It wasn’t some, it was most of us, on here and in general. There were polls on social media with thousands of votes that had circa 80-85% choosing to take the loss in aid of stopping Arsenal winning the league. Just look at the crowd too, there was a reluctance to be there by many, one of the flattest atmospheres in years and that’s no coincidence, especially as Spurs-Man City over recent seasons has always been lively. It’s a position I and am sure all others hope to never be in again but if I am I’ll make the same choice, especially when there’s little to gain by Spurs winning. It’s a shame he was more upset with that though than the rotters of performances thanks to his tactics and selections against Arsenal and Chelsea in the games prior, and in fact a lot of games since November. As for him changing the team, no one intent on winning a game and trophy makes 10 changes, more so when the opponent is a Premier League side and at their ground.
A league is only fair if each team tries it's best in every game. If a sport isn't fair it isn't a sport. A Champions League place was potentially at stake. Arsenal winning the League would be a bad thing, but not as bad as us sacrificing the integrity of the competition and our own self respect. The majority in this country used to be racist and homophobic. They were wrong about those things too.
That Champions League spot became far too hopeful after we lost four out of five prior to Man City. The team ironically put in their best performance in weeks against City anyway, regardless of fan opinion, so it made no difference to the integrity nor outcome. And when it comes to integrity, that goes out the window in rivalry for most fans. Ah yes, the similarities in wanting to lose a game of football to prevent a rival from winning the league and racism and homophobia are uncanny.
The similarity is that the majority were wrong and that the people pointing it out at the time were ridiculed.
Committing hate crimes and having differences of opinions on football are in no way similar. It’s a daft comparison to make.
I've already said my peace about needing to try and win every game, but I'm not sure you can say this though. More often than not, winning players and coaches in a match will claim that the crowd support made the difference for them: elevating a performance and boosting confidence. Maybe changing Tuesdays fan apathy (and in some cases outright hostility to the outcome) to a more usual positive support would have made the difference for us to get a result. I'm not for one minute disagreeing with you over the criticism of coach and some players for far too many poor performances over the past 4 months.
My point was that in the past, the majority have had strong views about matters which are much more important than football. Those views are now universally considered to be wrong. You raised the fact that the majority agree with you so you presumably think that matters. I don't.
I think that performance showed though that the fans affecting performances isn’t necessarily a guarantee. That was our best performance in weeks, probably since Villa and it came when the fans unusually didn’t want a result/ performance. The result didn’t go the way the players had wanted but they gave the best team in the league and arguably Europe numerous problems. If fans truly did make a difference to outcomes then we’d likely be higher in the table considering the often usual great support, we wouldn’t have been awful against Arsenal and Chelsea and multiple other games either. I think it was a cop out statement from Ange, likely trying to project his current failures as manager onto us.
The majority wanting a certain decision in a football game isn’t essentially a matter of right or wrong like it is in regards to serious matters involving racism and homophobia. Fans not wanting to win a solitary game in the hopes of preventing their fiercest rivals from winning England’s biggest prize is a completely valid view to have, especially to those who have very passionate views on football rivalry. That is a stark, stark difference to people’s views on how to treat other human beings.
The core of the problem is once you make one excuse that losing a game is "fine", it is inevitable that another excuse is just round the next corner. Stop a rival winning, we're tired, I'm carrying an injury, we've qualified anyway, the officials don't like us, they're just better than us, it's nearly the summer, I have international duty soon etc...the lost is endless, in theory. I think this is what was bothering Ange. It was certainly bothering me. I'm sure he looked down the touchline to see Guardiola literally lying on the ground at certain points, physically pained by the thought that we might score and deny them the title. This is a manager and team with absolutely nothing left to prove. They've won everything there is to win. Guardiola himself has defined an entire generation of football. But the man hates losing. He hates it. Not in the same petulant way Klopp hates it. It's another level. Almost programmed in his DNA. That's the DNA Ange clearly wants to instill at Spurs. We've never really had that tbh, at least not for as long as I've supported the club. We've always had that same list of excuses to shrug and hide behind. Not enough money. Not good enough players. Officials don't like us. Rivals too good. Too experienced etc. This is where Ange draws a line, because if you don't and one excuse is accepted as reasonable, what's stopping the next one becoming reasonable too?
I am starting to think that he may be a manager that the squad does not have fearful respect for. If so, we know how (quickly) that will end for him.
1. I do not demand the manager "preach their piety" in public, if I know for certain that behind closed doors the squad got the full "hairdryer treatment" . 2. Given the results since the Fulham game, how many here believe that said treatment was given and the squad believe it ??
People get sucked into the prevailing view they are surrounded with. That's the human condition. It's how we fight wars it's how we identify politically and it's how we recognise our football team. The majority always conform because being a member of their tribe comes first. Whether that majority is right or wrong is irrelevant to the view, the importance is making sure you are conforming, because of that situation most of the time through history the majority are regressive. Progress is made by the people who stand alone, who are not influenced by the tribe and who make decisions and take views based on logic rather than emotion. Fortunately at the moment we have a manager who is not influenced by the tribe. A stand alone man with a goal to change the culture at Spurs. I am with him all the way.
Being fearful of the consequences of your (in)actions is a trait good engineers have (especially in the context of the tenets of failure) .
I think if changing the culture at Spurs was a sort of paramount thing for fans (which essentially it should be) then surely the fanbase should’ve been united in demanding that Mourinho be given everything he wanted? I can’t think of another manager in world football with such a sickening obsession to win as much as him. When you give Jose the resources he creates mentality monsters. Chelsea were a brute force of a side, he made Inter Milan’s players basically willing to die for him on the pitch in order to win, the counter attacking team at Madrid is probably the best counter side we’ll ever see, ego maniacs like Zlatan said he’d answer Jose’s call at all times, a lot of world class players loved him and I’d also say that the Son and Kane partnership began to truly flourish under his guidance - no one else did! But then no one else in that squad was fit to lace Kane and Son’s boots either other than Bale, which is the single biggest thing I criticised Jose over. But all in all if you want to create a culture where losing or even drawing is basically deemed as heresy then I think he’s the man you want at your club.
As a leader the way to instill belief into the players or staff that they should trust you and follow you is for you to stick to your principles when times are hard or when short term gains are possible by putting principles to one side. You don't have many opportunities to do that as a leader. Ange has had two this season....the Chelsea game and the Man City game. He has done the right thing both times.
There was (possibly still is) a Japanese airline who had a policy that the engineer responsible for major overhauls had to fly on its next passenger flight. That concentrates the mind.
Not sure what was right against Chelsea. He opened us up to them by choosing to stick a makeshift back four of Emerson, Hojbjerg, Dier and Porro basically on the half way line when we had nine men and invited Chelsea to score a hatful, they would’ve scored a lot more than four that day but for Vicario. We then lost 3 of the following 4 games and our football since then never found consistency either.
