Probably wouldn't look as impressive if the couple of dozen frames weren't obviously edited out, but still...
By the way, did anyone else notice we played badly yet won comfortably? Somebody might want to point this out to Jermaine Jenas...
That save by Gazza gets better and better each time I see it. That was on course to be a wonder goal. His confidence is growing game on game. No joke, Hugo’s gonna need to be on very good form to reclaim and then keep that number one spot if Gazza maintains these levels of performances. Especially as Hugo didn’t exactly have his best season last year.
Gazza and Lucas are the first 2 names on the team sheet for me at the moment. Form has to be rewarded, and when you consider Lloris’ actions of late, that spot in goal really should be Gazza’s to lose.
Wagner's done a good job at Huddersfield, but he really needs to address that high line. It allows them to press relentlessly and pressure the opposition, but they don't create much from it, rarely score and simple balls get in behind. They actually played pretty well and stopped us from playing for a lot of the match, but failed to score and could've conceded a load. They might get away with it if they had a goal threat, but Kane's outscored them and he's the leading scorer at their ground, too.
We really shouldn’t underestimate the importance of this. And it’s set to continue. Up to and including Nov 10th it will be as follows: PL - 7 out of 12 away CL - 2 out of 4 away League cup - 2 out of 2 away. (MK I’m counting as an away game). Only 7 from 18 games played at “home”. If we can keep grinding out results, we could be in a very strong position when all of those reverse home games come around, especially if they end up being at the new stadium rather than Wembley.
Am I the only one who thinks the new stadium means a new pitch therefore the team will have to make it their 'home' pitch by familiarising over what I suspect will be a good few weeks at the very least?
What we need to keep in mind is the alternative is Wembley with the top tier closed. We were never going to get the use of the full stadium for a second season, even if we'd gone for 2 seasons at Wembley from the off. In fact, it would probably have done for having the full stadium last season, as well. Cardiff is being played with the top tier closed and apart from the City and Chelsea games, I expect every other game from, apart from the CL matches, to be limited to 50,000.
I totally understand the need to have our home ground for the atmosphere and for the fans...I just thought for the team ..the new pitch would be a distraction in what could be a important stage of the season. Suppose if we can get in in January...and settle in...then it could be a massive boost for the run in
The squad will have reasonable time at their own leisure, to familiarise themselves with the surrounds of the new pitch before playing for real. That is a luxury they did not have at Wembley, because the club does not own the place and therefore does not have 24x7 access to it.
The excitement of the new stadium should lift us. The crowd will be well up for it - I wish that I was assured of getting tickets. However, it may have the opposite effect? There's some ITK that the pitch is going to be laid starting Monday. It should be ready to use about a week later and when work was being scheduled for the Liverpool game, there was going to be a limited period between the 2 events. There's general consensus that the earliest possible date for the first game is mid-December. I'm presuming that the benefit of laying the pitch so early is that it will give time for lots of practice on it.
Wembley has a limited number of events per year that it can operate at full capacity, so as to limit the inconvenience for local residents. After the FA Cup games, play-offs, rugby league, internationals, etc. there are about 6 - 10 left. When Spurs were considering whether to use Wembley or MK Stadium for 2017/18, the thought was that most of the games at Wembley would have to be played with the top tier closed and that the CL games plus a couple of others would be full capacity. So, the club were weighing a full 30,000 stadium against a half full Wembley with 20,000 more fans in it. There was investigation of the possibility of extending the number of full capacity games with Brent Council. The indication was good for doing it for one season and one season only. Most Councillors on the Planning Body presumably thought that they could sell the idea to voters and still be re-elected if it was made very, very clear that this was NOT going to be repeated. I remember following the Council debate on Football.London with Original Spurcat. Spurs sent Donna Cullen to point out all the things Spurs were prepared to offer to Brent residents and to promise it was for one season only. On that basis, we got an extra 20 full capacity events. There's no chance whatsoever of us getting more (unless we pay the FA to play internationals or other fixtures elsewhere)and Chelsea won't get to use Wembley like we did last season. Local residents are sick of it (I used to live in Wembley and my mum still does). The area comes to a complete halt
Thanks Brian for that comprehensive answer, all that investment and that kind of local problem. Is there a similar danger at White Hart Lane?
Wembley needs a park and ride just off the M25. It would solve many problems. You could put a £40 congestion charge around the stadium (free to locals) and surrounding areas on match days and say charge £20 for park and ride. If the money went to the local community, schools, hospitals etc, it might bring the locals round. It isnt the amount of people, the problem is the amount of cars.
Part of the ongoing dispute between THFC and Haringey throughout the early years of this century was usage of the stadium (added to social housing, transport, etc., etc,). The post-riot situation was that Spurs were able to get a whole lot more of what they wanted as part of the approval of their plans. Included in that was an agreed minimum of 16 full stadium events above the normal run of a season football events. So, we've got capacity for 2 NFL games and 14 other events such as boxing, concerts, e-sports, etc. That's a pretty good deal taking into account that it's a residential area. Last month, Liverpool FC applied for the same number of 16 non-football events at Anfield. They got turned down flat. They've got no usage outside football at all. That could be a loss of up to £30-40m in income, compared to Spurs. There is no limit on the number of events below a certain capacity. I'm not certain what that would be but 25-30,000 would sound about right So, we could accommodate a rugby union team on the NFL surface without eating into our other intended events.
Anyone noticed the new commentator on Spurs TV highlights? 1,000 times better than the previous guy with the monotone voice.
