The Spurs thread | 2017-18 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned

[BigDub]

That's one huge if.

The most successful clubs generally have the best squads. It's practically a mandatory rule that clubs in the prem have a large squad full of ready and willing replacements. Spurs do not have that in any way shape or form. As things stand, they are couple of injuries away to key personnel tfrom completely falling off the radar.

Things might has been different had last summers signings worked out but aside from Wanyama, who was excellant all season long, Sissoko, Jansen and Koudou were a complete failure, largely ineffective all season long. That's the problem with a club like Spurs, they cannot afford for their expensive signings to fail.

I get your point overall, but the highlighted bit is often used to criticize one club in particular when in reality it applies to pretty much every single one.

If we lose Kane and Alli for an extended period, we won't be as good. Clearly. But isn't the same true if United lose Lukaku and Pogba or Chelsea lose Kante and Hazard, etc., etc.? It's hardly specific to Spurs. Yes, our squad might not be as deep as others, but we'd hardly "fall of the radar".

Did Spurs fall off the radar when Kane was out for 3 months last season? Nah, they finished 2nd and Kane won the golden boot.

 

[GlastonSpur]

I never said anything about star player, i just predicted what your excuse would be.

No, for Spurs star players are different and I never refuted that. You sold Key player to City, how you can argue that is beyond me.

Whom you consider as star player doesn't make a fecking difference, fact is your first choice RB wanted to leave (and left) Spurs to join the team that finished below you in the last 2 seasons.

It's really quite simple. If almost all the players in a first XI are seen as "key", then the word "key" has no real meaning. And just because a player was the first choice in a particular position for the majority of a season it does not necessarily make them a key player.

The majority of players in Spurs best XI from last season are more important - more "key" to Spurs - than Walker ... and all the more so considering that Trippier - albeit in a limited number of games so far - has shown himself to be very decent alternative to Walker.

Most Spurs fans, if asked to rank our best XI from last season in order of importance to Spurs, would likely place Walker in the bottom third. Hence is not a key player.

 

[BusbyMalone]

The squad is significantly weaker, yes, in terms of depth as of today. How much weaker at right wingback we'll be in the first XI with Trippier - if we end up being weaker at all - remains to be seen.

But in terms of squad depth we now have £50m extra to spend, so it's best to reserve judgement IMO until the transfer window has closed.

Fair enough. I was just thinking in terms of trying to define "star" player - which is an arbitrary thing to define anyway - i would look at the player that just left, and think to myself "ok, are we now significantly weaker in that position", and if the answer is yes, then i would have to say he was a star player. I think that's the case with Kyle Walker personally. I know you have Trippier, and he might turn out great, but at this moment in time you definitely are significantly weaker at RB.

 

[hellohello]

That's one huge if.

The most successful clubs generally have the best squads. It's practically a mandatory rule that clubs in the prem have a large squad full of ready and willing replacements. Spurs do not have that in any way shape or form. As things stand, they are couple of injuries away to key personnel tfrom completely falling off the radar.

Things might has been different had last summers signings worked out but aside from Wanyama, who was excellant all season long, Sissoko, Jansen and Koudou were a complete failure, largely ineffective all season long. That's the problem with a club like Spurs, they cannot afford for their expensive signings to fail.

Yeah it's true that a deep squad is necessary, but I think you are over-exaggerating it quite a bit here, our depth is decent with players like Son, Lamela, Winks not even in the first 11. Last season we had Dembele, Alderweireld, Lloris, Rose and Kane out or a significant portion of the league. Injuries happens to most teams, but if Chelsea had our injury record and we theirs we could probably be champions imo. The league is tight, and if Kane, Alderweireld etc stays injury free I think we have a great chance. And for me, our depth is better than Liverpool and Arsenals.

I agree on the signings though, although I think you're a little unfair on Janssen and N'Koudou who are both very young and adapting to a new league. If possible we really could use some stardust or experience to lift the players and take responsibility when needed, but where would one find such a player with our budget?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Don't see why you can't be honest about it.

Any premiership club would feel the loss of Kyle Walker if they had a relative unknown (Kieran Trippier) as a replacement.

Just admit it.

I've already said that the squad without Walker is significantly weaker in terms of depth as of today. What more do you want?

The jury is still out on Trippier for me. If for you the jury has already reached a verdict, then that's you, not me. And as I say, we now have an extra £50m to spend.

 

[roonster09]

It's really quite simple. If almost all the players in a first XI are seen as "key", then the word "key" has no real meaning. And just because a player was the first choice in a particular position for the majority of a season does not necessarily make them a key player.

