Match Day Thread Tottenham Hotspur v Chelsea

As usual everyone is trying to explain a problem that only exists in their imagination.
We started the season with the sixth most expensive squad. We've had four of our best players injured for most matches plus a fair sprinkling of injured backups. We are currently 5th. How does this demonstrate we are underperforming in any way?

 

Correct.

Funny how that lot learned their lesson from that era sharpish, whilst we stubbornly doubled down and got left behind as a result.

Ndombele and Lo Celso should have been the red flags. Instead of adapting, we broke our record again...on Richarlison.

 

League positions at this early stage of the season are not an indicator of a team's relative performance. It tells you how you have done against the teams you have played, and is dependent upon who you have played. Until you have reached at least halfway though the season it's a fairly meaningless position. I'm sure you realise this.

All you need are a pair of eyes and the time to watch our games. Imagination does not come into it, except perhaps to establish the means to watch each game. I think we have a rare overall agreement among fans that our attack is underperforming and guess what, having four of our best players injured could well be the reason. Home form Played 5 won 1 drawn 1 lost 3 is not top 6 performance.

We will see, but I don't think you will find many fans who disagree with the idea that we are underperforming.

 

I'd say paying £45m on a player who somehow always got "injured" before European away games suggests they haven't

 

I completely agree that 10 matches isn’t enough to draw any conclusions. Dividing into home and away makes it even less likely to be significant. The away form is league championship level.
But nevertheless people are drawing conclusions which is what I am complaining about. The truth is that no-one has any idea whether we are underperforming or not so to be blaming the underperformance on specific issues in our transfer strategy or selection policy is therefore illogical. Anyone can see that Simons has had a terrible start but so did Son and Bale. Give him time.

 

There are no lessons to be learned. You sign the best players you can afford. Some turn out well, some badly. There is no evidence that any club is better or worse than average at this in the long run.

 

FAIL

LEARN NO LESSONS

FAIL AGAIN

STILL LEARN NO LESSONS

FAIL YET AGAIN

SACK COACHES, RETAIN BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CHAIRMAN, WHO ARE FAILING TO ADDRESS ISSUES...

FAIL SOME MORE

LEARN ABSOLUTELY **** ALL...

APART FROM THE PRIMARY REASON - THE CHAIRMAN NEEDS TO GO...AND IS SHOWN THE DOOR.

There was a lesson. It took age to learn it (some never did ) but the new regime have removed it...and we won't see him no more.

 

Writing in capitals is just abusive.
Our performance during the Levy era was entirely consistent with us having the fifth or sixth largest budget. Of course mistakes were made but that happens to everyone. Since we didn't systematically underperform there is no evidence of anything being radically wrong. Anything else is just prejudice.

 

You and I have long agreed that we don't sign the best players we can afford. We rarely try to. We can afford to spend significantly more on transfer fees and wages.

What's better?
A) £70m on Tel + Simons
B) £70m on Semenyo or Eze
C) Save £70m for future use if Semenyo or Eze fall through.

 

He obviously wasn't the roaring success story you make him out to be, or he wouldn't have been removed having just announced a review on the review he announced two years ago.

He did a huge amount of good for the club, no question. But he hit his ceiling a long time ago. I'm glad the younger Lewis' recognised this.

If you had your way, he'd still be chairman and we'd still be signing PSG and Bayern players on loan every window and breaking our transfer record on someone just about good enough to play for Wingate & Finchley.

 

If Johnson, Richarlison, Solanke, Tel, Simons and Odobert are genuinely "the best players we can afford", we might as well pack it in and give up now.

 

Really?

I use them for emphasis...like the spacing that I employed. I like to swear, particularly when holding forth on Mr Levy, but haven’t done so.

As you don't like it, I will apologise for any offence you have taken, but the capitals will stay for emphasis when it feels appropriate to use them, until I get banned for doing so.

As for the rest of your post, "Absolute ROT!"

 

In three years time we might have a different view on Tei and Simons. The Eze criticism is unjustified...he chose Arsenal over us.
I agree that we should ideally sign fewer more expensive players but I'm unaware of many who we could have signed.

 

Then explain why you think we underperformed when we did better than any of the teams around us when Levy took over.

 

A few points in response to this, which I believe is the root of the problem we're currently stuck in:

1) It is wholly unfair and stinks of a lack of ambition to bring in a new manager to fix the mess of a historically bad league finish, but then hand him tools that won't be helpful for three years.

2) I'd agree with you if the "we might" more often showed as a "we did". I constantly hear people mentioning Bale and Son as examples of players who took some time before they flourished. This is literally measurable in decades. When was the last time we signed a young player and saw them flourish after a few years? For various reasons, it hasn't happened. We've seen the likes of Bergvall, Sarr, Udogie etc. who showed promise and potential from day one, but then everyone else who was poor in year one was still poor two years later.

We are clearly much better at signing Bryan Gils than we are at signing Heung Mon Sons.

3) We don't have the luxury of waiting three years for every signing to come good. The PL is a ruthless place and our average league position and average performance level has taken a nose dive precisely because of this approach. 'Jam tomorrow' was Levy's mantra, but it never came true. And then when by some combination of sacking off the league and playing like a prime Tony Pulis side, we won the EL and got our hands on CL money, it was still "jam tomorrow" as a matter of policy. We've spent six years wandering around clueless. Another three years could be fatal.

 

I think you are bring a bit naive. Levy had become toxic because of the fan reaction to the lack of trophies. He was an obvious sacrifice to make. But if he was really the main issue on the transfer policy then they should have got rid of him before the window, not after it. I think the reason they didn’t is that nothing will change.

 

Only because we gave him the time to make such a decision. We dallied about for weeks, Arsenal then jumped in once *can’t remember who* got injured and got the deal done in no time.

We then switched attention to Simons and well… so far not so good.

 

Not consistent with the facts. Palace wanted to keep him until the end of the window. Arsenal signed him on the exact same day that we were going to.

 

The fan reaction was down to far more than a lack of trophies.

It was down to letting our best players leave without even pretending to make an attempt to replace them.

It was about years of unwatchable football.

It was about steadily declining league finishes..

It was about watching enviously as far smaller clubs started to consistently outplay and outperform us.

Fans would have forgiven the lack of trophies if none of the above were true. The Poch era amply demonstrated this.

I think I speak on behalf of most Spurs fans when I say this.

And I also think that Levy was booted out because after promising that things would change, he oversaw another vintage Levy transfer window.

 

Of course Palace wanted to keep him, what club ever wants to lose a key player?

No, Arsenal signed him before we had agreed a deal with Palace, so your facts are wrong.