SPURS ARE A TRAGIC FOOTBALL CLUB - Farsical piece on Vice

[SlunkSoma]

I may not agree with it, but it's a pretty fair representation if you were being cynical about us.

The same sentiment is attempted here, and yet never quite nailed. There is also lot of truth in this, regardless of the publication it appears in.

For the record I don't read Vice

 

[rich75]

Decent article, entertaining, somewhat tongue in cheek and with a pretty high degree if truth in it. Not everything that points out our failings is automatically shit or written by an arsenal obsessed hack.

 

[jambreck]

It's an entertaining read actually, if you can be bothered to pull your head out of your own Spurs arse for a second. There are uncomfortable truths in there unfortunately.

That nice line about "selling Elvis and buying the Beatles" is put into perspective - when you consider the midfield we had a couple of years ago, Elvis was playing with the Beatles in our colours!

It's mildly entertaining.

But ultimately, to plagiarise Bill Shakespeare, it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

He took 14 paragraphs of increasingly forced metaphors to decide that 13 games is enough to pronounce judgement on 7 young players who are completely new to English football. Which is obviously an idiotic thing to do.

In the process, he also managed to come to the truly bewildering conclusion that Daniel Levy has taken Spurs nowhere. Idiot status confirmed.

 

[StartingPrice]

It's an entertaining read actually, if you can be bothered to pull your head out of your own Spurs arse for a second. There are uncomfortable truths in there unfortunately.

That nice line about "selling Elvis and buying the Beatles" is put into perspective - when you consider the midfield we had a couple of years ago, Elvis was playing with the Beatles in our colours!

Let me get this straight: You are comparing the very best games (lets not pretend that even the Modric run teams didn't serve up some dross games) of a gelled, settled and close to peak midfield to Sandro and Dembélé returning from injury, Paulinho and Capoue new, and Capoue injured early on, Townsend returning from loan, and a youngling, Lennon returning from injury (and only having had a couple of games), Chadli and Lamela being new, and Chadli injured (and getting unfair grief), Ericksen new, and Holtby relatively new and both striplings (and both injured for part of this season already), not gelled, not settled and nowhere near peak, as though that comparison has any logical legitimacy outside of the agenda driven World? Get outta here

Oh, and don't do it as though we chose to swap one midfield for another. We didn't. Modric and Bale wanted to leave and actively worked to do so. The reports on VDV are mixed, but most assert that he was keen to leave. And if you are including Scot Parker in that line-up, he is past his peak, as we saw last year and would have been no matter who the manager/head-coach is.

 

[Gb160]

It's mildly entertaining.

But ultimately, to plagiarise Bill Shakespeare, it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

He took 14 paragraphs of increasingly forced metaphors to decide that 13 games is enough to pronounce judgement on 7 young players who are completely new to English football. Which is obviously an idiotic thing to do.

In the process, he also managed to come to the truly bewildering conclusion that Daniel Levy has taken Spurs nowhere. Idiot status confirmed.

Sums it up perfectly.

 

[DiscoD1882]

All this post says to me is





Look at me. I'm a massive Dick. however I have a cool (I think so anyway) beard. And an Apple Mac. I'm currently writing this article in Starbucks. Because that's cool too. But really the only reason there is because I am homeless and have to sleep on my mates bedsit floor in amongst the cornflakes and spliff butts. But it's ok because I have a literacy degree. Sometimes I eat the cornflakes that have escaped to the floor. Sometimes I gather up the spliff butts and roll them into a skinny one. Tastes awful. But it's cool right? And all the while. I'm thinking about cool witty put downs. Mainly about spurs. A lot of the time though I forget what I have written and it all reads exactly the same. But that's cool right? One day I'll get my own bedsit and get an internet connection. Then I won't have to spend my dole money in expensive coffee shops. Just so I can keep warm and write cool stuff.

 

[Gassin's finest]

I've taken the time to read it through now and I'm sorry to say it's pretty bob on.

 

[Hoddtastic72]

Quite a decent article I thought.

 

[StartingPrice]

I've taken the time to read it through now and I'm sorry to say it's pretty bob on.

Inspired by your post, I have now taken the time to read that drivel, too, and I would have to say, I couldn't disagree with you more.
He is nowhere near spot-on, it is absolute drivel.

Oh, so in a fancy-dan kinda way he has managed to notice that the squad isn't completely gelled yet - but horribly overplayed it with filled out tripe about 8 different squads and ensemble movies (twat). The club is not a trajedy because we are gelling a virtually new squad together - and maybe someone should point out that under these circumstances being a few points off second and in all the cup competitions is not tragic.

In regard to the claim that (inferred) that we have swapped a Beatles midfield with Elvis in it, for, what, utter dross, please see my response to jolsnogross, above.

