The Spurs thread

[finneh]

You spray the word 'mediocre' around far too easily. Mid-table is mediocre - Spurs finished in 3rd place.

Rose was voted by his fellow professionals the best LB in the Prem this season - yet according to you he's just 'mediocre'.

Walker - a former Young Player of the Year in the Prem - has had a good season and is deservedly in the England squad for this summer. But he's just 'mediocre' according to you.

You say our "attacking positions apart from Kane are mediocre": Alli plays as part of the attacking three behind Kane. Is he mediocre? Ditto Eriksen.

I'm fully aware that the CL is a step-up from the EL - and I've already spoken of the need to upgrade CM cover. But I flatly disagree that two of our first XI CMs - presumably you mean Dier and Dembele - "aren't Champions League quality to begin with": there are plenty of inferior CMs who'll be playing in the CL next season.

I'm not expecting Spurs to hold aloft the CL trophy next season. But Spurs are deservedly in the CL. How far we'll go depends to some extent on the luck of draw. I was widely told last time out that Spurs wouldn't make it out of the group stages ... but whatever happens this time around I don't think Spurs will be, as you put it, "embarrassed".

I said you'd be embarrassed if you didn't play your first XI, which given your PL exploits when this has happened is 100% true.

Truth be told Rose being voted the best LB fits the catch phrase of the season "best of a bad bunch", which has been true of the winners and the teams who've finished top four. Next season is bound to be a different ball game and as United fans have known for years, you need to strengthen from a position of strength. Spurs have more to offer very good players than ever before: CL Football, working with an exciting young manager and for an exciting young team. If I were Pochettino this would be my Martin O Neil moment "invest or I'm going to leave before this ship hits the iceberg ahead".

My prediction: Spurs spend modestly, Alli or Kane suffer a bout of poor form or injury, Spurs finish 6th or 7th, Pochettino goes from an incredibly talented young manager to another soon to be sacked Spurs manager.

The easy way to stop this is getting 3 quality £25m players in who'll slot in and instantly improve not only your depth, but also your team (Xhaka would be a great start and a slap in the face of Arsenal fans). After all where has all that money gone with 5 years of spending next to nothing?

 

[Attila]

Spurs scored more league goals than Arsenal last season - in fact only Man. City scored more (2 more) than us. So the 10 goals-threshold is rather meaningless when lots of different players chipped in with goals, even if it was less than 10 in most cases. But we do need another striker, as I've said, and I'm pretty sure we'll get one.

To answer your question: no, I don't think the first XI needs strengthening. It's a settled XI, with a young average age, well-gelled together, and will collectively probably only get better next season with another pre-season of coaching under Poch and with the benefit of this season's experience under their belts.

It's the first XI cover/competition that most needs improving.

Spurs finished behind Arsenal (who already look to be improving their first 11 with Xhaka) and only 4 points ahead of City and United. Two teams who have big problems in the first 11 and with the managers (one who was a lame duck and the other useless) which you would expect to be addressed this summer with Guardiola and Mourinho. There's obvious problems with Liverpool too with the GK and LB

I'm not sure keeping the same first 11 and hoping they will sustain the improvement will be a good idea. If the goal is to win the title then I don't think the team will just gain another 10+ points by staying the same

 

[Steven Seagull]

I would like to know if Glaston and the other Spurs fans agree that they are favourites for the title next year as things stand. And if not, why not. @GlastonSpur @SirHenryPercy @redmeister

 

[GlastonSpur]

But all those teams listed had shit seasons, so not really a good comparable at all.

You say probably will get better, I can tell you for sure Arsenal and City will get better. So just hoping to keep the same first XI and hoping they get better is a risky strategy. Especially with the Big 4/5 clubs looking to invest heavily in their squads. You had the perfect storm this season, don't think it will be the same next season.

Yes, you can tell me "for sure" that City and Arsenal will get better ... but that doesn't guarantee that they will.

You mention the "perfect storm" ... but really that's just another way of saying that Spurs were better than United, Liverpool and Chelski. It wasn't luck - we were just better.

It may be a risky strategy that Spurs are embarked on, but we don't have much choice. We can't outspend our rivals, so for the time being, until our new stadium revenues kick in, we have to rely on what's served us well so far: our youth development system, our transfer scouting system and our transfer negotiation system.

