Or past football, because our League & FA Cup double is never held up alongside the more preferable options
Just looking at the previous game in the 70's reminds me how much football has changed since then. Almost everything is different, Spurs are mostly British players, it was headline news when we signed Ardilles and Villa who had not long before won the world cup. Look at the state of the pitch, it was the norm then to play on quagmires The ball weighs a lot more a LOT more making the game look more ponderous than the modern version. The shorts I used to think they were cool now they just look silly. Players getting tackled and just getting up. Are the players fitter now? Probably they are, there is much more emphasis on fitness and diet. Gilzean & Greaves the Dele & Kane of that time both liked a drink and a smoke. What's arguable is the skill level, I think Hoddle would still be a top top player in todays football and with the lighter ball and bowling green pitches he would have looked even better perhaps. Is it a better game now? I suppose from the showy level it often looks better but in many ways we have lost so much and gained an awful lot of cheating and gamesmanship. Spurs still try to play the game in the right way so I am delighted by that. The other major difference, look at the old stadium and compare that to the amazing one we are about to have. Huge improvement. COYS
WE have two of the best defenders in the world King. We stopped Suraez when he played for Liverpool we are a much stronger team now. Messi who?
The media rarely gives credit to Spurs contribution for anything. The only time I heard TalkShite mention our amazing transfer balance was when they turned it into a negative by saying that we should therefore be able to spend zillions in the transfer window.
"Bill eventually became Mr Tottenham Hotspur, and produced such a dazzling team at White Hart Lane that they won the double and played the game in a way that was an object lesson to everybody." - Brian Clough
Yes I don't know whether they don't get it or just don't want to, preferring a story about a mean Levy. I heard the SKY presenter (whoever he is) say that Spurs don't spend on transfers, which actually should be a compliment. The fact is we do spend but we also sell to finance that spending. That's how it should be you dorks. The media prefers the City and Chelsea model which just shows their lack of interest and understanding of football as a sport. Spurs should lauded as the best example of how to run a competitive football team. From supporting local player development to investing wisely in young talent Spurs lead the way and manage to produce a team capable of beating anyone on their day. The media meanwhile look for new ways to exploit the peoples game for their own ends and do their best to spoil it by concentrating on the controversial moments in a game and ignoring the quality players who try to play it in the right way.
Nor the Scottish contribution, without Peter 'the Great' McWilliam, born in Inverness, there may not of been Arthur Rowe at Spurs, no push and run, no Bill Nick, no Vic Buckingham, no double, no Ajax total football and Barca might just be a mid table side. Not so sure about modern though, Peter the Great joined Spurs in 1912. Perhaps it could be said that the media rarely gives credit to Spurs contribution to football, period.
There's a conspiracy of stupidity about Spurs finances. The media love repeating that we have a wage structure and don't spend any money. Every club has a wage structure. The sensible ones keep wages to 60% of income. Others spend more but it's difficult to keep that up and do anything but keep even, after transfers and normal running costs. Spurs spend the same proportion of income as Citeh and United. I don't see any criticism of those clubs. The lack of transfer spending is easily explained. In the last decade, the club have spent between 350-400m, out of income, on buying land around the stadium, architechts fees, planning disputes, entering into the Stratford episode, compulsory purchase disputes, etc., etc. The money hasn't disappeared or been trousered by Joe Lewis, it's been invested in building fabulous permanent assets that will ensure the future of our club is a good one. Some of those costs relate to the supermarket, shop space, hotel and housing that will go a long way to meeting the remaining cost of the build. Some of the the money spent relates to Hotspur Way, the best training centre in England, which has been applauded but it wasn't bought and paid for with buttons. Again, investment in the long-term future, rather than spunking money we don't have on players that we can't afford. This use of the club's money isn't a secret. However, because the club hasn't spent every penny and more on buying players and paying them a ridiculously high proportion of our income, a load of ridiculous nonsense is trotted out about not spending any money. The money's all been spent, guys, it's just the difference between saving for a few years to build a new, bigger house and staying in a place that's too small and blowing your money on brand new super cars.....but nobody sees it. I guess "Levy and Lewis Won't Spend" just sells more copy.
What gets me is that, pre-Emirates, Arsenal had a rigid wage structure and tended to be frugal in their transfer activity, yet all we heard from the pundits was how Wenger nurturing prospects he bought for peanuts into both first-team regulars and full internationals was the model that all clubs should follow Move forward a decade, when Spurs have doing the same thing for several years, we have many of those same pundits lambasting us for not spending massive amounts of money A psychologist would have a field day with that.
I've not seen too many articles criticising Citeh's previous owners for not spending like the current ones. Yesterday, I saw an article that very calmly indicated that Arsenal's contract offer to Aaron Ramsey had been withdrawn because the club's finances had been materially affected by failing to qualify for the CL for 2 seasons. There was no hint of criticism, just an acceptance that 'less income = less expenditure'. For years, Spurs had no CL money, whereas, Arsenal had 20 consecutive years of gravy. Throughout that time, we continued to attract criticism for not matching the ambition of clubs with far greater incomes. Harry Kane's contract being doubled to a basic of £200k per week basic received publicity. However, not so much for Sonny's new deal, which sees him on around £150k per week basic, around double his previous wage because we've doubled our income since he joined. There's a desire in the press to perpetuate the myth. I'm not given to overreaction but one has to wonder if there is an agenda against Joe Lewis from the owners of the British media? We have as little to do with them as possible and they continue to slaughter us, no matter what.
Available we have Lloris/Gazzaniga Trippier Alderweireld Sanchez Davies Rose Dier Wanyama Winks Lamela Son Moura Kane Llorente From that, I'd play Lloris Alderweireld Dier Sanchez Trippier Winks Wanyama Rose Lamela Kane Moura From the Bench Son Gazza Davies Llorente Foyth Amos Skipp
4231 for me. Want us to hit them with pace on the counter. Gazza Tripps, Dave, Toby, Rose Dier, Wanyama Lucas, Lamela, Son Kane
Strange you think that. Two people made their legend/notoriety from "Black wednesday" : Uncle Joe and Soros. Since then, both have gone on to considerable wealth. One says/does a lot in public/financing to further their own political/ economic agenda. The other at : - worst does exactly the same in private circles out of the public gaze - best may not give a toss about this stuff, or seek to lecture the world While I do not agree with aspects of how ENIC have run THFC, at least I can say "by his works shall ye know him" to discern from Spurs sufficient about Uncle Joe and his views on commercial life. Which I agree with.
Foyth isn't eligible. Sissoko is available. Surely Walker-Peters on the bench instead of Skipp or Amos?