The majority of players in Spurs best XI from last season are more important - more "key" to Spurs - than Walker ... and all the more so considering that Trippier - albeit in a limited number of games so far - has shown himself to be very decent alternative to Walker.

Most Spurs fans, if asked to rank our best XI from last season in order of importance to Spurs, would likely place Walker in the bottom third. Hence is not a key player.

Obviously sine Walked started making noise, he has fallen below than some when it comes to "key players".

He is a key player and played in 66 games in last 2 seasons. It doesn't matter where he ranks in your "Key player" table, he was key player hence he started almost all games in 2 seasons.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Obviously sine Walked started making noise, he has fallen below than some when it comes to "key players".

He is a key player and played in 66 games in last 2 seasons. It doesn't matter where he ranks in your "Key player" table, he was key player hence he started almost all games in 2 seasons.

Smalling has played in 91 games for United over the last 2 seasons. Does that make him a key player for United?

 

[Halftrack]

Obviously sine Walked started making noise, he has fallen below than some when it comes to "key players".

He is a key player and played in 66 games in last 2 seasons. It doesn't matter where he ranks in your "Key player" table, he was key player hence he started almost all games in 2 seasons.

I have to agree with Glaston here. A key player is someone who's an integral part of how the team plays, without whom they would have to adjust their approach. Kyle Walker wasn't one of those players.

 

[roonster09]

Smalling has played in 91 games for United over the last 2 seasons. Does that make him a key player for United?

In 2015-16 he wasn't without a doubt key player for ManUtd, staring whenever he was fit. Last season he played in only 18 league games.

Last season out of 65 games he played in 36, season before that he played in 55 our of 59 games. So yeah, in 2015-16 he was key player, last season he wasn't.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

This is great business for everyone involved!
Spurs get £50m for a 27 year old player who's not even one of their most important ones (Kane, Alli, Eriksen, Alderweirald, Lloris), while they also have a good replacement in Trippier, who's also much younger.

Oh dear, oh dear. Trippier is less than 4 months younger!!!

 

[acnumber9]

I have to agree with Glaston here. A key player is someone who's an integral part of how the team plays, without whom they would have to adjust their approach. Kyle Walker wasn't one of those players.

But yet a few months ago he was listed as a player that even if there was somebody better than him he would be way beyond the means of Spurs. 6 or 7 weeks of football later and he's easily replaced by Kieran Trippier. Either he's talking shite or Kieran Trippier was, unbeknownst to all, one of the the worlds finest right backs. I know where my money is.

 

[Bale Bale Bale]

Glaston may well be abrasive and annoying but his points are generally far more coherent than those who debate with him.

 

[roonster09]

I have to agree with Glaston here. A key player is someone who's an integral part of how the team plays, without whom they would have to adjust their approach. Kyle Walker wasn't one of those players.

Teams don't have to adjust how they play because of 1 player. Spurs played the same way when Rose was injured, they will play the same way even if their best CB is out.

 

[roonster09]

Glaston may well be abrasive and annoying but his points are generally far more coherent than those who debate with him.

Obviously.

 

[BigTimeCharlie]

I don't think Walker can be fairly regarded as a "key" player for Spurs. The only players I'd put in that category are Lloris, Alderweireld, Eriksen, Alli and Kane.

Walker is a very good wingback, but Trippier is a decent replacement with attributes of his own. I'd also say that Walker left mainly for two reasons: more money and to move back up north (which his wife/partner apparently wanted), rather than to further his career.

From what I've seen of you, you are a very confident chap and you love spurs almost to the exten as some fans that love Barca on here.

Transfers aside, playing at Wembley for a full season is worrying. For thst reason and that reason alone. 2 things will happen next season.

1. You will win/gain more points, from away games than home games next season.
2. You will finish outside top 4

If you were staying at the lane and not selling anymore key players i would have said shoe in for top 4, as is my unbiasedness.

What say you?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Um... yeah. In this present day the league hasn't started and it doesn't matter that Spurs got 2nd last year.

And as far as the future is concerned, City will more likely be finishing above Spurs next season. Even if they don't, they're 2-4 year future also looks much better.

That's what people said last summer. They also said the same regarding United and Arsenal.

As for 2 - 4 years ahead, in around 1 year from now we move into what will be one of the world's best football stadiums ... so I wouldn't say that the future for Spurs looks particularly dim.

 

[Mike09]

Smalling has played in 91 games for United over the last 2 seasons. Does that make him a key player for United?

Different managers different view, Jose has different view on Smalling compared to LVG. So no.