Besides, saying that our rivals will invest heavily is nothing new: they've all been heavily outspending Spurs in net terms for season after season (as has every other team in the Prem). But most of them face a summer of upheaval, transition and adaptation, whilst Spurs don't. There's a lot to be said for settled continuity.

 

[GlastonSpur]

I would like to know if Glaston and the other Spurs fans agree that they are favourites for the title next year as things stand. And if not, why not. @GlastonSpur @SirHenryPercy @redmeister

No, I think we're far from being favourites for the title. Why? Because (a) we have the CL to contend with, which we didn't have last season; (b) because we we only finished 3rd last time around; and (c) because we have a new stadium to fund and so don't that much money to spend.

 

[finneh]

Yes, you can tell me "for sure" that City and Arsenal will get better ... but that doesn't guarantee that they will.

You mention the "perfect storm" ... but really that's just another way of saying that Spurs were better than United, Liverpool and Chelski. It wasn't luck - we were just better.

It may be a risky strategy that Spurs are embarked on, but we don't have much choice. We can't outspend our rivals, so for the time being, until our new stadium revenues kick in, we have to rely on what's served us well so far: our youth development system, our transfer scouting system and our transfer negotiation system.

Besides, saying that our rivals will invest heavily is nothing new: they've all been heavily outspending Spurs in net terms for season after season (as has every other team in the Prem). But most of them face a summer of upheaval, transition and adaptation, whilst Spurs don't. There's a lot to be said for settled continuity.

This is a carbon copy of the Liverpool fans on here after the season they were so close to winning the League after their similarly perfect storm. Can't see a different outcome either. I'm just waiting for the "We Go Again" banners.

 

[GlastonSpur]

I said you'd be embarrassed if you didn't play your first XI, which given your PL exploits when this has happened is 100% true.

Truth be told Rose being voted the best LB fits the catch phrase of the season "best of a bad bunch", which has been true of the winners and the teams who've finished top four. Next season is bound to be a different ball game and as United fans have known for years, you need to strengthen from a position of strength. Spurs have more to offer very good players than ever before: CL Football, working with an exciting young manager and for an exciting young team. If I were Pochettino this would be my Martin O Neil moment "invest or I'm going to leave before this ship hits the iceberg ahead".

My prediction: Spurs spend modestly, Alli or Kane suffer a bout of poor form or injury, Spurs finish 6th or 7th, Pochettino goes from an incredibly talented young manager to another soon to be sacked Spurs manager.

The easy way to stop this is getting 3 quality £25m players in who'll slot in and instantly improve not only your depth, but also your team (Xhaka would be a great start and a slap in the face of Arsenal fans). After all where has all that money gone with 5 years of spending next to nothing?

It's mainly gone on our new training centre and ongoing stadium project - where else? We are not sugar-daddy funded.

Next season is not "bound to be a different ball game". It might be, or it might not. All this talk of the "best of a bad bunch" is just an excuse: Leicester City have not been part of a "bad bunch" - they've been brilliant. Every time a wealthy club drops out of the top 4 it's described as "under-performing" - have is it ever occurred to you that maybe the squads concerned are actually not that good any more, regardless of money spent?

I agree that Spurs need to strengthen from a position of strength, within the current limitations of our finances. It's just that I see this mainly in terms of improving squad depth/cover/competition, and not (unlike you) particularly in terms of improving the first XI. This is the sensible way IMO of proceeding from here.

As for your prediction, I've heard similar before - e.g. Kane is just a one-season wonder, Spurs will never make it out of the CL group stages, Spurs will never finish in the top 4 etc etc.

 

[GlastonSpur]

This is a carbon copy of the Liverpool fans on here after the season they were so close to winning the League after their similarly perfect storm. Can't see a different outcome either. I'm just waiting for the "We Go Again" banners.

Spurs have finished above Liverpool for many seasons past bar the one you mention. But I guess they were all just flukey "perfect storms".

 

[Steven Seagull]

No, I think we're far from being favourites for the title. Why? Because (a) we have the CL to contend with, which we didn't have last season; (b) because we we only finished 3rd last time around; and (c) because we have a new stadium to fund and so don't that much money to spend.

So where will you finish? How will you do in the CL?

