I don't understand your point. My point is that even with the Bale money we've spent a lot less than three of the clubs above us and the same as two more. and how do you know they are crap players?
I've got mixed feelings on this one, but I'm certainly in favor of supporting the new man and trying hard to be patient with him. There is always a real possibility that any coach was never the right choice. But if you sack each new coach every time there's a significant downturn, you're ensuring that you, the sacker, aren't making the right choice. All teams and coaches have downturns, but the teams tend to benefit from continuity. So I'd rather err on the side of giving Sherwood, and just about anyone else in the job, time and patience--not that it's likely he'll get much of either. There's certainly something farcical about the way we ended up with him. What little I know about him is not reassuring, except for what seems a sincere commitment to playing attractive football. But I'm not at all convinced he is the wrong choice for us, at least for now. In my opinion, AVB started this year with a good plan of playing defensively to keep us in the race for fourth with so much of the squad new. But he tried to play better football a crucial few games too late, and then, it seems, only under pressure. I think we would have been better off sticking with AVB for longer, but then I thought we would have been better off sticking with Harry as well. And now I think we'd do well to support Sherwood. While I wouldn't be bothered if we replaced him with someone more appropriate, the main thing we need to do is get off the sacking merry-go-round soon. It amounts to sating the mob by sacrificing someone to their wrath, and seems designed above all to save the skin of someone a bit higher up. The idea that a team won't be better when they've played with most of the same teammates and the same manager for a couple of years strikes me as a very strange one. Key passes require the finest timing and the greatest knowledge of teammates of all the things a team does, it's what we're weakest at, and the fact so many players are new is not coincidentally related.
Here's a thought, maybe a bit extreme to some, but why don't we get behind Sherwood and all hope he does well for our club? I didn't like him as a player and pundit and I wasn't happy he was appointed but now he has been, we've got to put up with it. So instead of whining about it - which isn't going to change his appointment - get behind the bloke. It seems that some on here are wanting him to fail so they can take great pleasure & delight if/when he does. C.O.Y.S.
I want him to get us into the Champions League and will support him 100% - but it does not stop us questioning the thought process behind his appointment
Sure, we can do that. And whilst we're at it - and this might sound even more extreme to some - why don't we close down all the football fora and stop all speculation, gossip, and debate? Save us all a heap of pointless fun.
HIAG I think you've taken my post the wrong way. I wasn't slating anyone or mocking their opinions, or the right to gossip etc. My opinion of Sherwood isn't very high and I'm far from happy that he's got the job. But he has got and there's nothing that is going to change that. Let's leave the whining, squabbles and bickering to another club on their board!
I'm of the "two minds" school: 1. Back Sherwood and the club. 2. Have some fun mocking what can and should be mocked. I'm not sure if this is a sensible approach, but I like it for the moment for me. I like this board because while there's plenty of disagreement, for the most part it's interesting, well-written and not meant as a personal attack.
Sherwood could be the next Gareth Southgate ( remember him taking over Middlesbrough) or as Levy hopes, the next Pep Guardiola )) who brings through his own youth players who transform our fortunes. Of course Levy will be sat there wondering how much these youth players will make him and Enic in a few years time!
I can remember when Bill Nick was elevated to manager from "coach".He didn't have a good first season (although his team did beat Everton 10-4!) and his second wasn't great either....but he/they perservered and..........
In them days how did the chairman , fans and press react? Would panic set in after a few bad games! Was anyone questioning if Bill Nick was the right man?
So you are trying to draw an analogy between Sherwood, and a(nother) dour Yorkshireman with no ostensible ego who took the club forward from its worst slump in recent history to become the 2nd most successful Spurs manager ?? For starters I doubt Sherwood will be departing Spurs with his head held high and giving the finger to the then chairman.
Firstly with no foreigners in management (to the best of my knowledge) in the England (apart from Scots and Welsh)so the options were limited. Matt Busby had begun to rebuild at Man U after being there for 13 years and winning 3 titles so he would be unlikely to leave, Shankly was Huddersfield manager doing nothing special, Loserpool only employed him after being dumped out of the cup by a non league side in 58 so he wasn't really worth while considering, he was a risk for the mousers. I would expect Spurs would have looked at ex player Vic Buckingham but he was at West Brom as their longest serving manager and unlikely to leave (although he left for Ajax the following season). Plus when Billy Nick took over Spurs were 6th from bottom with a team of good but underperforming players. As you say the afternoon of his appointment Spurs went and put 10 goals past Everton. Probably more to do with the dismissal of Jimmy Anderson than the appointment of Billy Nick but as with AVB's sacking, it probably lifted a cloud above the Spurs dressing room. If Tim Sherwood's side put 10 goals past either l'arse of the mancs, I assure you it will buy him a lot of time. When it comes down to it, staying in the top flight would have been the first a foremost target in 1958 when Nicholson took over but then he had to start building a team and team sprit, he needed to bring in a few players and get the rest to gel. Clearly those in power saw an improvement with time. And why not give Nicholson a chance? He came from the same Peter McWilliam school of football as Arthur Rowe and Vic Buckingham so he was very likely to do things 'the Spurs Way'. What did the fans think? well my old granddad told me that the 'bragging rites' were as alive as far back as he could remember (circa 1908) so I'm sure the fans had their opinions. Unfortunately my old granddad is long gone so I can't ask him in order to find out what he thought of the Nicholson appointment but I know one phrase that wouldn't have been far away, 'lucky old Arsenal'.
St Nicholson also had the benefit of being a player during the time of Arthur Rowe. No doubt this link would have endeared him to the supporters and bought him some time. So he was totally immersed in the way the club wanted to play football. You could argue that Arthur Rowe devised the concept, but St Nicholson refined and improved it to reach its conclusion. I suspect that Keithy also had the benefit of Nicholson still being around the club during his early years in the coaching setup. No doubt both being Yorkshiremen helped too to build the flow of ideas and rapport as he stepped up to be manager. I don't see the analogies for Sherwood at all.
Good read cheers! I obviously knew football, the way managers and clubs in general conducted themselves was different back then, pressure wasn't the same but always Interesting to read views on such times!
We used to sign one player a season back then. I've got the programmes for the 1971 and 1973 League cup finals and there are 16 players in the squad and 14 the same. Only 1 sub being allowed made a huge difference.