But Poch viewed Walker as his main right back and you sold your main right back. Pretty much, you gave away your main right back to your rival for money. Whether it was Poch's decision or the board's decision I'm not too sure though (most likely board's decision).

 

[2ndTouch]

In 2015-16 he wasn't without a doubt key player for ManUtd, staring whenever he was fit. Last season he played in only 18 league games.

Last season out of 65 games he played in 36, season before that he played in 55 our of 59 games. So yeah, in 2015-16 he was key player, last season he wasn't.

Being a regular starter doesn't automatically translate into being a "key" player. It merely means being the best option given the available selection of candidates.
60m € for a 27yr old, who by international standards can at best be considered an above average player, is pretty damn good business, no matter how you are trying to spin it.

 

[Random Task]

I get your point overall, but the highlighted bit is often used to criticize one club in particular when in reality it applies to pretty much every single one.

If we lose Kane and Alli for an extended period, we won't be as good. Clearly. But isn't the same true if United lose Lukaku and Pogba or Chelsea lose Kante and Hazard, etc., etc.? It's hardly specific to Spurs. Yes, our squad might not be as deep as others, but we'd hardly "fall of the radar".

Did Spurs fall off the radar when Kane was out for 3 months last season? Nah, they finished 2nd and Kane won the golden boot.

Good point.

Pogba's injury at the end of last season did indeed have an adverse effect. In fact, it took that injury for a lot of people to realise what he brings to the team.

Son is no replacement for Harry Kane if we're being honest. I know he scored a hattrick last season but overall he was pretty average. Poch really needs to be iall over Dembele, he has that Spurs factor written all over him.

 

[KM]

I kinda agree with him about Walker. He's not an integral part of Spurs and was fairly expandable. Thought the same about Dier but a couple of Spurs fans said he was very important to them.

 

[GlastonSpur]

From what I've seen of you, you are a very confident chap and you love spurs almost to the exten as some fans that love Barca on here.

Transfers aside, playing at Wembley for a full season is worrying. For thst reason and that reason alone. 2 things will happen next season.

1. You will win/gain more points, from away games than home games next season.
2. You will finish outside top 4

If you were staying at the lane and not selling anymore key players i would have said shoe in for top 4, as is my unbiasedness.

What say you?

Playing at Wembley is worrying, I agree. I can only hope that, partly learning from our Wembley experience last season, we will adapt to it better as the season wears on.

Both 1 and 2 are possible, but neither are set in stone. I'll make my predictions for top 4 when the season is about to start and the transfer window has nearly closed.

 

[roonster09]

Being a regular starter doesn't automatically translate into being a "key" player. It merely means being the best option given the available selection of candidates.
60m € for a 27yr old, who by international standards can at best be considered an above average player, is pretty damn good business, no matter how you are trying to spin it.

what?

 

[Klopper76]

Are they planning on signing anyone? It feels like they need a bit more quality in their squad if they're serious about challenging for trophies.

 

[Random Task]

I have to agree with Glaston here. A key player is someone who's an integral part of how the team plays, without whom they would have to adjust their approach. Kyle Walker wasn't one of those players.

Did you watch Spurs last season? It was only down to his fallout with Poch that Walker was removed from the team. Prior to that fallout he was excellent, probably the most consistent right back in the league.

 

[Random Task]

I kinda agree with him about Walker. He's not an integral part of Spurs and was fairly expandable. Thought the same about Dier but a couple of Spurs fans said he was very important to them.

If it wasn't for Dier's versatile skillset, Spurs wouldn't have been able to switch formation as seemlessly as they did - in and out of games I might add.

Walker was a key memebr of that Spurs team.

 

[BigDub]

Good point.

Pogba's injury at the end of last season did indeed have an adverse effect. In fact, it took that injury for a lot of people to realise what he brings to the team.

Son is no replacement for Harry Kane if we're being honest. I know he scored a hattrick last season but overall he was pretty average. Poch really needs to be iall over Dembele, he has that Spurs factor written all over him.

Son was far from average last season. He scored over 20 goals in all comps, including 14 in the league, coming on leaps and bounds after a quiet first season.

Regardless, your point was that if Spurs were to lose key players for an extended period of time, they'd fall off the radar. I raised the example of Kane missing months last season and Spurs still remaining competitive to refute that point. In your Pogba example, did United fall off the radar when he got hurt? Didn't seem like it, at least compared to the rest of the season with him.

As for Dembele, I'd absolutely take him. Though I'm not quite sure what you mean by that Spurs fator. Would also love to have Iheanacho come work under Poch.