I think finishing outside of the top 2 with your settled manager and young squad is a failure.

 

[GlastonSpur]

So where will you finish? How will you do in the CL?

I think finishing outside of the top 2 with your settled manager and young squad is a failure.

I'll wait until the transfer window is nearly shut before making my finalised league prediction. The same applies to the CL, although that also depends on the luck of draw to some extent.

But given that there are currently 5 teams with significantly larger incomes than Spurs in the Prem, it's silly to say that finishing outside the top 2 next season would be a failure.

 

[Enigma_87]

I'll wait until the transfer window is nearly shut before making my finalised league prediction. The same applies to the CL, although that also depends on the luck of draw to some extent.

But given that there are currently 5 teams with significantly larger incomes than Spurs in the Prem, it's silly to say that finishing outside the top 2 next season would be a failure.

Why? From the posts above I read that you don't need any first team players. What difference then will it make? Unless you're selling some

 

[finneh]

Spurs have finished above Liverpool for many seasons past bar the one you mention. But I guess they were all just flukey "perfect storms".

Finishing above Liverpool is far from an achievement.

It's mainly gone on our new training centre and ongoing stadium project - where else? We are not sugar-daddy funded.

Next season is not "bound to be a different ball game". It might be, or it might not. All this talk of the "best of a bad bunch" is just an excuse: Leicester City have not been part of a "bad bunch" - they've been brilliant. Every time a wealthy club drops out of the top 4 it's described as "under-performing" - have is it ever occurred to you that maybe the squads concerned are actually not that good any more, regardless of money spent?

I agree that Spurs need to strengthen from a position of strength, within the current limitations of our finances. It's just that I see this mainly in terms of improving squad depth/cover/competition, and not (unlike you) particularly in terms of improving the first XI. This is the sensible way IMO of proceeding from here.

As for your prediction, I've heard similar before - e.g. Kane is just a one-season wonder, Spurs will never make it out of the CL group stages, Spurs will never finish in the top 4 etc etc.

Of course its under achieving when the clubs in question have a team full of title winning players.

In terms of Leicester they've done well, very well. But the context of the season has allowed them to do much better than they otherwise would, as is the case with Spurs. This season doesn't happen with Fergie at United, just like Liverpool's season doesn't happen under those circumstances. I dare say this season doesn't happen with Guardiola either, or Mourinho in a "normal" situation.

To be truthful though Spurs are doing the right thing. Investing in the long term is the only way they're going to be successful in the long term. It may cost them heavily in the short - medium term though as clubs like West Ham are a hairs breadth away in terms of squad ability and are preparing for a Summer of heavy investment.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Why? From the posts above I read that you don't need any first team players. What difference then will it make? Unless you're selling some

Because squad depth is also important, not just the first XI. And because I want to see the transfer in and outs at other clubs too.

 

[Red_Beans]

Best way to improve squad depth is to buy first team starters, and demote current starters to squad roles.
For years under Fergie we bought 'squad' players and look at the mess we ended up with

 

[GlastonSpur]

Best way to improve squad depth is to buy first team starters, and demote current starters to squad roles.
For years under Fergie we bought 'squad' players and look at the mess we ended up with

While that may be true, in terms of buying proven top quality rather than prospects, Spurs don't have enough spare money to do this except perhaps for one player.

Besides, in Fergie's last season you won the title, so it's arguable that the mess you're in has resulted from the opposite of what you're suggesting ... in that after Fergie you started spending lots of money on supposed first team starters - Fellaini, Mata, Schneiderlin, Depay, di Maria, Herrera, Rojo etc.

 

[Red_Beans]

While that may be true, in terms of buying proven top quality rather than prospects, Spurs don't have enough spare money to do this except perhaps for one player.

Besides, in Fergie's last season you won the title, so it's arguable that the mess you're in has resulted from the opposite of what you're suggesting ... in that after Fergie you started spending lots of money on supposed first team starters - Fellaini, Mata, Schneiderlin, Depay, di Maria, Herrera, Rojo etc.

Fair enough about the money part, I don't know how what your transfer budget is going to look like. But Manchester United is a bad example of what your trying to say, we tried replacing our greatest manager ever with firstly a manager completely out of his depth and then an arrogant fraud. Our transfer policy in the last three years can hardly be used as proof of anything

 

[thegregster]

While that may be true, in terms of buying proven top quality rather than prospects, Spurs don't have enough spare money to do this except perhaps for one player.