Next, we come to this ludicrous claim, that I have seen a few times, now, that we bought too many players. What utter nonsense: we had the money, we are improved or replaced in all those positions. Should we have not improved or replaced just because it would involve a gelling period (during which, I repeat, we are a few points off second and in all the cup competitions)? Should we have only replaced Bale - probably unsuccessfully, and most likely with a player who would have needed to gel because it is hard to convince genuine top level performers at their peak to join a club not in the CL? Nonsense. Should we have not bought Capoue, but retained Livermore as cover for Sandro? Yeah, I bet you would have moaned about that. Should we have not bought Chiriches, but retained Gallas as cover? What utter utter drivel.

He then returns to the Asren*l bi-polar hysteria high (the one that switched from calling out a lynching party for Whinger to queuing up to give him a Shiatsu and a blowie). Hey, yeah, he signed Ozil. And Ramsay has hit a purple patch at the start of the season (I can remember Defoe hitting a purple patch at the start of last season). But has it really papered over the cracks in their squad? Only time will tell that - and that is exactly what this article is not doing. It is comparing a settled, gelled Arsen*l side who have hit a purple patch, but one that a look at the fixtures list would suggest is about to be sorely tested, and have not had to face any real injury problems in the parts of their squad where they are thin, against a young squad (essentially we have sixteen players, mostly young, who have had little time playing under AVB and playing together) and what? He spotted that our lot are not as coherent, that they are still gelling? Wow, genius - perhaps he should write for VICE. Don't get me wrong, the Goons have surprised me and they have played some good stuff (which was not the case in the last 8 games of last season, where they had a great run, but played quite poorly), but the caution would dictate that the jury should still be out on them. And, what? They bought one established player close to his peak, who has pretty integrated into the team well and quickly, so that means we should have only bought one player? Well, as pointed out, not being in the CL means it is harder for us to attract that type of player. Does it mean that all our players. who we should be waiting to judge, are unmitigated, cast-iron, for all time flops? Get outta here - that is a ludicrous suggestion. Here's an idea, wait until the start of next season (or, better still, the end) and them tell me how many of our seven Summer purchases are poor players, because that is the time to judge them.

Did Daniel Levy really spend the Summer swooping on the transfer market because he was emboldened by praise? Sorry, but I think that is the most idiotic non-sequitor I have ever heard! I would imagine that the signings were planned, pretty much, in order to strengthen the squad to mitigate against the loss of Bale. I really find it difficult in the extreme to believe that Levy, on a whim, bought Paulinho and because the press applauded decided to buy Chadli (was it) and then because he got more applause stumbled onto capoue and Soldado, and then drunk with applause staggered on to a last spunking of Ericksen, Lamela and Chiriches - a crescendo that would have included Willian if good fiend Roman hadn't saved him from making even more of a twat of himself! Sorry, but it is just plain old fashioned undiluted BS to suggest that the fact that our new signings haven't gelled as fast as no-one in any sane and logical frame of mind would have expected them to, and therefore the Goons Summer business was better and we didn't have a coherent plan in our buying. it proves nothing other than that when you have an essentially new squad it takes time to gel /of!

Did we go for quantity over quantity? Well, er, no - that is just another puerile non-sequitor based on a myopic eye seeing a false connection between buying a lot of players and a young and essentially new squad failing to gel as fast as some ill-conceived opinions believe they should have. Wait and see if the quality is there, eh!

Ah, Soldado - now we get to the crux of it. Apart from being a player in a new country and a new and very different league with those behind him needing to gel being a pretty substantial explanation as to why he has followed many a striker in not settling as fast as we would like (though I would suggest that the composure with which he took his penalties suggests he really is lethal in front of goal), I also saw a very interesting article yesterday, which suggests that Soldado just naturally starts seasons pretty slowly - backed up by stats. Amazingly, even in his last prolific season at Valencia the start to his season, statistically, wasn't that different to his start to this. On top of which, in the first three games Holtby was injured and Ericksen hadn't signed, meaning he played them without any natural creative player behind him. More ill-conceived and over-hasty BS.

Now the next bit it just bile. How are we a club where mediocrity rises to the top, while talent fizzles? Does that mean that Real Madrid just paid £120 million for mediocrity and the real talent ahs been wasted? Get outta here! Again with the wishing to writ the season as it stands now, while we are still gelling so that a previous and unsubstantiated conclusion that we are a Defoe club and not a Soldado club can appear to have some foundation in reality. Ditto the assertion that AVB can't take the club any further than Redknapp - how about waiting until the end of this season, or better still, next, which is what is warranted for a project with a new and young squad, rather than making that conclusion now while they are still gelling!

