I don't know rwaeb. There has definitely been an improvement but not nearly enough to give me hope that we'll improve a dismal record against teams we really should be beating comfortably - the dropped points here or there that ultimately cost us CL every single year. The Stoke game is a prime example of this. They're a very decent side yet to our credit and their critique, we had them firmly under our thumb for most of the first half. And yet the way our intensity dropped in between our two goals was inexplicably worrying. We could've and should've been out of sight by half time with the level of possession and ease with which we were winning it back. But we let them back in with a few decent chances later on in the first half after not hearing a peep out of them for almost half an hour, which I think gave them hope for mounting a come back in the second half. Remember, it's these games, not the defeats at the hands of City, Chelsea, United etc. that ultimately undermine our season.
Yeah, that is the easiest (ha!) in theory way to get CL. Beat everyone 7th and down at home. Beat half of them away and get draws in the other half. That gets us 70pts and only needing a handful against the other top 5. As they pointed out on the build up on sunday, this is what set Chelsea apart last season.
It's certainly the way the Smug Git goes about winning the league: beat everyone well below us and avoid defeat to our potential rivals while boring them to death and that should see us through to the title. There is a balance between pragmatism and gung-ho that I don't think we've ever truly mastered.
I don't think you can really master it unless you are the best team by a long way. Utd in the early 90s were great to watch on the break and, obviously, won the league a lot. City when they scored all those goals too. Maureen's first bunch, with Duff and Robben were also fairly good to watch, i guess it took him a while to impose himself. I don't think Chelsea where significantly better than everyone last season, despite winning it by quite some way, they just did as you say.
Interesting. I agree with your analysis. But I worry about different things. Having a style of play we need to learn how to extend for 90 minutes seems to be a much better state of affairs than giving up the better chances more often than not. No doubt it’s the non top-four clubs that tend to determine everyone’s fate. Our oddity last year was that we were improved against the best sides, though that meant we took four points from Arsenal and three from Chelsea, did very well against everyone just below us except Liverpool, and were poor against everyone else. Part of that problem is that the top teams in general were weaker compared to the bottom teams. TV money means a team like Swansea can get the four stars plus seven donkeys team rolling, and frankly they’re good, as are Stoke these days. There is not the difference in quality there used to be, and the top teams will drop points on the days they’re a bit off....unless the refs step in and hand them to them. They don’t hand points to Spurs, as a fairly firm rule.
But that's precisely my point; you only really need to master pragmatism when you and your rivals are more or less inseparable. That's why Maureen needed to do it last year - he saw from his first season that City and Arsenal were more than capable of challenging him. More than anything I think it was their humiliation at WHL that caused him to panic and press the pragmatic button as he feared that the same could happen again unless he went ultra conservative. It's similar for us, Liverpool and Southampton (a list that may well be joined by one or more of Swansea, Stoke and Everton this year). That chasing pack is more or less inseparable, which means that the team who plays pragmatically and consistently picks up the points where and when they should will be the ones who come closest to grabbing a CL spot, or at least avoid 79 qualifying rounds for the EL. That is the most frustrating thing about Liverpool's start to the season. Without playing particularly well at all (in fact we were better against Stoke than they were), they've still managed to take 6 from 6 against teams they should be taking 6 from. No it wasn't pretty, but yes it was essential. The fact that people on here seem resigned to us dropping points at the King Power this weekend only highlights the problem - we don't know how to kill off these smaller teams.
Its the ability to perform consistently that makes the real difference between a good player and an excellent one. So the inability to beat the average team is another symptom of us having worse players than Chelsea etc. Interestingly I think the sort of subs that Poch made on Saturday were pretty much exactly what Mourinho would have done in principle. He would have hauled off two or three attacking players and replaced them with more defensive ones. But Chelsea have done that so often it is likely to work whereas when we do it, it never seems to. And another thing that makes the top four mountain harder to climb is that the weaker clubs and the referees are more in awe of Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U, Man C and even Liverpool than they are of us. So they get softer decisions and panicky actions (both in attack or defence) much more often than we do. If we had been playing Bournemouth yesterday and played exactly as well as Liverpool we'd have likely lost 2-0 as the Ref would have allowed their goal, disallowed ours and they would have buried one of their other chances.
Consistency in other words. Which means retaining form, fitness, motivation, confidence, determination, commitment etc.
Gotcha. Yes i agree, but i still like t Indeed, as Power also said. We just need to be consistently awesome and consistently entertaining.
Which, Spurm, is consistently difficult when other teams are better than us because they have more money and sympathetic refereeing
Regardless of how deeply some of you want to look into our struggles as a club or failure to match the big clubs, none of that changes that Pochettino isn't up to the job as spurs manager and he certainty isn't going to be the guy that can offer tactical changes or a varying approach to team setup, to help us maximise potential, or reach the top four.
Boss we've been struggling to consistently kill off smaller teams than us since as far back as I can remember. You really don't like the guy, do you?
Spurm for manager. I'd just tell the players to be better and more consistent than the opposition. Its simples.
Which realistic target can do that for us? And why? West Brom fans have been groaning at your dad's boring football already this season. I actually like Pulis....but I'm not confident anyone can sort us out that is a realistic target.
If MP went, and i'm not suggesting he should, the only person i think _might_ be attainable and a decent fit football-wise would be Eddie Howe. That would still be a MASSIVE risk though.
A few bad results and it would be the same old issue. He does lack experience and he would get it for that reason alone. Personally Spurs are too big for him, he has to earn the move, sick of chasing the latest flavour of the month.
Exactly. We have nothing to gain by sacking MP and just 2-3 seasons to waste along with who knows how much cash
I have more hope for this team than most because I believe in youth more. We were awful when we tried to kill the game vs. Stoke because we haven’t learned how to kill a game yet. Youth has its disadvantages. The funny thing is, there are two big names available now, but one (Bielsa) is both old and seemingly getting cantankerous. The other (Klopp) ain’t coming here.
Add to that some of the things i did like from last year which could be repeated... Like the number of goals scored and therefore points secured at the very end of matches. This is something I've been fully conditioned to expect to happen against us. It was widely attributed to Poch's fitness regime (by Kane anyway). No major AVB style thrashings at the hand of the established order (and Liverpool), in fact 4 points from the Goons and 5 goals against Chelsea.... I'm clinging onto the straws for as long as humanly possible.
