• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Manager Ange Postecoglou

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sir Archibald Crooks said:
Celtic Fc Sport GIF by Celtic Football Club
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Jerry Seinfeld GIF
 
Incomplete_usernam said:
This isn’t about whether Mason is a significant improvement; it’s about recognising the necessity of removing Ange sooner rather than later. The longer he stays, the more damage is done to the club’s trajectory, and the harder it becomes to undo. Acting decisively now means less long-term harm and a quicker transition to finding a better-suited manager; I don’t think Mason will do any worse than Ange is currently doing, if we are fortunate he may even provide a boost in results but it’s worth the risk as a temporary solution imo.

The idea that Ange is somehow the safer option because he’s the ‘familiar’ one is not grounded in logic. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary. The situation has deteriorated game by game, and nothing suggests he’s capable of turning this around.

As for the ‘injury crisis,’ it’s worth noting that it’s largely self-inflicted—stemming from Ange’s relentless, high-intensity demands, playing unfit players to salvage his position. Let’s not forget that before this so-called ‘crisis,’ when the squad was fully fit, the performances were just as lacklustre. Blaming injuries is a convenient but dishonest deflection.

The truth is plain to see mate; this downward spiral is not about unavailable players; it’s about a manager who has yet to demonstrate he can adapt or improve the team’s fortunes. Dragging this out only deepens the hole we’re in, and everyone being honest with themselves knows that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

YES!

Why can't people see that there is always a point where a manager has to be removed?
Poch had to go when he went. That one was right.
Not sure there was any gain in sacking Mourinho when we did, we would have plodded to the end of the season without changing to Mason.
After the Conte rant some would say he had to go, but I would have sat him down and asked him what he'd do to change all things he ranted about.

When results are so bad so often there is literally no choice but to remove them from their role. There will come a point where even Mason would do a better just because he wants to and the players won't (might not) hate hearing him speak every day.
 
Matt1882 said:
YES!

Why can't people see that there is always a point where a manager has to be removed?
Poch had to go when he went. That one was right.
Not sure there was any gain in sacking Mourinho when we did, we would have plodded to the end of the season without changing to Mason.
After the Conte rant some would say he had to go, but I would have sat him down and asked him what he'd do to change all things he ranted about.

When results are so bad so often there is literally no choice but to remove them from their role. There will come a point where even Mason would do a better just because he wants to and the players won't (might not) hate hearing him speak every day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And which one of those decisions actually led to future success?

Only arguable one is sacking Nuno and then conte still salvaging 4th.

Other than that, it’s been the same repeatable pattern of hiring a manager and then sacking him when the team has a bad run in the first 2 years. And repeat. It’s not getting us anywhere. Well actually it is getting us somewhere. Backwards.
 
bonaspur23 said:
And which one of those decisions actually led to future success?

Only arguable one is sacking Nuno and then conte still salvaging 4th.

Other than that, it’s been the same repeatable pattern of hiring a manager and then sacking him when the team has a bad run in the first 2 years. And repeat. It’s not getting us anywhere. Well actually it is getting us somewhere. Backwards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ok but Ange isn't proven at any reasonable level and there is zero body of evidence that shows he is worth sticking by at all.

I have no issue with people being Ange in and respect people sticking to their convictions. There isn't enough of that on here, people just go with whatever the result is that week. But this kind of defence for keeping Ange only flies if you deep down BELIEVE in Ange as a coach, view him as being good enough for this level fundamentally.

I don't. So even though I agree with the principle of giving a coach time, I don't agree with giving THIS coach time.
 
bonaspur23 said:
Or this board is toxic as fuck and arguing the same shit over and over again is not how I want to spend my day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Argue what though? What's honestly left to contend. Ange Postecoglou is finished done tactically exposed. Statistically this period is unprecedented in years whats left to argue in his favour?

also find the 'toxic' bit really amusing. I'm either in my home office or reading the site on my way to central London studios. Climbing stairs at Googe street. Nothing people say here hurts me. Sometimes the funny ones make me laugh on the bus or tube.

Between takes I flick off flight mode and dash a reply to someone in denial. Then I get called to a booth. Sometimes someone usually Incomplete_usernam Incomplete_usernam writes something longer worth reading, I save this for the tube.

The forum is way better than reading about dead children murdered by parents that are evil, real toxic bigots in elected office and environmental disaster.

I block people I just vibe I'd not talk to or drink with in real life for whatever reason, usually no sense of humour a rascist or general hater. That's it that's all.
 
Last edited:
Dixiefish61 said:
I suppose that is a bit blunt. The main thing is your line about “we should be comfortable being a top 8 club”. Nope not for me. Or, horse shit
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not saying we should be comfortable. I perhaps worded it wrong? Top 8 would be the minimum we should expect. We should have bigger aspirations.
That was a conservative estimate about our stature in response to a post saying we were no better than Fulham or West Ham.
 
Richard Arlison said:
"Does that tie into the wider issue in the past with Spurs?

I'm sick of that. That's an excuse for me and that's why even with Cristian Romero's comments, I just think that's an excuse. At the moment I'm here, I take responsibility. These players, we're here. If we think something mythical exists in this club that prevents success then change it. What's the point otherwise? Don't come here. I just don't buy into that.

At the moment we're in a difficult situation because of kind of where we are squad-wise and team-wise. You either embrace this challenge. If you want excuses there are a million of them. There are a millions excuses of why we cannot be successful but if that's what your clutch is, particularly in tough moments, then what's the point? Move on then and go somewhere else."


Fucking awful. Why won't he use the excuses? Why is he taking fucking responsibility? what a cunt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He talks a good game but that's where it ends
 
Incomplete_usernam said:
This isn’t about whether Mason is a significant improvement; it’s about recognising the necessity of removing Ange sooner rather than later. The longer he stays, the more damage is done to the club’s trajectory, and the harder it becomes to undo. Acting decisively now means less long-term harm and a quicker transition to finding a better-suited manager; I don’t think Mason will do any worse than Ange is currently doing, if we are fortunate he may even provide a boost in results but it’s worth the risk as a temporary solution imo.

The idea that Ange is somehow the safer option because he’s the ‘familiar’ one is not grounded in logic. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary. The situation has deteriorated game by game, and nothing suggests he’s capable of turning this around.

As for the ‘injury crisis,’ it’s worth noting that it’s largely self-inflicted—stemming from Ange’s relentless, high-intensity demands, playing unfit players to salvage his position. Let’s not forget that before this so-called ‘crisis,’ when the squad was fully fit, the performances were just as lacklustre. Blaming injuries is a convenient but dishonest deflection.

The truth is plain to see mate; this downward spiral is not about unavailable players; it’s about a manager who has yet to demonstrate he can adapt or improve the team’s fortunes. Dragging this out only deepens the hole we’re in, and everyone being honest with themselves knows that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're misunderstanding me.

Until, say, January its not really a question of Mason making positive or negative changes, it's a question of Mason being able to make any change at all.

With a decimated squad and a lot of inexperienced players just trying to recover physically between two games a week, there's no capacity to change anything tactically. One way or the other it's Angeball until there's some time and squad capacity to train some changes.

Sure, Mason can say "back off a bit" or whatever, but it's still the same philosophy and pattern of play, and asking someone like Archie Gray to make subtle changes to the risk level of his defending probably isn't something he's got the capacity to do anyway.

Maybe sacking Ange is the right thing long term, but it's not going to make any difference to beating United to advance in the cup. It's going to be his show whether he's on the touchline or not, that die is already cast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top