The claim that we have spent nearly £400 million has already been effectively dealt with, above, Jambreck I believe. In a World where the top clubs have hefty net spends every season we have spent comparatively little. And what relation does that have to judging our team far too hastily. In case you are confused, it has none, none whatsoever. If we were talking poker we would be saying we had lost nearly £400 million, would we, we would say we had lost what we put down on the table in the first place, before adding and then losing winnings...and we wouldn't even be saying we had lost until Hatchet Harry said he was gonna break our legs unless we paid the money we owed him. And geuss what...we don't owe Hatchet Harry any money!

Levy hasn't not got anywhere - again, I believe this has been answered pretty effectively, above - he has taken a club that was mid-table and made us challengers for the top 4 (and finished there twice, yes TWICE in the last four season, and last year accumulating a record points total for ourselves and a fifth finishing team), while steadily improving the squad, the youth squad and set-up, the infrastructure (including the state-of-the-art training centre in Europe - I believe), the financial health of the club, the global brand recognition, with work begun on a new stadium, and all that while having to compete with Citeh winning the lottery. Hell, I have read quotes by other club's fans stating as plain as day that we are the ultimate victims of the oil clubs, and yet no mention of this and how it has effected us, in this thin as a piece of French toast article!

Next a piece parroting the by now infamous argument that AVB failed at Chelsea (like the club has been a paragon of managerial longevity under Abrahmovich) due only to his own short-comings - and chucking in what I personally believe to be at the heart of the anti-AVB bile, that he never played at any serious level in the game, for good measure - and then continuing to talk as though the season is already over. And, er no, as hos been repeated several million times, BAE never said he didn't give a shit about football, that was the misleading headlines the media chose to spin out of what he said. So there's ill-conceived BS.

He then returns to his favourite theme - that Whinger can feel smug because he's trumped us because they have already won the title (in his head).

He concludes that, of course, as I have pointed out several times above, he is shooting his wad way too early somewhat, with some more pretentious BS about narrative arc and familiar stories of failure, false dawns and expensive disappointment - only we haven't failed yet, I must have blinked when going from mid-table to serious challengers for the top 4, including finishing in the top 4 twice in four years, was a false dawn. And actually, comparatively, win lose or draw it hasn't been done that expensively.

What was it someone said about sound and fury signifying nothing, a story told by an idiot indeed.

Sorry, Gassin, I like you, I really do, but that is the biggest pile of hocus a body could choose to write. It plays upon all the fears and irrational negativity to sound like it has some point other than self-important wizadry, devoid of any coherent reason. I wouldn't even put it on my in case the toilet paper runs out pile.

 

[StartingPrice]

Our footballing landscape between 1990 and 2007 is a massive incredibly arid desert with a Nayim lobbing Seaman oasis somewhere in the middle.

Man, I am soooooo glad you didn't typo that

 

[ItsBoris]

Mostly drivel but I thought it was entertaining. More of an over-exaggeration of our current predicament.

 

[jonnyp]

Some of it clearly is hyperbole in that article but there's a lot of truth in it too with regard to us paying a lot of money for good but not great players. But they obviously don't understand why this is happening or why we're in the position we are.

A lot of it has to do with us not being a regular top 4 and CL club and therefore just can't compete in the transfer market. We have to pay outrageous sums for players who most often are not top 4 quality unfortunately or buy youngsters and hope they do become that good. Sadly, it doesn't take long until a big club comes along and snatches them if they do. That's the way modern football works. It's set up to keep the successful clubs successful and everyone else are just feeder clubs. It's been destroying football for a long time.

Some of the blame for our poor play has to be put on AVB's poor man management by freezing out Ade and BAE because they were acting unprofessional in Hong Kong. The club should've fined them, like all other clubs would have done and that would've been it. We'd most likely not be having to play Verthongen at left back in Rose's absence then and we could have had a much better option up front with a real target man when Soldado just wasn't having a good game (which has been basically every game this season).

AVBs lack of attacking tactics is another serious issue. We're not direct, we don't move enough, there just doesn't seem to be a plan or any attacking patterns. When I watch the top clubs they all seem to move and pass much more fluidly and faster than us and they seem to have a plan every time they move the ball around in the final third - we just look static and clueless.

