I think you could get upgrades on Rose and Lamela, that's about it. Unless they somehow signed one of the top 3 keepers there's no improving on Lloris. The rest of the team just functions so well together there would be no point replacing them.
The Spurs thread
- Thread starter GlastonSpur
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Fair enough, I interpreted your post incorrectly, mainly due to the general lack of sensible points in this thread.
Yes we are going to have problems, however improving the depth will have a positive impact. If we could sign Witsel that would considerably improve our CM options, Bentaleb and Carroll look certain to go this Summer and Mason just isn't quite there. Having the options of Dier, Dembele, Witsel and if needed Alli, will significantly upgrade that area with just one signing, plus Dier has pretty much been run into the ground now, the depth to rotate next season will also help us to improve.
Poch has now come out and said we obviously need a quality CF to play "with" Kane, which was an interesting way of saying it. Though I think it's lost in translation it's still interesting and whenever he's played in the 10 role Kane looks different gravy. However I dont expect that but the acknowledgement from Poch that we need a quality forward is most welcome and I think that we have quite possibly already have secured somebody, we shall see. This will also be a significant help to us, at times we have been short of any sort of firepower to bring off of the bench or to rotate with.
We won't find it as easy as others to improve, but I'm certain that we will.
If you really want to bet, then let's make it £50 to the winner - OK?
This is a bit odd, but Glaston has single handedly convinced an entire Man Utd board to think that Arsenal finishing above Spurs is a good thing and for which United fans should root for.
so if we win our game in hand it leaves us just 4 points behind the all mighty, best Spurs side in about 20 years.They could easily find upgrades on Dier and Lamela. Nothing players. Also their squad depth in midfield is shit when players like Chadli, Mason and Carroll are next in line to come in.
Mirallas is a decent player and can't be that happy at Everton I wouldn't have thought...or maybe they could get Townsend back!
Mirallas is a decent player and can't be that happy at Everton I wouldn't have thought...or maybe they could get Townsend back!
With help from Pervy - who I don't think is his alt login...
It is very likely that the next year's Champions elect, will end this season in less points than Martinez's Everton on that freak season for them. And at best case, they will break their best record in EPL with a single point.
Agreed. Plus in the FB positions. Walker,Rose,Ben Davies,Tripper all seem average to me.
Just to put it again specially for Glaston and his comparison of the last 3 years and the previous 3 years in terms of points
10/11 - 62 points
11/12 - 69 points
12/13 - 72 points
total - 203, average 67.66
13/14 - 69 points
14/15 - 64 points
15/16 - 70 points * one game to go
total - 203, average 67.66 * one game to go
All in all they can either replicate their record or be 3 points above it. Progress.
10/11 - 62 points
11/12 - 69 points
12/13 - 72 points
total - 203, average 67.66
13/14 - 69 points
14/15 - 64 points
15/16 - 70 points * one game to go
total - 203, average 67.66 * one game to go
All in all they can either replicate their record or be 3 points above it. Progress.
This ignores the massive investment that Spurs have been making in their new training complex and new stadium complex, particularly over the last 3 years. Since we are not funded by a sugar daddy, this has had to come out of money that otherwise could have been invested in the squad ... so to keep up the same average level of points-performance despite this is actually pretty good.
It also ignores our title challenge and likely 2nd place finish this season ... something that was not achieved in the first 3 year period. So yes, progress.
Moreover, my prior comparison posts have mostly been about several other clubs (United, Chelsea and Liverpool) and not just Spurs.
This is purely a comparison of points per season which is something pretty accurate in terms of where the usual position Spurs occupy at the end of the season. This season is a freak one in which even 70 points could be enough to finish top 2(which you haven't as Arsenal can still pip you for it as Newcastle most likely will be fighting for their spot on the final day).
Besides after all the talk you still might finish below your top points mark in 6 years.
Again this is performance in the league rather than the club as a whole. Sure you've moved forward in that department.
And again points tally's are only relevant to the season that you win them in and the finish it gives you. We've won enough points to finish 2nd or 3rd, that's all that matters.
Citing points tallies alone is a poor way to look at things. It can often be kind of deceiving as different seasons can require different totals to compete/survive or whatever. Our points tally from 1998-2001, during three of Fergie's most successful and dominant years, was 250. Our points tally between 2003-2006, his worst period by far in the PL era, was 235, only 15 points less. On the face of it, one is only slightly better than the other, despite the fact that we were objectively far, far better in the former period.
You can't have it both ways. People have argued that Spurs are only finishing second (or maybe third) due to other teams having poor seasons. Some Spurs fans, certainly Glaston, have fought this line of argument. If you actually accumulate less points than previous seasons, then I think it is hard to argue against this being a result of other team's failings rather than any major Spurs' progress.
Don't agree at all, it is what it is. If you're 2nd it's because only one team has done better, third because two have. That's the long and the short of it. If we finish 2nd it would make no difference to me if we did it with 60 or 80 points.
Point tallies give you a good indication of what it takes to win the 4th spot.
