Spurs have qualified for the CL in each of the last 7 years they haven't employed Mourinho. In addition to not getting results, Mourinho's teams were painful to watch. They were also crap in the cups, minus a league cup run against very weak teams. It's a given that if Spurs sacked him before the league cup final and lost, many would say he would have won. We'll never know of course, but I had the strong belief at the time that Mourinho would have led Spurs into one more drubbing. Mourinho may be even more dependent on belief than most managers. Because he could not have been a more inappropriate stylistic fit, I think the belief in him never rose above weak and collapsed rapidly.
The way they calculated it was ridiculously subjective. MEGO trying to get through their reasoning. What I take from that table is that officials tend to screw Spurs more than (any?) other clubs--as I demonstrated to some degree through data https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com/2021/12/13/22832477/big-team-bias-and-penalty-favoritism. So a mechanism that forces some of the calls to be correct is a big benefit for them. Imagine, for example, what club would stand on the face of it to benefit from goal line vision? Could it be the club that had the goal farthest in for them ruled out, and the goal farthest out against them ruled in, in the PL era?
It also suggests that Leicester get a hell of a lot of incorrect, beneficial decisions. They went from no Europe to Europa League.
Where is their source data, and method description ?? While I await that, the only thing I could derive from the table is that they are saying that Spurs effectively got a win in one game over the season, that should have been a draw.
If they were shown it the words straws, at, clutching, would be appropriate but in a slightly different order.
My initial reaction was to laugh and think did Arteta compile this? When all is said and done VAR is here and this means nothing, we all know that with the quality refs both onfield and using VAR there are still a lot of contentious decisions and that is probably never going to change.
They broke even on the Grealish sale, which means their net spend since returning to the PL is in the region of £260m
As if there weren't enough reasons to be irked at Charlton after they loaned in Nile John to play for their U23s, now they're set to hire the knobhead I went to school with as their new manager...
They obviously learned their lesson from the last time their wage bill was significantly higher than their turnover, then...
Makes me laugh when i see you lot moan about loan players and the game time they get. Teams pay a fee to loan your (or any teams) players plus wages. If they don't get game time it's because they are not as good as the incumbent players at the the the club they are loaned to and the receiving team should be pissed for money wasted. If they were good enough to make a difference they would play
Or because they loaned in six players when only five can be used in matchday squads, which is exactly what happened with John at Charlton and Jack Clarke at Leeds But just because a club can't count, that's no reason to suggest incompetence...
All 3 of them have been flops. I had high hopes for Buendia as he and Skipp were superb at Norwich last season, but it looks like he has 'Mitrovic Syndrome' in that he is too good for the Championship but not quite good enough for the PL. With Coutinho joining permanently you'd imagine he'll get less game time. Ings is a useful player but 7 goals in 30 games is a really poor return for a club that aspires to break into the top half. There are rumours that they want to sell him already.
In Bailey's case the fact he spent so long at loggerheads with the Jamaican FA that he was commuting from Genk to Leverkusen every day in order to qualify for Belgian citizenship, only to make up with the Jamaican FA and promptly fail to deliver at Villa, says one thing: he really should've stuck at it