 

[jolsnogross]

Let me get this straight: You are comparing the very best games (lets not pretend that even the Modric run teams didn't serve up some dross games) of a gelled, settled and close to peak midfield to Sandro and Dembélé returning from injury, Paulinho and Capoue new, and Capoue injured early on, Townsend returning from loan, and a youngling, Lennon returning from injury (and only having had a couple of games), Chadli and Lamela being new, and Chadli injured (and getting unfair grief), Ericksen new, and Holtby relatively new and both striplings (and both injured for part of this season already), not gelled, not settled and nowhere near peak, as though that comparison has any logical legitimacy outside of the agenda driven World? Get outta here

Oh, and don't do it as though we chose to swap one midfield for another. We didn't. Modric and Bale wanted to leave and actively worked to do so. The reports on VDV are mixed, but most assert that he was keen to leave. And if you are including Scot Parker in that line-up, he is past his peak, as we saw last year and would have been no matter who the manager/head-coach is.

Take a day off. It was an amusingly sarcastic write up about Spurs from an outsider. You can add all the caveats you want, but the midfield five we had were brilliant to watch and if the current crop get near that, let alone surpass it, we'll all be happy. But as of now, it's fair to say the five midfielders mentioned from our side of a short 2 years ago were better than the crew we have now. There are all sorts of reasons for that and why we don't have the same players, but it's still true.

I especially liked the bit about how the three that are gone would stroll into this side now, and that we have a lovely depth of decent "nobodies". Of course, they may break through eventually, but as of now we are depauperate compared to a short while ago. Holtby, Sigurdsson, and Eriksen...meh so far. There's potential there, but will any of them reach VdV's level? Sandro, Capuoe, Paulinho....should any of them be playing with each other given how similar they are? And maybe AVB should trust footballers a bit more rather than trying to out-athlete the opposition?

And clearly, this amusing article touched a nerve with you given your long retorts, which makes the sarcasm/wit a touch more amusing. It was written for you, you might say. You don't have to agree with all of it to say that it's hit some nails on the head and sometimes the truth hurts, but there's still some hope of getting back to our top 4 pomp and maybe even surpassing it.

 

[Gassin's finest]

Inspired by your post, I have now taken the time to read that drivel, too, and I would have to say, I couldn't disagree with you more.
He is nowhere near spot-on, it is absolute drivel.

Oh, so in a fancy-dan kinda way he has managed to notice that the squad isn't completely gelled yet - but horribly overplayed it with filled out tripe about 8 different squads and ensemble movies (twat). The club is not a trajedy because we are gelling a virtually new squad together - and maybe someone should point out that under these circumstances being a few points off second and in all the cup competitions is not tragic.

In regard to the claim that (inferred) that we have swapped a Beatles midfield with Elvis in it, for, what, utter dross, please see my response to jolsnogross, above.

Next, we come to this ludicrous claim, that I have seen a few times, now, that we bought too many players. What utter nonsense: we had the money, we are improved or replaced in all those positions. Should we have not improved or replaced just because it would involve a gelling period (during which, I repeat, we are a few points off second and in all the cup competitions)? Should we have only replaced Bale - probably unsuccessfully, and most likely with a player who would have needed to gel because it is hard to convince genuine top level performers at their peak to join a club not in the CL? Nonsense. Should we have not bought Capoue, but retained Livermore as cover for Sandro? Yeah, I bet you would have moaned about that. Should we have not bought Chiriches, but retained Gallas as cover? What utter utter drivel.

He then returns to the Asren*l bi-polar hysteria high (the one that switched from calling out a lynching party for Whinger to queuing up to give him a Shiatsu and a blowie). Hey, yeah, he signed Ozil. And Ramsay has hit a purple patch at the start of the season (I can remember Defoe hitting a purple patch at the start of last season). But has it really papered over the cracks in their squad? Only time will tell that - and that is exactly what this article is not doing. It is comparing a settled, gelled Arsen*l side who have hit a purple patch, but one that a look at the fixtures list would suggest is about to be sorely tested, and have not had to face any real injury problems in the parts of their squad where they are thin, against a young squad (essentially we have sixteen players, mostly young, who have had little time playing under AVB and playing together) and what? He spotted that our lot are not as coherent, that they are still gelling? Wow, genius - perhaps he should write for VICE. Don't get me wrong, the Goons have surprised me and they have played some good stuff (which was not the case in the last 8 games of last season, where they had a great run, but played quite poorly), but the caution would dictate that the jury should still be out on them. And, what? They bought one established player close to his peak, who has pretty integrated into the team well and quickly, so that means we should have only bought one player? Well, as pointed out, not being in the CL means it is harder for us to attract that type of player. Does it mean that all our players. who we should be waiting to judge, are unmitigated, cast-iron, for all time flops? Get outta here - that is a ludicrous suggestion. Here's an idea, wait until the start of next season (or, better still, the end) and them tell me how many of our seven Summer purchases are poor players, because that is the time to judge them.