For example since 05/06 for example to finish top four you need at minimum 67 points. Usually to be top four you need north of 70 points. In two cases it needed even 76 and 79 respectively for the 4th placed team. This year as said is a bit of anomaly as you can win even the 2nd spot with 70 points. Even 66 points could be enough which would be a record low, underlining that the top 4 in terms of points have under performed compared to recent seasons.
Besides we're comparing a six years span which is not that apart and generally the point tallies for the top teams have been the same. Have Spurs done something incredible in those 3 seasons compared to before? I think not as they've usually posted the same results. Have top 4 teams this year under performed? I think yes.
The "top 4" teams being who?
United, City, Arsenal and Chelsea obviously.
Sure, but you don't normally regard such a thing in complete isolation.
What people find interesting to discuss is how good this Spurs team actually is. In that context it's just as interesting that Leicester will win the league with an uncommonly poor points total – and that you will finish 2nd, probably, with a points total that normally isn't sufficient for that – as the isolated fact that you've been the second best team in this particular season.
You can explain Leicester in two basic ways: Either they're a genuinely brilliant team who have been the best of a genuinely brilliant bunch of top-of-the-line contenders – or the explanation is something far less flattering. This is relevant to the Spurs situation as well – very much so.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, we need to get in to the top 4 first and foremost before belittling spurs.
Two of which won't be in the top 4 this season. Just as one of which on average has not been in the top 4 for a fair few seasons past. Which means there isn't - and hasn't been for a long while - any such thing as a settled top 4. It's a myth.
It's not a myth in any normal sense. If you look at the last six seasons (which was used as the frame above), it's evident who the top four are. Arsenal have six top four finishes out of six. Chelsea, United and City all have five.
Tottenham have two - and Liverpool one.
Sorry, but that's not correct. The 6-frame season cited includes this season ... in which Chelsea won't be in the top 4, and one of United, City or Arsenal (take your pick) also won't be.
This thread is such a trainwreck
If Spurs somehow bottle second place and drop below the most experienced bottlers in the league do they ultimately win for out bottling the bottle champions?
Bottle.
If Spurs somehow bottle second place and drop below the most experienced bottlers in the league do they ultimately win for out bottling the bottle champions?
Bottle.
Yes, I didn't include the current season, as it's not finished. But I still don't see how what is obviously the top four statistically, no matter what happens this season, is a "myth".
The pattern is quite clear. Tottenham will be the only team who can claim to be close to the "mythical" group of four - and they'll still be clearly behind, with three top four finishes compared to Chelsea's 5, United's 5(6), City's 5(6) and Arsenal's 6(7).
This thread is such a trainwreck
If Spurs somehow bottle second place and drop below the most experienced bottlers in the league do they ultimately win for out bottling the bottle champions?
Bottle.
Bottlin'ham Twatspur.
Missing out on top four for one or two seasons in 7 doesn't change the pattern that those 4 teams are more likely to finish top 4 come next season.
Saying it hasn't been a top four for a long time is laughable as the top four teams of last season were those mentioned with at least 6 points in front of Spurs.
So has every other club Glaston.
If this season is included in the 6 season timeframe Spurs have still only finished top 4 twice.
That's not the case.
Even if that's the case - and it's debatable - this likelihood is reducing with the passage of time. Two will miss out this time around ... and I think it will that be many again next season.
And what I said is that there hasn't been a settled top 4 for many seasons ... there's been an average 25% churn rate.
Which would make your club the prime candidate for dropping out because the other three are prone to finish in top 4 more often than you lot in the last 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 years
We are on.
What is the bet, simply that United will finish above Spurs?
Money to caf or winner?
I'd quite like a part of that.
I mean we'd have done it this season with Luke Shaw fit all year round. 7 point gap tuning 4 this week I reckon. Nothing.
@GlastonSpur @SirHenryPercy
Money to caf or winner?
I'd quite like a part of that.
I mean we'd have done it this season with Luke Shaw fit all year round. 7 point gap tuning 4 this week I reckon. Nothing.
@GlastonSpur @SirHenryPercy
4 if we win our game in hand.
Your example with context actually made perfect sense in regrading to PL quality improvement significantly from around 2003 onward. During 2003-2006 the champions were league invincible Arsenal and Mourinho ultra consistent Chelsea. The level has been raised since this time until it started to drop off recent seasons. Again that paints how genius SAF as a manager who could raise the team level to catch up with new height with incoming new challengers. In contrast Wenger couldn't sustain/ up his game and eventually dropped off, while still consistent enough to finish in top 4.
With that idea in mind, this season the quality at the top is really terrible. The point tally does reflect the correlation between quality and top teams' inconsistency quite well. Key word here is correlation.
Last edited:
The level was raised after Arsenal's invincibles? I don't think so, and that's from a Spurs fan.
The point tally reflects nothing other what was required in any given season. Leicester could possibly have won the league with 71 points, does that indicate a strong league from top to bottom or a weak one?