Besides, in Fergie's last season you won the title, so it's arguable that the mess you're in has resulted from the opposite of what you're suggesting ... in that after Fergie you started spending lots of money on supposed first team starters - Fellaini, Mata, Schneiderlin, Depay, di Maria, Herrera, Rojo etc.

Yet no team in world football has spent as much as Spurs in the last 25 years and has failed to win a league title or the major domestic cup or a major European trophy. Bit of a myth that Spurs don't spent a lot of money. Leicester City squad cost lest than you spent on Lamela and Son.

It's as big a myth as the one you keep pushing that you have a great youth system. One good player Kane in around 50 years.

 

[do.ob]

Speaking about money:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...ell-son-heung-min-less-than-a-year-after-sig/

Son could become the highest-profile casualty of Tottenham’s end-of-season collapse if the White Hart Lane club can recoup the £22million they paid Bayer Leverkusen last summer.


Son is still highly rated in Germany and Spurs will hope to attract the interest of Bundesliga clubs. If they can’t, then the South Korea international will face a big battle to start games under Pochettino next season.

I wouldn't exactly call their scouting a reliable pillar.

 

[theyneverlearn]

I'd take Son over Memphis at United, based on their first seasons.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Yet no team in world football has spent as much as Spurs in the last 25 years and has failed to win a league title or the major domestic cup or a major European trophy. Bit of a myth that Spurs don't spent a lot of money. Leicester City squad cost lest than you spent on Lamela and Son.

It's as big a myth as the one you keep pushing that you have a great youth system. One good player Kane in around 50 years.

The only realistic measure of spend is net spend. Spurs have the lowest net spend in the Prem over the last five years. Not a myth: fact.

Nor is it a myth that Spurs have a good youth development system - a system that includes both academy graduates and the identification and signing of young players who are then further developed.

We have the youngest squad in the Prem. Apart from Kane, the first team squad currently includes:

* Dier: joined Spurs aged 20.
* Walker: joined Spurs aged 19.
* Alli: joined Spurs aged 18.
* Rose: joined Spurs aged 17, entered our academy.
* Bentaleb: joined Spurs aged 17, entered our academy.
* Mason: academy graduate
* Carroll: academy graduate
* Pritchard: academy graduate
* Onomah: academy graduate
* Winks: academy graduate

 

[GlastonSpur]

... I wouldn't exactly call their scouting a reliable pillar.

I wouldn't exactly call believing in every newspaper story a reliable pillar.

 

[Dante]

Spurs finished only 4 points ahead of us. We had the same defensive record but scored 20 fewer goals.

Despite LvG being a shithouse of a manager, the only real difference between our two clubs was Harry Kane.

Given the fact that we have one of (if not the) biggest transfer budget in world football, that's an easily surmountable gap. Throw in a half decent manager and it'll barely be an argument which side is better.

 

[marukomu]

All Spurs' good players will end up at big clubs.

 

[do.ob]

I wouldn't exactly call believing in every newspaper story a reliable pillar.

What's your point? Son doesn't get any better or worse because of that article and anyway, I was laughing as much about the journalist who seems to think that a German club will pay a similar fee this summer. €30m was a ridiculous fee for a player of his quality and so it was no surprise at all that he flopped.
Net spend is an important figure when judging business, but stil if you spend a combined €90m on Lamela, Soldado and Son, then your scouting simply isn't great and it's not just those three, Spurs have bought a lot of players who were gone again withing one or two seasons..
To put things into perspective Leverkusen, who actually do have a good scouting department, took the €30m from Spurs for Son and then bought Chicharito for €12m (he's been a great goalscorer for them) and Kampl, who has probably been their best player of the season, for €11m.

 

[shaggy]

Who the hell is Son and when did Spurs buy him?

 

[thegregster]

The only realistic measure of spend is net spend. Spurs have the lowest net spend in the Prem over the last five years. Not a myth: fact.

Nor is it a myth that Spurs have a good youth development system - a system that includes both academy graduates and the identification and signing of young players who are then further developed.