 

[Powderfinger]

Yeah it's true that a deep squad is necessary, but I think you are over-exaggerating it quite a bit here, our depth is decent with players like Son, Lamela, Winks not even in the first 11. Last season we had Dembele, Alderweireld, Lloris, Rose and Kane out or a significant portion of the league. Injuries happens to most teams, but if Chelsea had our injury record and we theirs we could probably be champions imo. The league is tight, and if Kane, Alderweireld etc stays injury free I think we have a great chance. And for me, our depth is better than Liverpool and Arsenals.

I agree on the signings though, although I think you're a little unfair on Janssen and N'Koudou who are both very young and adapting to a new league. If possible we really could use some stardust or experience to lift the players and take responsibility when needed, but where would one find such a player with our budget?

I think you're underestimating the amount of injury luck Spurs has had in comparison to other teams. Last year, for example, Spurs had nine players that played over 2500 minutes in the league, which is an incredible number for a top tier club in England that is also in European competitions. Conversely, Spurs only had 13 players that played over 1000 minutes. In comparison, United (the other end of the scale in this regard last year) had 2 players that played 2500 minutes and had to rely on 19 players that played 1000 or more minutes in the league. City, Liverpool, and Arsenal all had 6 players > 2500 minutes and 15-16 >1000. Its a substantial advantage to have greater continuity in your starting XI and to need to rely less upon the 14th-19th best players on your roster.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Different managers different view, Jose has different view on Smalling compared to LVG. So no.

But Poch viewed Walker as his main right back and you sold your main right back. Pretty much, you gave away your main right back to your rival for money. Whether it was Poch's decision or the board's decision I'm not too sure though (most likely board's decision).

The sale would not have happened without Pochettino agreeing: Levy values the manager too highly to ride over him roughshod.

Yes, Walker was our main right wingback for most of the season - and yes we sold him to a rival for money. But we got a world record fee for a defender, we have an able deputy in Trippier and we have £50m extra to spend. Pochettino will have considered all these factors and he said 'yes'.

I have plenty of reasons to trust his judgement.

 

[Random Task]

Son was far from average last season. He scored over 20 goals in all comps, including 14 in the league, coming on leaps and bounds after a quiet first season.

Regardless, your point was that if Spurs were to lose key players for an extended period of time, they'd fall off the radar. I raised the example of Kane missing months last season and Spurs still remaining competitive to refute that point. In your Pogba example, did United fall off the radar when he got hurt? Didn't seem like it, at least compared to the rest of the season with him.

As for Dembele, I'd absolutely take him. Though I'm not quite sure what you mean by that Spurs fator. Would also love to have Iheanacho come work under Poch.

In a word, yes.

Pogba for us last season was our direct link from defense to attack, in his absense we were not even nearly as penetrative. He was only out for the last 6-7 games, but sure we missed him greatly.

If we had started the season without Pogba, god knows where we would have finished.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Are they planning on signing anyone? It feels like they need a bit more quality in their squad if they're serious about challenging for trophies.

I'm sure we are - whether we succeed is another question. Right now my best guesses would be Barkley, Vincent Marcel (winger at Nice), Juan Foyth (a 19 year-old Argentinian CB) and possibly Ricardo Periera ... and Pau Lopez, the young Spanish GK we had on loan last season.

 

[AXVnee7]

This coming season is the key one for Spurs. Whilst on paper they've come within the title in the past 2 seasons, in reality they were no-where near it. The big boys are reinforcing so it'll be interesting to see whether ourselves and City can get closer or even surpass Spurs this season. However for Spurs, who remain trophyless, the pressure is on to claim some form of silverware as another top 4 finish even if 2nd could be deemed as stagnation. And in a team like that in which players are buoyed by belief, all of a sudden the grass looks greener with other clubs offering better wages etc. Get it right and Spurs could go up a level or two. Get it wrong and it could be a big knock-back, although they would remain a force to be reckoned with.

 

[GlastonSpur]

I think you're underestimating the amount of injury luck Spurs has had in comparison to other teams. Last year, for example, Spurs had nine players that played over 2500 minutes in the league, which is an incredible number for a top tier club in England that is also in European competitions. Conversely, Spurs only had 13 players that played over 1000 minutes. In comparison, United (the other end of the scale in this regard last year) had 2 players that played 2500 minutes and had to rely on 19 players that played 1000 or more minutes in the league. City, Liverpool, and Arsenal all had 6 players > 2500 minutes and 15-16 >1000. Its a substantial advantage to have greater continuity in your starting XI and to need to rely less upon the 14th-19th best players on your roster.

Didn't Chelsea have even more luck in this regard? I don't know the stats.

