Winning at all cost and second is nowhere is something that has come across the Atlantic. If the only point in a game is to win then why bother because most players lose. I became a Spurs supporter in the first place because of the entertaining football they played. They have had this as their philosophy all of my lifetime and I applaud it, even if it is not always achieved the club know that their supporters expect entertaining football. I don't see any value in Man City or Chelsea winning the league (they bloody well ought to with the amount of money they splash) . That's not their supporters fault btw that's just how it is. When teams like Swansea or Southampton win against the top sides their victory is all the sweeter because it has been achieved without just having loads of money. You should always try to win, that is the point, but failing because you have less money is not failure in my eyes and as the professional game runs on huge amounts of money there is nothing a club like Spurs can do except try to become richer. Where does that leave the football supporter? He either joins in the chase for money or he just accepts is and tries to enjoy the football. Personally I am watching the football, the money side that produces winning in the professional game, has no interest for me. You might just as well read The Financial Times.
I think any fan that says otherwise is a liar, or totally missing the point of why football's so popular. It's supposed to be entertaining! Which match did you enjoy more, losing 4-3 against Inter or winning 1-0 at home against Swansea? If your answer is the Swansea game then I feel bad for you because you're missing out on a lot of what I think makes football brilliant. If I ever thought the game was all about results it would be dull and be of no more interest to me than competitive tiddlywinks.
That's difficult considering the context... The inter game felt like a victory. It scared them enough to mean that the dynamic when they walked out on the WHL pitch for the next leg had completely changed. At the beginning of that game in the San Siro however, had you given me the option of a scrappy 1 nil win over a 4-3 loss i'd have bitten your hand off for the win.
Surely there's room for some middle ground here - we watch because it's exciting, but part of the excitement is wanting our team to win. It wouldn't take many glorious 4-3 defeats in a row before most people would welcome a gritty 1-0 win. I also started supporting Spurs (about 25 years ago) because of the footballing philosophy and it's an important part of the identify of the club, but I also like being in the PL, being in Europe, getting to cup finals, etc. The complaint about AVB, and a bit about Poch, is not just that the football was boring, but that the football was boring *and we played badly*, getting some poor results, especially at home
I would just add, as SoS pointed out earlier, you don't have to be mega rich to win a trophy. Far smaller clubs than us have done it. Yet, with all our faffing around, hiring & firing managers, buying so called future superstars etc, we've won just one trophy in the last quarter of a century! Our failure may or may not be glorious, but I'm getting a little tired of it.
I am actually on your side of the argument, but to play devil's advocate (no offence Shark), which game did you enjoy most out of the 4-3 quoted and 0-1 win against Milan that got us to the qtr finals?
I think the money aspect doesn't really matter in relation to the original question posed. Yes, the money both those clubs have, and therefore the disparity that's likely to continue to be produced is depressing / annoying / bad for the game etc but it doesn't mean they have to play crap football. I suppose i don't really naturally equate successful teams with bad football. Some of the other qualities displayed I'd love to see Spurs do on a regular basis. I'd love to see us win ugly more often, I'd question whether there's any glory in failure at all... Being both Spurs and England I've seen a fair bit of that. I love to be entertained by football but i suppose i want Spurs to win more! Just for a bit anyway Prove to the rest we can ;-)
Shark I doubt you expected to create a thread which turned into a Redknapp love-in, I would join in but I don't like to praise Redknapp that often.
Interesting and thought provoking thread, Shark. Welcome to the board. As others have pointed out, football's supposed to be a form of entertainment. I want to win every game, but I'd like to enjoy the spectacle too or it all becomes rather dull and lifeless. Redknapp wasn't perfect, but I felt that I was in for an interesting ride before each game, even when that turned out not to be the case. Villas-Boas was arguably a more effective and efficient manager, but our football was pretty turgid during parts of his reign. I think that our reputation as a soft touch has been built over a long period and it's basically down to being a bit too bloody nice. Even our best defenders of recent years have been all down to positioning, reading the game and being good on the ball. There's rarely any nastiness, spite, aggression or physicality about them. King and Mabbutt were both immense for us, but one's clearly a lovely guy who wouldn't hurt a fly and the other's a soft-spoken bloke with a bit of a lisp. We spent decades playing with a midfield that wasn't too keen on tackling or tracking back and shirked battles. The football was often great when we had the ball, but everyone knew that we were vulnerable when we didn't and they gained confidence from that. Ossie Ardiles might be the best example of what we've come to expect from our team and what others expect, too. It was great fun when it worked, but there was no pragmatism, cynicism or grit about the side. The attitude has permeated the club's image and it's problematic now for various reasons. Teams don't give up when we're ahead in games, managers have an easy pep talk for their players and officials are happy to go against us. Nobody kicks off on the pitch, our managers let crap decisions go in post-match interviews and the press write us off relentlessly, too. It's something that needs to be dispelled now, even if it means going against our established way of doing things. Take the opening game at Old Trafford. Jon Moss had no problem giving every 50/50 to the home side, as he knew nothing would come of it if he was wrong. His performance in our game at The Etihad last season was appalling and criticised from all angles, yet there was no fallout for him at all. Nobody took him to task in the press, nobody on the pitch challenged his calls with any authority and the home side picked up all three points. Why would he approach the next game any differently? Dier and Mason seem to be our only players that understand the need for a darker edge to the team. No idea where they've got it from though, as it seems to be in rather short supply.
