I think, like you say, it's hard to tell sometimes. Just some examples: Zidane won 1 league title and 3 consecutive Champions Leagues in 3 years. That's honestly a phenomenal achievement. And whilst he did have awesome players inherited, even greats like Sir Alex Ferguson or, in his prime, Jose Mourinho were not capable of something as astonishing as that. Zidane was able to leave Madrid with his reputation in tact. Not many managers can say this. Ancelotti and Benitez, both managers with higher managerial pedigree and clout than Zidane, ended up getting sacked. Yet when he was suggested as potentially taking over at Man United or Spurs, a sizeable number of fans from both clubs had their reservations about him as being manager. Barcelona sacked Gerardo Martino after failing to win a single trophy in 2013-14. You'd have thought he'd be able to win at least one trophy with that world-class squad, but he couldn't. So sometimes it's not as straightforward as having 'just anyone' to achieve that scale of success. Claudio Ranieri flopped at Chelsea, Valencia (twice), Napoli, Juventus, Roma, Inter Milan and Atletico Madrid. I think he ended up getting fired from each of those clubs. Yet he ends up winning the league with Leicester City of all clubs And whilst he will take the plaudits for that season, Leicester's good form from the end of the 2014-15 season continued into the 2015-16 season. So does Nigel Pearson deserve credit for creating the base of that title-winning squad? The point I'm making is that sometimes there are just too many variables at play when determining who is an 'elite' manager and who isn't. Some managers walk into clubs with very little disruption and the perfect conditions anyone could ever wish for, others don't get that luxury.
I am more convinced then ever ( about 70%- I can't be more without the proof ) that there is a cabal running football. They decide who is going to win competitions and work towards that aim. Of course they can't control freak results in cup competitions but they can do their best by handing out favourable draws to certain teams. In the league it is easier as they have a season long of games to work with. They convince media and pundits to recite the mantra. They use psychological means and confirmation bias. So at the beginning of this season they decided it would be Liverpool's season, despite the fact that they were not second best last year. They get into the minds of the officials who favour them in decisions ( how was the foul on Son in our game against them not a penalty but last night Newcastle won the penalty against City?) They decide on narratives. Bale is a diver; Spurs are divers. Spurs are bottlers. Spurs have won nothing.( the Wembley hoodoo until that was finished ) this isn't paranoia, they do it with other clubs. they decide when a team turn on their manager, they get managers the sack. They get the media and pundits to say it enough and then Joe Public says it and everyone is convinced it is true (confirmation bias ). Anyway those are my thoughts.
So much of it comes down to Sky, I mean just look at how many tools they have to create Narratives with * The pundits for their live coverage can plant the seed * Sky Sports News can keep replaying the clip of the seed being planted for hours, if not days * The Sun and The Times will have that seed growing on their back pages the following morning * Sky Bet will ask people to place money on whether or not the seed they planted will flower into reality Sky Bet's part in this framework is truly abhorrent, because while Sky's creating and pushing Narratives has been truly obnoxious for decades now, it's not taking advantage of people - but when those Narratives directly tie in with their own gambling subsidiary, that's when we start talking about predatory behaviour because not only is that going to make people consider putting a £5 punt on something just because they saw Sky Sports news report on it, but for those who are predisposed to having gambling problems this isn't a million miles away from the disgusting tactics the gaming industry have used in the last couple of years by dangling lootboxes in front of players
The greatest example of this so far is Leicester, a team who were given so many decisions once there was a chance of them winning the league that no one else stood a chance, even to the point where a so called 'top'referee refused to send off players for a team playing their main rivals and as a result lost complete control of the match!
There is a hack cabal who control the Narrative (TM) about various clubs. No different to what happens in politics, but unlike politics their rhetoric cannot materially affect a result (team X haters writing anything does not cause players to not score or get injuries) . UEFA like their CL gravy train, and do respond brutally (their FFP regime) or subtly (changes in the ranking pts scheme) to try to protect their darlings. The PL have their darlings (the "Sky 4" ) , but they cannot protect them. Specifically, more Sugga Daddy FCs appearing (Citeh etc) , or their darlings becoming sh*te and allowing outsiders (Spurs etc) to usurp them. It is what it was. Progressing/succeeding in spite of them has been part of the fun to me as a Spurs supporter (a happy bonus to the already enjoyable on-pitch play) .
I agree, that is not where they need to strengthen. And as you imply, how long will it take him to get used to our game, around June is my guess.
Nope, it’s not where they necessarily need to strengthen, but he’s a decent player from what I’ve seen.
I'm now seriously disappointed we missed out on David Brooks. We were linked long before Bournemouth but seemingly didn't follow up our initial interest. Lad's a real talent, great buy for Bournemouth though.
Yeah he looks a proper player. To be fair we probably have to prioritise elsewhere. If we sign a forward I think we need someone like Son who can play as a 9 or out wide off the main man, so as good a player Brooks will probably become I think Hull’s Bowen might be the better fit given how our squad looks right now.
I’m not sure Brooks’ actual position though, he seems like he plays in the 10 role but I think he might be able to play as an 8, he made some great forward runs from a CM position so I’m wondering if he’d have the potential to play there long term, if that were possible, he’d be ideal in this team and under Poch, his forward play is exactly what I want from a CM.
I think he’s more of a 10 than an 8 tbh, and I’m not just talking about his hair. I’d compare him to Alli who actually we have the same conundrum with at times when it comes to position, though his hair isn’t as good. I wouldn’t be against signing Brooks at all but given resources seem to be tight and he’s only just joined Bournemouth I think we’d be hard pressed to make it happen unless we sold say, Lamela.
Oh yeah, no chance of signing him at the moment. They’d want mega money. Just hypothetically speaking that I think he’d be a good fit for Spurs judging by what I’ve seen. Part of me is hoping Bournemouth keep him for a while anyway, he’s got a perfect manager to work under there, he’d be silly to leave so soon and warm the bench most weeks at a “bigger club”.