Did Daniel Levy really spend the Summer swooping on the transfer market because he was emboldened by praise? Sorry, but I think that is the most idiotic non-sequitor I have ever heard! I would imagine that the signings were planned, pretty much, in order to strengthen the squad to mitigate against the loss of Bale. I really find it difficult in the extreme to believe that Levy, on a whim, bought Paulinho and because the press applauded decided to buy Chadli (was it) and then because he got more applause stumbled onto capoue and Soldado, and then drunk with applause staggered on to a last spunking of Ericksen, Lamela and Chiriches - a crescendo that would have included Willian if good fiend Roman hadn't saved him from making even more of a twat of himself! Sorry, but it is just plain old fashioned undiluted BS to suggest that the fact that our new signings haven't gelled as fast as no-one in any sane and logical frame of mind would have expected them to, and therefore the Goons Summer business was better and we didn't have a coherent plan in our buying. it proves nothing other than that when you have an essentially new squad it takes time to gel /of!

Did we go for quantity over quantity? Well, er, no - that is just another puerile non-sequitor based on a myopic eye seeing a false connection between buying a lot of players and a young and essentially new squad failing to gel as fast as some ill-conceived opinions believe they should have. Wait and see if the quality is there, eh!

Ah, Soldado - now we get to the crux of it. Apart from being a player in a new country and a new and very different league with those behind him needing to gel being a pretty substantial explanation as to why he has followed many a striker in not settling as fast as we would like (though I would suggest that the composure with which he took his penalties suggests he really is lethal in front of goal), I also saw a very interesting article yesterday, which suggests that Soldado just naturally starts seasons pretty slowly - backed up by stats. Amazingly, even in his last prolific season at Valencia the start to his season, statistically, wasn't that different to his start to this. On top of which, in the first three games Holtby was injured and Ericksen hadn't signed, meaning he played them without any natural creative player behind him. More ill-conceived and over-hasty BS.

Now the next bit it just bile. How are we a club where mediocrity rises to the top, while talent fizzles? Does that mean that Real Madrid just paid £120 million for mediocrity and the real talent ahs been wasted? Get outta here! Again with the wishing to writ the season as it stands now, while we are still gelling so that a previous and unsubstantiated conclusion that we are a Defoe club and not a Soldado club can appear to have some foundation in reality. Ditto the assertion that AVB can't take the club any further than Redknapp - how about waiting until the end of this season, or better still, next, which is what is warranted for a project with a new and young squad, rather than making that conclusion now while they are still gelling!

The claim that we have spent nearly £400 million has already been effectively dealt with, above, Jambreck I believe. In a World where the top clubs have hefty net spends every season we have spent comparatively little. And what relation does that have to judging our team far too hastily. In case you are confused, it has none, none whatsoever. If we were talking poker we would be saying we had lost nearly £400 million, would we, we would say we had lost what we put down on the table in the first place, before adding and then losing winnings...and we wouldn't even be saying we had lost until Hatchet Harry said he was gonna break our legs unless we paid the money we owed him. And geuss what...we don't owe Hatchet Harry any money!

Levy hasn't not got anywhere - again, I believe this has been answered pretty effectively, above - he has taken a club that was mid-table and made us challengers for the top 4 (and finished there twice, yes TWICE in the last four season, and last year accumulating a record points total for ourselves and a fifth finishing team), while steadily improving the squad, the youth squad and set-up, the infrastructure (including the state-of-the-art training centre in Europe - I believe), the financial health of the club, the global brand recognition, with work begun on a new stadium, and all that while having to compete with Citeh winning the lottery. Hell, I have read quotes by other club's fans stating as plain as day that we are the ultimate victims of the oil clubs, and yet no mention of this and how it has effected us, in this thin as a piece of French toast article!

Next a piece parroting the by now infamous argument that AVB failed at Chelsea (like the club has been a paragon of managerial longevity under Abrahmovich) due only to his own short-comings - and chucking in what I personally believe to be at the heart of the anti-AVB bile, that he never played at any serious level in the game, for good measure - and then continuing to talk as though the season is already over. And, er no, as hos been repeated several million times, BAE never said he didn't give a shit about football, that was the misleading headlines the media chose to spin out of what he said. So there's ill-conceived BS.

He then returns to his favourite theme - that Whinger can feel smug because he's trumped us because they have already won the title (in his head).

He concludes that, of course, as I have pointed out several times above, he is shooting his wad way too early somewhat, with some more pretentious BS about narrative arc and familiar stories of failure, false dawns and expensive disappointment - only we haven't failed yet, I must have blinked when going from mid-table to serious challengers for the top 4, including finishing in the top 4 twice in four years, was a false dawn. And actually, comparatively, win lose or draw it hasn't been done that expensively.

What was it someone said about sound and fury signifying nothing, a story told by an idiot indeed.