Frankly i loved the CL run with Harry... The 10 point capitulation in the following season put me right off however. I suppose is the essence of what we're talking about
And during that run, we would all have taken boring 1 nil wins to secure 3rd. If we find a manager that can play exciting football but also have the squad and ability to churn out boring 1 nil wins then we may well win trophies with style and smart tactics.
It's worth pointing out that the worlds most successful national team Brazil have achieved their status with a very exciting brand of football. The Germans have also often produced exciting teams. The Italian style has been more dour and more like the pre Wenger Arsenal. The Dutch in the seventies were easily the most exciting team in the world at the time and NEARLY won everything LOL. I point this all out to highlight the fact that winning can be done in an entertaining way as well, We can stick to our guns but bear in mind that the last time we won the league we had a certain Dave Mackay in the team. That's precisely the kind of player our current squad needs IMO. That would be entertaining!
I think we'd all like to win playing great football... That's a given. What constitutes glory has conditions attached to it, ones which the team can't even influence, like who we're playing, in what competition or at what stage of the season. We even had a couple of glorious victories last season that didn't appease some of the posters here as they were kinda out of the blue and not in-keeping with much of the form through the rest of the season. I fear we may never be happy... However, as PNP said, this issue (if you believe there is one) has been sometime in the making. Do we as a club, consciously or not, celebrate failure?
It was a different game back then, in many ways. However, what that side had, and what is lacking in so many teams today, is balance. While Mackay was minding the shop, Blanchflower & Johnny White were pulling the strings in front of him. Two pacy wingers in Jones & Dyson. A Bull of a centre forward in Smith, with the more nimble Allen behind him. At the back, if you got past Mackay, there was Norman, Baker & Henry - all very competent defenders. It was very much an attack minded side, but one that could defend when necessary too. Everybody knew their job and the whole thing just knitted together. The Brazil 1970 side is still one of the most exciting sides I've ever seen. The way they took Italy apart in the final was awesome!
First you have to define failure and this forum is divided on that one. Since Jol and excluding the Ramos blip Spurs have pretty much achieved what you might reasonably expect given their status as the 6th richest PL club in terms of league position perhaps falling a little short in the cups. Others, however, will argue that we are allowing ourselves to drop down the pecking order through lack of investment from Enic and therefore we are a failure. I don't agree with that view mainly because we have invested heavily in training facilities and a new stadium is on the horizon. These are the measures that will take us forward in terms of status. I don't think that suggests we celebrate failure UNLESS it's a fantastic match in which we played a major part like the Milan game.
Those are all good points... I suppose my initial post relates back to the "echo's of glory" speech which i feel perhaps defines the club rather than defines failure itself. that quote is decades long, way before ENIC and the premier league. It was said at a time when we were the best club in the country (I think) and certainly encapsulated a romanticism that perhaps we could afford then as, well, who was gonna argue with the bloke to managed the first team to win the double? i just can't help but think this sentiment has come to define us in the stands as well as on the pitch through the prevailing years.
I get what you're saying, going into the game I'd quite happily have taken a point however it came to be honest. Going into most games I'd take a boring 1-0 too, but that doesn't mean I'd be happy to see us regularly play boring, defensive football. It just means that I do put a value on winning, if that makes sense. Just like going into a game, I'd also be happy to take seeing some great goals, even without knowing whether we win or lose, or if we even score any of the great goals. Again that's just because I place a value on seeing great football. This brings me on to what @SpursDisciple asked... I enjoyed them both immensely. With the Inter game I got to experience seeing some truly spectacular football from one player in particular and also the pride of seeing that coming from a player in a Spurs shirt and against the holders of the Champions League no less. With the AC Milan game I got to see us beat a very well respected European side away from home, which was a great achievement. Infact there's plenty of other reasons I enjoyed both games but frankly it's not really worth going into. I honestly couldn't choose which one I enjoyed more at the time but I'll always remember the Bale hattrick most fondly in the long term. At the end of the day, I'm just saying that there's a lot more to the game than just results, not that results don't matter. To say you'd rather watch your team lose playing good football than win playing badly might seem like "loser talk" to people like Roy Keane, Fergie, Mourinho or some other fans too but I think in some circumstances that's definitely the case.
As we've seen with others, sometimes it's necessary to win ugly. Nobody wants to see that all the time, but to have that ability to dig deep and grind out a result when you're not playing well, is invaluable, IMO.
For the previous three seasons (in the main) we have had teams that win playing ugly, lose playing ugly, with the main memories being of individual player brilliance or freak performances (such as london derbies) that aren't repeated. Although some remain optimistic that the team will develop into an attractive footballing side.