 

[Mike09]

The sale would not have happened without Pochettino agreeing: Levy values the manager too highly to ride over him roughshod.

Yes, Walker was our main right wingback for most of the season - and yes we sold him to a rival for money. But we got a world record fee for a defender, we have an able deputy in Trippier and we have £50m extra to spend. Pochettino will have considered all these factors and he said 'yes'.

I have plenty of reasons to trust his judgement.

The sale could have happened without Poch agreeing if the board forced him because they prefer money over the manager's plan.
If you care about trophy, whether it's £50m or a world record fee for a defender don't matter. What matters is that you sold your main right back who just started his prime age to your rival. And instead of strengthen your squad, you strengthened your rival and weakened your own. Either your ego is too big to admit that you sold your main right back to your rival or you are very confident that Trippier is on the similar level to Walker's.

 

[Sultan]

That's what people said last summer. They also said the same regarding United and Arsenal.

As for 2 - 4 years ahead, in around 1 year from now we move into what will be one of the world's best football stadiums ... so I wouldn't say that the future for Spurs looks particularly dim.

Stadiums don't win matches.

Levy needs to up his game. He needs to pay going salaries to keep your best players and compete for top talent. I don't think revenues will increase to such an extent so you can suddenly buy and pay to keep the best and buy the best. Don't ever think footballers will be loyal. Top salaries and trophies is the only language they understand.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

In Walker, spurs had a right back who could make a mistake and have the pace to make up for it, trippier doesn't have that and they'll ultimately miss walker for it

 

[GlastonSpur]

Stadiums don't win matches.

Levy needs to up his game. He needs to pay going salaries to keep your best players and compete for top talent. I don't think revenues will increase to such an extent so you can suddenly buy and pay to keep the best and buy the best. Don't ever think footballers will be loyal. Top salaries and trophies is the only language they understand.

In my view Levy has done a tremendous job for Spurs: improving our competiveness with the other top 6 clubs (two of which are funded by sugar daddies), whilst at the same time funding a new training centre and new stadium complex, and overseeing a big improvement in our youth/academy set-up.

Yes, we need to be able to pay higher salaries - and eventually we will be able to do that. But "the best" players are not always to be found by paying huge transfer fees.

I agree that we need to start winning more trophies.

 

[BigDub]

In Walker, spurs had a right back who could make a mistake and have the pace to make up for it, trippier doesn't have that and they'll ultimately miss walker for it

I agree that's what we'll miss most about Walker. I'm not convinced we'll suffer a ton in terms of goals conceded because of it simply because the rest of the defensive set up is settled and just generally very good. It's vital we sign a good player to come provide competition, though. Competition from Trippier made Walker better just as competition from Davies has made Rose better. It's vital we maintain that structure by signing a new RB.

 

[Bale Bale Bale]

Didn't Chelsea have even more luck in this regard? I don't know the stats.

 

[Powderfinger]

Didn't Chelsea have even more luck in this regard? I don't know the stats.

Yes, they were incredibly fortunate with injuries, even more than Spurs, and also didn't play in Europe. They also had 9 players over 2500 (and almost 10, as Moses had 2498) and only 13 over 1000. And of the few other players, several of them didn't play after the switch to 3-4-3 Ivanovic and Oscar. They basically had a starting XI, two regular rotation players in Willian and Cesc, and almost nobody else playing significant minutes (Terry got a few games, Batshuayi got like 5 minutes a match).

 

[Boycott]

I think you're underestimating the amount of injury luck Spurs has had in comparison to other teams. Last year, for example, Spurs had nine players that played over 2500 minutes in the league, which is an incredible number for a top tier club in England that is also in European competitions. Conversely, Spurs only had 13 players that played over 1000 minutes. In comparison, United (the other end of the scale in this regard last year) had 2 players that played 2500 minutes and had to rely on 19 players that played 1000 or more minutes in the league. City, Liverpool, and Arsenal all had 6 players > 2500 minutes and 15-16 >1000. Its a substantial advantage to have greater continuity in your starting XI and to need to rely less upon the 14th-19th best players on your roster.

Kane had three months accumulated out, Rose hasn't played since January, Alderwereld missed two months, Dembele always has suffered niggles and Lamela has been missing for pretty much the whole season.That's five of their main starters from 15/16 who barely figured together at the same time last season. The difference was the likes of Son, Davis, Winks and Wanyama took the mantle well and staked a claim to retain their positions whereas the squad players from Utd and other teams don't do much more than simply 'doing a job'. Son for instance scored twenty goals despite spending stretches of the season on the bench.