Sorry, Gassin, I like you, I really do, but that is the biggest pile of hocus a body could choose to write. It plays upon all the fears and irrational negativity to sound like it has some point other than self-important wizadry, devoid of any coherent reason. I wouldn't even put it on my in case the toilet paper runs out pile.

I wouldn't take it so seriously if I were you.

 

[StartingPrice]

Take a day off. It was an amusingly sarcastic write up about Spurs from an outsider. You can add all the caveats you want, but the midfield five we had were brilliant to watch and if the current crop get near that, let alone surpass it, we'll all be happy. But as of now, it's fair to say the five midfielders mentioned from our side of a short 2 years ago were better than the crew we have now. There are all sorts of reasons for that and why we don't have the same players, but it's still true.

I especially liked the bit about how the three that are gone would stroll into this side now, and that we have a lovely depth of decent "nobodies". Of course, they may break through eventually, but as of now we are depauperate compared to a short while ago. Holtby, Sigurdsson, and Eriksen...meh so far. There's potential there, but will any of them reach VdV's level? Sandro, Capuoe, Paulinho....should any of them be playing with each other given how similar they are? And maybe AVB should trust footballers a bit more rather than trying to out-athlete the opposition?

And clearly, this amusing article touched a nerve with you given your long retorts, which makes the sarcasm/wit a touch more amusing. It was written for you, you might say. You don't have to agree with all of it to say that it's hit some nails on the head and sometimes the truth hurts, but there's still some hope of getting back to our top 4 pomp and maybe even surpassing it.

It wasn't amusingly sasrcastic...it was like a prolonged pretentious Arse*al version of Mind the Gap.

And, as explained, 3 of that midfield five wanted to leave, and that's the long and the short and the tall of it, /of.

I know some folk find this difficult to comprehend, but the idea is that you use the money from you few great players in a sea of mediocrity to increase the percentage of quality and decrease the percentage of mediocrity. I believe we have been very successful at that. If you don't...meh.

What is true is that we have a deeper midfield with potentially as much quality - which is as much as we could expect. But to take just one point: we had VDV and then...? I'll tell you what we had, nothing, zilch, sweet FA - to the extent that a lack of Plan B was a byword because of it. Now we have Ericksen, Holtby and Sigurdsson, and Lamela and Chadli who can play there. Your arguments are as short-wighted as the would-be literary great you seem overly keen on defending.

If you don't understand how Sandro and Capoue just aren't that similar to Paulinho at all, then you apparently haven't read the numerous detailed articles that have been posted on here explaining the different types of midfielders AVB likes to play with. In regard to Sandro and Capoue (and ditto any other similar players for other positions), there's no mystery about it, AVB has stated publicly that he wants two quality players per position and players who are versatile, as well (capoue, for instance, can deputise at centre-half) - that is what squad depth is. Personally, I can see the advantages in it - if you can't, I ain't gonna bother telling you. Needless to say, as per my original post to you, I didn't think that was a particularly funny bit, I thought it was a particularly crass and ill-thought out one.

As for out-muscling the opposition, if that is how you AVB's football...meh.

And clearly, no, this unfunny article didn't hit any nerves - that is why I saw it on NewsNow, read the first couple of lines, thought what a pile of shite, read the comments section, mostly mocking the author for his cack, and then saw it on here and thought oh, there's that shite article, I can't be bothered reading it. It seems to have escaped your attention that I didn't in any way reply to the article, I responded to your post, and the stand alone point it made, as I think it is a point that is all smoke and mirrors. it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Three of the players wanted to leave and the other was past his sell-by date - what were we supposed to do as a club? Chain them to the radiator? Not buy anyone to replace them? What utter cack! And secondarily, when I did read the article in full and respond to it in great detail, I did so with the express purpose of deconstructing the drivel as it seems to be overly impressing some of my fellow Spurs fans. Don't think I totally and thoroughly deconstructed it? Meh.

As for taking a day off, what does that mean? Other than, perhaps, trying to subvert my argument, which I note you haven't in any way addressed (other than to state the obvious, that none of our new, young players have reached the level that our older, established players who wanted to leave, had reached) - but you wouldn't be trying anything so underhand, now, would you?

So, no, no nerves hit, no uncomfortable home-truths for us Spurs fans - just some mind-the-gap-esque drivel threaded with arguments that don't stand scrutiny and the amazing observation that an older team that has gelled is more likely to perform coherently that a younger team that hasn't gelled. Wow...I'm blown away by his wisdom and erudition, oh, and humour, just like you seem to be. Not.

 

[StartingPrice]

I wouldn't take it so seriously if I were you.

