today than it was then. In fact back then defensive clubs were much more common at the top.

Football tactical trends promote attacking play of big clubs asthe division in wealth means that more teams are pushed to defend in those games as survival is also predicated on how many games you don’t lose not win. Attacking sides in recent decades are not attacking because of style or principle but because it works better when you are facing so many teams happy to sit deep.

Mourinho makes almost a personal point of going against that trend and is one of the best managers in the world at that. We are lucky to have that, but there are concerns, though at the moment very small and he has always drawn a little too many games. Mind I’m more than happy with him.

I just do think one could win a league playing offensive football and be of our stature. I also believe that it is a close to impossible task regardless of the style we play.If we do it winning offensive or defensive football it would be an incredible achievement and rank there behind the Porto champions league and probably on Par with the inter success.

Thing is you are quoting leagues that only really have one financial power house to contend with. In the Prem there are 4 and up until recently 5 teams far superior financially contend with. It is almost impossible as is, without trying to go toe to toe with them in an attractive footballing sense. It's the same in Spain where Athletico are keeping up with the but having to play a different way to do so.

 

[SandroClegane]

On one hand, people now expect us to win every single game like it's our god given right. On the other hand, if we don't or we don't look good doing it you'd think we were on the brink of a relegation battle.

All while we're 14-6-2 across all competitions this year.

I'm not complaining whatsoever. Have we dropped a few points I wish we picked up? Sure. But to be alive in all competitions and top of the league on December 12th? How are people actually upset?

 

[IamSpurtacus]

'Football is about winning games. End of.'

I'm afraid you misquote Danny Blanchflower.
It is about 'winning' but in style and with a flourish.

"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning.
It is nothing of the kind.
The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish,
about going out & beating the other lot,
not waiting for them to die of boredom"

If we can't have both I suppose we'll settle for winning.
But it's unrealistic to expect to win every game however you play.
It's not a choice,( play well lose/ play poorly, win.
it's a false dichotomy.
No team ever won anything playing poorly over a period of time.
Counter-attacking football is not intrinsically dull.
Kane, Son, Bale eventually, N'dombele, Lo Celso, Moura, Reguilón and Bergwijn
are exciting to watch and good defending is very satisfying.
But we relaxed our grip against Palace and paid the price.
We are not making full use of our assembled talents.

Blanchflower won many honours including the Double.
so he knows whereof he speaks.

The more relevant quote is from Billy Nic “If you don’t win anything, you have had a bad season.”

people always reference the “Glory” quote - it’s emblazoned all over the clubs stadium even

but Bill cared most about winning...and that trumps style

 

[TheSpillage]

The problem with attempting to bring logic into any of this is: it’s football innit.

Logically, we would’ve all bitten Jose’s hand off if we’d known after Everton that we’d be sitting top of the league at this stage. But then stuff happens and we realise that we could’ve been 6 points clear if we’d done this or that differently. And some of us get teary-eyed that we’re no longer playing the ‘Spurs way’.

And that’s why football is fun: because logic goes out the window, we strap ourselves in, care way too much, talk a load of bollocks and love every nauseating minute of it.

Rational thought is boring: it’s football innit.

 

[C0YS]

Thing is you are quoting leagues that only really have one financial power house to contend with. In the Prem there are 4 and up until recently 5 teams far superior financially contend with. It is almost impossible as is, without trying to go toe to toe with them in an attractive footballing sense. It's the same in Spain where Athletico are keeping up with the but having to play a different way to do so.

Atletico interestingly are transitioning from being ultra defensive into a much more attacking style. And it's helping them turn draws into wins. Now the point is you asked me that, but then limit it. But the reality is only very few teams have won leagues playing any sort of style without being a financial powerhouse. Defensive teams? Atletico, for sure. Leicester? Maybe but I'm not sure. They conceded a lot of goals, but benefited greatly from teams being open against them. In any case, it's hard to establish a pattern that defensive teams are the only way to win competitive leagues.

In terms of teams that overachieve, that break into the CL for example, the pattern is very different. The Roma and Naopli teams that overachieved in Italy were very attacking, and Atalanta are so now. In Spain it's a bit of a rotating door, but current La Liga leaders, Real Sociedad are an incredibly attacking outfit, not predicated on good defence. There are examples of more defensive teams I'm sure. But it's not that simple.

Now Mourinho is exceptional at what he does. If he transformed into an attacking coach he probably wouldn't be so good. He has never set a team in that way, and isn't inspired by Bielsa or whatever. He knows how to outthink opponents and get the most out of his players. That's great, it's what he does well. But he is an elite manager doing that, and I don't think there is an available attacking version available to us, that would have come. But his success doesn't come from being defensive, it comes from being very good at managing. If defensive teams won titles or could go further for, lets say, upper-middling clubs you would see a lot more of it. You don't. There are only two elite level managers who play defensive football. Simone and Mourinho

Some would say Conte and Allegri, but frankly this is more of an Italian stereotype, both were noticed as attacking managers in unfashionable teams. Conte developed from that into a team based on movement and attacking from deep diagonal balls, but still a possession team. And Allegri developed from a moderately offensive manager into one who would change game plans game by game depending on the opposition and context, for me Allegri is the best reactive manager out there, particularly in in-game scenarios but maybe not so good at setting up his team from the beginning. He is often criticised for lacking identity. You could argue this is defensive, but in a different way than Jose and Simone, who base their teams around solidity first and foremost.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

There's no style points in football. Just don't settle early on for a one goal lead just to give the win away towards the end of the game due to stupid errors and drop in concentration.
That's all.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Just wonder what today's Spurs fans with social (moaning) media would have made of this season under Billy Nicholson 1964/65

Tottenham Hotspur match record: 1965

Tottenham Hotspur football club complete match record by season: 1965

www.11v11.com

Away form , 21 games in those days , 1 win , 4 draws , 16 defeats , on the plus side we were unbeaten at home , away form was awful and we had J P Greaves up front.

 

[Kirito]

'Football is about winning games. End of.'

I'm afraid you misquote Danny Blanchflower.
It is about 'winning' but in style and with a flourish.

"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning.
It is nothing of the kind.
The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish,
about going out & beating the other lot,
not waiting for them to die of boredom"

If we can't have both I suppose we'll settle for winning.
But it's unrealistic to expect to win every game however you play.
It's not a choice,( play well lose/ play poorly, win.
it's a false dichotomy.
No team ever won anything playing poorly over a period of time.
Counter-attacking football is not intrinsically dull.
Kane, Son, Bale eventually, N'dombele, Lo Celso, Moura, Reguilón and Bergwijn
are exciting to watch and good defending is very satisfying.
But we relaxed our grip against Palace and paid the price.
We are not making full use of our assembled talents.

Blanchflower won many honours including the Double.
so he knows whereof he speaks.

The game has evolved a bit since his time

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

If you'd like to watch a sport with style points, there are many winter sports to pick from. If you'd want to watch a team sport but with a good sense of style being essential, then maybe curling is for you:

 

[rez9000]

Thing is you are quoting leagues that only really have one financial power house to contend with. In the Prem there are 4 and up until recently 5 teams far superior financially contend with. It is almost impossible as is, without trying to go toe to toe with them in an attractive footballing sense. It's the same in Spain where Athletico are keeping up with the but having to play a different way to do so.

There was something I saw in an Athletic (I think) article some time back that said that the actual transfer cost of players is of secondary importance to clubs and that it's the wages that are the prime consideration when purchasing players. Is that accurate, Trix?