I don't agree. You need the potential to earn £1B of revenue. That can theoretically be done by the rich owner entering into fraudulent sponsorship deals but no-one is going to do that for a small town club.
How many players would you say have either: A) Impressed B) Improved Under his guidance. And then as a second part, how many would you say have either: A) Unimpressed B) Regressed Under his guidance.
No you don’t. You simply need to sign the perfect players at every stage and have the right manager for them. A team in non-league could theoretically rise all the way to Champions League winners. It’s improbable but not impossible, so every team has the potential to be the best.
And it’s been shown to you several times by multiple posters that his methods are the cause of a lot of these injuries.
I’ve never met anyone who is so blind as to use his own statistics and not consider alternative views or accept any evidence unless they are extrapolated from stats. Or you have to do is watch Spurs play to see it’s not working! You could also look at our form since November ‘23. But no, let’s wait until 100 games have been endured to see some reliable statistics! Bugger that suggestion! Ange out!
Multiple people have claimed that but Klopp had the same issues with injuries in his early seasons (and his last) and he is regarded by most as an excellent manager. It's not necessarily bad strategy to risk more injuries to get better results even if one possible outcome is to have a much greater increase in injuries than you expected and poor results.
You can’t compare Ange to Klopp. Klopp had experience in the German league which is probably most similar to English football in terms of style. The Scottish league with Celtic is a canter and even Ronny Delia and Neil Lennon won leagues and trophies there. Klopp played heavy metal football but it never meant Liverpool fell away so bad that they finished bottom half of the table. Realistically Spurs will be finishing 13th-17th which just isn’t acceptable at all.
You are misrepresenting my position. My objection is to people posting 'evidence' that is essentially statistics wrongly calculated. There are lots of good reasons to sack managers that are nothing to do with statistics and Ange may be across the line on some of those. I've never said we should wait 100 games, merely pointed out that any discussion of form is not conclusive until at least that many games have been played. But I think you would certainly have sacked Alex Ferguson before he won a trophy at Man Utd if you had used the same logic. He was 11th in his 4th season and 13th in his 5th (losing 16 games).
I would say Bergvall, Gray, Udogie, Van Der Ven, Spence and Sarr have impressed or improved and that Son and Richarlison have regressed. But it's difficult to be certain because the team is so ravaged by injuries. I know you think he is the cause of that but I am not convinced yet. I do know most people thought we would struggle without Kane and he got us 5th in his first season which seems to be entirely forgotten as an achievement now.
5th in the first season was a good start, but then he needed to kick on, he hasn’t even maintained that or gone forward slightly, it’s been a steady decline since his 11th league game. Since then he doesn’t look like he’s got the answers or shown enough to give the impression that he’s the man to take the club where they want to be. Obviously if he wins the Europa league then he will rightly get a 3rd season in charge to show he can fix the league form.
They didn’t use statistics to keep hold of Ferguson as if to suggest he was going to become the manager he did…they just gave it time probably backed by their patience levels, don’t think it was backed by data…more likely instincts backed by the eyeball test which are telling most of us that something isn’t quite working for us on the pitch.
Oh please no no no! Look at Man Utd. They kept Ten Hag because he won the FA Cup last season but promptly sacked him this season. Levy won’t keep him next season because the fans are attacking him and ENIC and obviously Ange is going to be the fall guy.
Quite right. Plus transfers were completely different in those days. Ferguson in the 80s cannot be compared to today’s standards.
Whether it would turn out to be the right thing or not, only time would tell. But if he wins the Europa then he’s won a trophy the club craves and also qualified for the CL which brings the financial benefits.
Fergie was hired on the basis of his time at Aberdeen (progressing them into a Scottish league title regular + UEFA trophy winner) . Sufficient info perhaps to allow for more time (although the folklore is the board were going to give him the boot if Man Utd had not won the FA cup in 1990) .
Ange is going to be the fall guy because he's made himself the fall guy by squaring up to fans Also has to be said it would be mildly hilarious if he di win the Europa but we moved on to a new manager anyway, just to see how many people demanding he be sacked for the previous 6-9 months suddenly do a 180 and demand the club show loyalty to him
I wouldn’t demand the club show loyalty to him if he won the Europa but I could see why they would give him another chance if he did Fwiw I think Spurs go out to Frankfurt anyway. Just hope it’s not with a whimper.
Where does luck fit into statistical analysis? I can't get passed you requiring fully baked statistical analysis from your peers and yet writing issues off as "bad luck", yourself. If you're going to accept luck as a reason for failure, why not the phases of the moon (I have a relative who believes in 'lunacy' and claims to suffer from it), the work of elves and goblins and black magic?