I don't, that's why I referred to it as drivel about 20 times

 

[scat1620]

You guys are mental, can't believe you're slagging Vice off, it's amazing:

Oh, we're not talking about that? Nothing to see here, move along...

 

[weststandvoice]

Is it written in Shoreditch or Camden town?

En route, whilst playing an unreleased Miles Davis EP...

 

[jolsnogross]

This is amusing so I'll continue. And since Jambreck mentioned Shakespeare earlier on, I'll respond to your claim of no nerve being hit with "the lady doth protest too much methinks".

Since you've taken the time to write a lengthy response, I'll try to engage with each point made.

It wasn't amusingly sasrcastic...it was like a prolonged pretentious Arse*al version of Mind the Gap.

It's a matter of opinion, but I thought it was quite funny. The analogies weren't that stretched and the descriptions of some of our issues was fresh. This thread suggests that neither of us is alone in our differing opinions.

And, as explained, 3 of that midfield five wanted to leave, and that's the long and the short and the tall of it, /of.

That's part of the guy's joke. We're a selling club. Players that come here and do well look to leave to achieve something. That's why mediocrity rises to the top of our club, because if you're any better, you leave (get it?). As annoying and as horrible as that is for us, it's amusing to non-Spurs fans. Campbell, Sheringham, Carrick, Berbatov, Modric, Bale....left and had success or are likely to have more success than we'll have. That's a tough truth right there. When we look like we're about to break into the big time, something happens (possibly self-imposed) that undermines us.

And you can say that's the long and short of it all you want, but we've been selling players that had long contracts left with us. And we chose to sell them, despite them wanting to leave as well. Liverpool, as a recent example, haven't chosen that route.

I know some folk find this difficult to comprehend, but the idea is that you use the money from you few great players in a sea of mediocrity to increase the percentage of quality and decrease the percentage of mediocrity. I believe we have been very successful at that. If you don't...meh.

That is also the guy's point. We sell brilliant individual quality that we'd like to keep, if we're honest, and buy in 'bulk' replacements who aren't as good. You seem convinced that that's a winning strategy. And maybe it's just the best we can manage. But it's an amusing point to make - we sell class players and buy in decent players and prospects.....but that contributes to our constant transitional season syndrome.

What is true is that we have a deeper midfield with potentially as much quality - which is as much as we could expect. But to take just one point: we had VDV and then...? I'll tell you what we had, nothing, zilch, sweet FA - to the extent that a lack of Plan B was a byword because of it. Now we have Ericksen, Holtby and Sigurdsson, and Lamela and Chadli who can play there. Your arguments are as short-wighted as the would-be literary great you seem overly keen on defending.

The thing is, if none of the five players you mention are better than VdV, then that makes our plan A weaker. Not stronger. That's a thing about Plan A, it comes before Plan B. And here's an alternative strategy, especially considering VdV seems to be the one guy not on the record as wanting to get out. We could have kept him and signed one of the above as cover!

If you don't understand how Sandro and Capoue just aren't that similar to Paulinho at all, then you apparently haven't read the numerous detailed articles that have been posted on here explaining the different types of midfielders AVB likes to play with. In regard to Sandro and Capoue (and ditto any other similar players for other positions), there's no mystery about it, AVB has stated publicly that he wants two quality players per position and players who are versatile, as well (capoue, for instance, can deputise at centre-half) - that is what squad depth is. Personally, I can see the advantages in it - if you can't, I ain't gonna bother telling you. Needless to say, as per my original post to you, I didn't think that was a particularly funny bit, I thought it was a particularly crass and ill-thought out one.

I think our central midfield ought to be just two of them (preferably Dembele and Sandro), but AVB can't help himself by playing three of them quite often. So we have four really decent central midfielders, none of them really a classy passer, although Dembele may qualify. Playing Sandro and Capoue was a baffling decision against Fulham, and AVB kind-of acknowledged that by hauling them off. When Dembele is injured, he should replace him with a ball playing midfielder, possibly Paulinho, and not another tackler like Capoue. Just my two cents.

But it is somewhat funny that we have these decent midfielders and AVB seems to want to fit four of them into two places, not ahve two on and two for cover as you suggest. And we have one left back. It's not as if this is new to us either...we had 4 very high level keepers last year and two strikers. So it's funny to non-Spurs fans that we tend to overload some positions and leave ourselves hopelessly exposed in others.

As for out-muscling the opposition, if that is how you AVB's football...meh.

That is an impression I have from him. He ushers high quality passers, like VdV and Huddlestone out the door because they lack the athleticism he requires. That's fine as far as it goes, but it suggests to me that he's more worried about losing than he is about going out to win. The guys that came in can retain possession, but they seem unable to unlock defences. Now that was tough for Modric and VdV to manage, so it's difficult to see how Capoue and Sandro will manage it.