We have the youngest squad in the Prem. Apart from Kane, the first team squad currently includes:

* Dier: joined Spurs aged 20.
* Walker: joined Spurs aged 19.
* Alli: joined Spurs aged 18.
* Rose: joined Spurs aged 17, entered our academy.
* Bentaleb: joined Spurs aged 17, entered our academy.
* Mason: academy graduate
* Carroll: academy graduate
* Pritchard: academy graduate
* Onomah: academy graduate
* Winks: academy graduate

Along with the cost of your squad and wages. Plus you have to look at spending over a long time period. Not just five years.



Your list also proves you have produce no young players of your own bar Kane. Any decent player on that list has been bought in. Your youth academy is a rubbish compared to Arsenal,United,Southampton,Everton etc. It's dependent on buying players.

 

[GlastonSpur]

What's your point? Son doesn't get any better or worse because of that article and anyway, I was laughing as much about the journalist who seems to think that a German club will pay a similar fee this summer. €30m was a ridiculous fee for a player of his quality and so it was no surprise at all that he flopped.
Net spend is an important figure when judging business, but stil if you spend a combined €90m on Lamela, Soldado and Son, then your scouting simply isn't great and it's not just those three, Spurs have bought a lot of players who were gone again withing one or two seasons..
To put things into perspective Leverkusen, who actually do have a good scouting department, took the €30m from Spurs for Son and then bought Chicharito for €12m (he's been a great goalscorer for them) and Kampl, who has probably been their best player of the season, for €11m.

8 goals in his first season at a new club, in a new league and in new country doesn't equate to "flopped" - particularly when he's employed as part of an attacking three behind a striker and hasn't been part of our first XI.

The same rubbish was directed at Lamela after his first season with Spurs, yet now he's an established part of our first XI.

As for Leverkusen, good for them that they signed Chicharito and Kampl, but picking out a couple of good signings for another club proves nothing ... except perhaps as yet another indication of United's shambolic transfer dealings that they let Chicharito go at all, and for such little money.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Along with the cost of your squad and wages. Plus you have to look at spending over a long time period. Not just five years.

Your list also proves you have produce no young players of your own bar Kane. Any decent player on that list has been bought in. Your youth academy is a rubbish compared to Arsenal,United,Southampton,Everton etc. It's dependent on buying players.

Five years is a long time in terms of squad development. The fact is that the current squad has finished in 3rd place, based on the Prem's lowest net spend, and ahead of four clubs whose net spend and wages expenditure have dwarfed that of Spurs in each and every one of those last five seasons ... and cumulatively dwarfed that of Spurs by a stupendous amount over that period.

The case you're trying to make, namely that Spurs have not been good when it comes to transfer dealings and spending, is quiet simply laughable.

As for the rest, I've already said that youth development is not just about the academy - and I've listed the players involved in that development, five of which now feature in our first XI.

 

[thegregster]

Five years is a long time in terms of squad development. The fact is that the current squad has finished in 3rd place, based on the Prem's lowest net spend, and ahead of four clubs whose net spend and wages expenditure have dwarfed that of Spurs in each and every one of those last five seasons ... and cumulatively dwarfed that of Spurs by a stupendous amount over that period.

The case you're trying to make, namely that Spurs have not been good when it comes to transfer dealings and spending, is quiet simply laughable.

As for the rest, I've already said that youth development is not just about the academy - and I've listed the players involved in that development, five of which now feature in our first XI.

They have been average.

What club in world football has spent as much as Spurs in the last five years and won nothing? It's not as if you are Leicester City or A. Madrid.

 

[GlastonSpur]

They have been average.

What club in world football has spent as much as Spurs in the last five years and won nothing? It's not as if you are Leicester City or A. Madrid.

Net spend, baby, net spend ... so best take your nonsense and pour it out to someone who is gullible enough to believe.

 

[finneh]

Net spend, baby, net spend ... so best take your nonsense and pour it out to someone who is gullible enough to believe.

United fans are used to spending nothing and winning, that's the difference:

Man Utd 2006 - 2011:
Net spend: £13.5m
Honours: PL x 4, League Cup x 2, CL x 1, CS x 4

Spurs 2010 - 2015:
Net spend: -£40m
Honours: League Cup x 1

 

[do.ob]

8 goals in his first season at a new club, in a new league and in new country doesn't equate to "flopped" - particularly when he's employed as part of an attacking three behind a striker and hasn't been part of our first XI.

