It’s probably why if I had to guess, I’d say Iraola will be the next manager if Ange is sacked or leaves.
Sorry, it wasn't really aimed at you. Multiple people are posting similar things which is why it feels personal.
Who would be suited to it, though? We're at a stage which feels like desperation. The only criteria we can be sure of to define who could be 'suited' is to be someone who has demonstrated an ability to get a squad punching above its weight. All of our successful managers shared that trait. Three of our last four (if Nuno's three months even counts) managers didn't, and we've paid a heavy price for it. That said, Iraola and Frank are probably top of the list, followed by Silva and then Glasner.
Someone that plays a 4-2-3-1, prefers to have some possession and can organise a defence. I think anyone who's got any chance of longer-term success needs to play sustainably, too. It almost certainly won't be an issue next season, but we have to be capable of two games a week. Part of that is having a squad with enough depth, but managing minutes sensibly is also an issue.
The thing with Glasner's Palace is they set up in various ways that make so much sense for our squad to do - Their wingers cut in and the FBs overlap, which is exactly what we should do with Son & Johnson out wide and Solanke as a False 9 - They press high to create turnovers, while we press...in theory? - They play with a box midfield where Guehi joins Lerma in midfield so Eze and Franca can push up, which for us would be Mickey Van/Danso pushing into midfield so we can have Maddison and Sarr/Bentancur push into the opposition half - They're flexible enough to know when to sit and when to push up, and are effective when sitting low While a lot of this does sound like stating the bleedin' obvious, as we could probably find half a dozen managers in the Bundesliga who do that (as does the hipster's current choice, Bologna coach Vincenzo Italiano), Glasner has shown PL adaptability and also that he can play in Europe
I don't know if it is or isn't. Recently, I've been told that one thing is something else on this board... ...but, if it is, I'm guilty of it, too. I'll apologise (without equivocation or caveats), if you feel that I've taken it too far. You might want to consider showing a less dismissive attitude towards others' rationales for their views. They're different to yours but are equally valid and dismissing them stifles communication and builds frustration. None of us are right all of the time, being able to accept that one is wrong and apologise is the beginning of true growth.
to be fair whenever i have used it i am aiming it at you. You would say i am kind of using it against you but i think you are fine with it as its something you are owning. not sure if i have ever used it in a way to be horrible per se but if it does annoy you then let me know and i won't bring it up
Thanks. I don't understand why people think I am dismissive of views. What I definitely will admit to is not being able to cope with people who seem to come to a view based on a mathematical error. The original post by @perrymanlegend (I think it was) several years ago that first came up with the 100 game calculation was actually in response to something I had erroneously assumed was statistically significant when it wasn't. So I was glad to be corrected. Now when I quote the number, which is a mathematical fact, not an opinion, it leads to derision.
Every club in every League would like a manager who gets the squad punching above their weight. I would only observe that 1) the number of managers who have demonstrably done that is very few 2) they have almost nothing in common that would lead to a set of criteria that would improve the chances of a successful appointment. What we really need to do is to make sure that the manager values the squad they will inherit and understands the financial limits they will be working within and is still happy that they will outperform and be judged on that. Then give them lots of time.
There is nothing significant about observing 100 of anything. A change in measure value of 1% may be feel robust enough for some, but be laughable to others.
Yes I know, but the difference between Tottenham managers is only a few per cent so the 100 number is about right...certainly 50 is nowhere near enough.
Ange picking up on one journalist's comment that even if we win the Europa he's gone anyway isn't going to help him Even if, let's be honest, if he won the Europa we would likely shake his hand and let him ride off into the sunset anyway
Honestly, I've come to the conclusion he's gone either way and there's no reason to get riled up debating it multiple times a day Leave that to certain r/coys posters determined to make themselves angry and/or miserable
Agreed. We played better, created a load of chances, should have scored a couple but their keeper was excellent. None of that suggests the Gods are against him. Just get the **** on with it!
And now it's time for a visit from the Context Fairy Reporter: Does it feel like the football gods are against you when Mickey van de Ven in the last minute heads the ball on to his foot and it’s tipped over the crossbar? Ange: Like I said George, I’m resigned to the fact that the football gods have got their eyes elsewhere this year. They’re obviously busy with other clubs and other managers so whatever we get we’re going to have to do it without them this year. Funny how the original article scurried past that little detail to get their "engagement" bait, and that's what everyone else zeroed in on...