He's certainly more cautious than I'd like him to be. The main effect of his so-called style is to remove a striker to play the one-up-front model. If you play midfielders like Paulinho or Holtby behind a lone striker, you'll end up with the paucity of goals we've experienced this year. Too many players behind the ball, too risk averse. I had, and still have, high hopes that Paulinho will turn into a Lampard-esque goal-scorer. But the jury is out on that. And AVB's number 10, whoever he picks, is not playing as a number 10. He's playing as a third midfielder, clogging the space and leaving the striker isolated. Hopefully that wont continue.

I know the counter argument to that is top level modern football requires you to dominate possession and not get over-run in midfield. And amusing response to that that I saw on another thread somewhere was that we looked really in control for long periods when 0-3 down at City.

And clearly, no, this unfunny article didn't hit any nerves - that is why I saw it on NewsNow, read the first couple of lines, thought what a pile of shite, read the comments section, mostly mocking the author for his cack, and then saw it on here and thought oh, there's that shite article, I can't be bothered reading it. It seems to have escaped your attention that I didn't in any way reply to the article, I responded to your post, and the stand alone point it made, as I think it is a point that is all smoke and mirrors. it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Three of the players wanted to leave and the other was past his sell-by date - what were we supposed to do as a club? Chain them to the radiator? Not buy anyone to replace them? What utter cack! And secondarily, when I did read the article in full and respond to it in great detail, I did so with the express purpose of deconstructing the drivel as it seems to be overly impressing some of my fellow Spurs fans. Don't think I totally and thoroughly deconstructed it? Meh.

As I mentioned above, you protest a little too much about the nerve. And no, I don't think you've deconstructed it persuasively. And I'm afraid to say he wrote far more entertainingly than your supposed deconstruction of it (and, in fairness, my response to you too).

As for taking a day off, what does that mean? Other than, perhaps, trying to subvert my argument, which I note you haven't in any way addressed (other than to state the obvious, that none of our new, young players have reached the level that our older, established players who wanted to leave, had reached) - but you wouldn't be trying anything so underhand, now, would you?

Even though we disagree, I have found this amusing and appreciate your time and effort to engage. But I think your dead wrong about this amusing article. Maybe this response goes some way to addressing your arguments.

So, no, no nerves hit, no uncomfortable home-truths for us Spurs fans - just some mind-the-gap-esque drivel threaded with arguments that don't stand scrutiny and the amazing observation that an older team that has gelled is more likely to perform coherently that a younger team that hasn't gelled. Wow...I'm blown away by his wisdom and erudition, oh, and humour, just like you seem to be. Not.

There are definitely some funny home truths in there for the non-joyless and non-obsessed-with-Spurs footy fan. And you use the buzzword "gel" so much without ever really embarking on why you think it's inevitable. The counter argument is that these guys just aren't as good as you think they are, and aren't as good as their predecessors, so no amount of hair-product over time will change that. I hope it is just a matter of time, but some of the stationary play and static off-the-ball 'movement' may well be a feature and not a bug of our play. That's a fair criticism at the moment - over-cautious, non-dynamic football by players we think are better than that but who the outside world thinks may not be. That's insightful for me because it's a view outside the Spurs bubble. And I think the guy wrote it up in a funny way. I don't agree with it all - I think we're well ahead of the dark nineties and early naughties - but there's a lot in the piece to admire, in a funny self-deprecating way.

Another thing, of course, is that if two or three of our new 'stars' do 'gel' and start making an impact, we'll just sell them off anyway for our next transitional season!

And finally, one of the difficulties we're encountering this year that is well covered in the original article is how we compare to other teams. It's a fact that Arsenal are joy to watch unless you're a bug-eyed Spurs-supporting hater of Arsenal. And Arsenal are just one example....a couple of seasons ago we were the Liverpool of this season - prone to the odd poor result, but pretty much exciting most of the time. Now we seem to have the odd poor result without the excitment. Everton have a new manager and a raft of new players, but appear not to be suffering from gel deficiency.

And in Ozil and Cazorla, Arsenal have a couple of technicians that would walk into any side in the world and who have a bewildering touch. We don't have players that compare -despite spending 30, 26 and 17 million on three new ones, and I don't see any amount of gel changing that fact either.

 

[Flashspur]

hipster football analysis....OK...so who is going to do a piece on us next? The Financial Times, Q, Vogue, Wall Street Journal, Esquire?

A few home truths yes, but still frustrating. I hate people who take the mickey. Been like this for 50 years I've been supporting this club. Spurs will still be around and we were worse not long ago so whether you laugh at us or not - there is improvement.