The same rubbish was directed at Lamela after his first season with Spurs, yet now he's an established part of our first XI.

As for Leverkusen, good for them that they signed Chicharito and Kampl, but picking out a couple of good signings for another club proves nothing ... except perhaps as yet another indication of United's shambolic transfer dealings that they let Chicharito go at all, and for such little money.

I'm not saying those two are terrible players, but they were signed for fees that can get you top players. For example none of Dortmund's or Atletico's current players cost them more and you can basically also add Juventus to that list, since their most expensive signing appears to be Dybala at €32m

 

[AshfordLad]

United fans are used to spending nothing and winning, that's the difference:

Man Utd 2006 - 2011:
Net spend: £13.5m
Honours: PL x 4, League Cup x 2, CL x 1, CS x 4

Spurs 2010 - 2015:
Net spend: -£40m
Honours: L̶e̶a̶g̶u̶e̶ ̶C̶u̶p̶ ̶x̶ ̶1̶

 

[GlastonSpur]

United fans are used to spending nothing and winning, that's the difference:

Man Utd 2006 - 2011:
Net spend: £13.5m
Honours: PL x 4, League Cup x 2, CL x 1, CS x 4

Spurs 2010 - 2015:
Net spend: -£40m
Honours: League Cup x1

Check out the last 3 seasons - then tell me again what United fans are used to.

PS. Comparing 2006- 2011 with 2010-16 is laughable: football inflation has jumped vastly in the last few years.

 

[GlastonSpur]

I'm not saying those two are terrible players, but they were signed for fees that can get you top players. For example none of Dortmund's or Atletico's current players cost them more and you can basically also add Juventus to that list, since their most expensive signing appears to be Dybala at €32m

The fee paid for Son or Lamela is hardly a vast sum in this day and age. United spent £25.5m on Depay for god's sake.

And good for Dortmund, Atletico and Juve ... but what has that got to do with Spurs? Have things on here now reached the point where Spurs should be criticised for not being the best in every single department when compared to each and every club in the world?

 

[finneh]

.

Oops. A little too generous there.

Check out the last 3 seasons - then tell me again what United fans are used to.

PS. Comparing 2006- 2011 with 2010-16 is laughable: football inflation has jumped vastly in the last few years.

You're right; comparing two different time frames was unfair. Let's compare the same time period to make it fair:

Spurs 2005 - 2010:
Net spend: £94m
Honours: League Cup x 1

United 2005 - 2010:
Net spend: £0.5m
Honours: PL x 3, CL X 1, LC x 3, CS x 3

Oops.

 

[do.ob]

The fee paid for Son or Lamela is hardly a vast sum in this day and age. United spent £25.5m on Depay for god's sake.

And good for Dortmund, Atletico and Juve ... but what has that got to do with Spurs? Have things on here now reached the point where Spurs should be criticised for not being the best in every single department when compared to each and every club in the world?

You praised Spurs' scouting, I tried to show you what good scouting actually looks like.

 

[GlastonSpur]

You praised Spurs' scouting, I tried to show you what good scouting actually looks like.

So, you think picking out one or two players at one or two clubs does that in comparison to Spurs?

Rose - 750k. Alli - £5m. Dier - £4m. Alderweireld- £12m. That's also what good scouting looks like. And I could cite plenty more besides.

 

[Striker10]

So, you think picking out one or two players at one or two clubs does that in comparison to Spurs?

Rose - 750k. Alli - £5m. Dier - £4m. Alderweireld- £12m. That's also what good scouting looks like. And I could cite plenty more besides.

Spurs have a scattergun approach. Nothing wrong with that but they don't buy one player for one position - they have often been busy in the transfer market. Throw enough mud and it will stick.

 

[GlastonSpur]

... A little too generous there ....

I notice you didn't respond to: "Check out the last 3 seasons - then tell me again what United fans are used to."

No surprise that you prefer to look backwards 11 years and pretend that the recent past and the here-and-now doesn't exist.

And in the here-and-now United fans have the Europa League to look forward to. Enjoy .... and enjoy the imminent arrival of the circus.