FYPThat tends to happen a lot in this[S]thread[/S]forum
-
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...
Manager Ange Postecoglou
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I know you would.
The team did play well in some matches with Frank after half time when the game was all but lost. So we did look competent at times with him as manager, but anyway I'm not arguing that Frank was a good choice manager for us but with the injuries it's like his entire tenure was played out with one hand tied behind his back. He's not permitted the injured squad excuse that Postecoglou is. Whether or not he was a better manager than Postecoglou makes no difference to the fact that he's judged with a different criterion.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend even if Frank is the worst manager in the world, it still doesn't negate the fact that like Postecoglou is, he isn't permitted the heavily injured squad excuse.And after readingwalter 's articulate, thoughtful and balanced post, that's the best reply you can come back with?
It's almost as if you've taken no notice of a single word he wrote.
As many posters can argue the point as articulately as they wish but it doesn't change that fact. So I'm not going to spend time reacting to their posts when their posts are skipping the crux of the point that I am making. If
walter
was really being thoughtful, he'd have replied with an agree to my post, instead of a well thought out padding where an actual point is void.Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Frank is a better or even a worse manager than Postecoglou, I'm simply stating he's not permitted the same excuse of a heavily injured squad.
IIRC Maddison was injured during preseason after Frank was hired.
Postecoglou had Son, Maddison, and Kulesevski fit for a lot of the time in his second season, there's quite a lot of goals there.
Look I'm not arguing who had the most injuries or was dealt the better hand, I'm just stating that no matter how many injuries Frank had, he's being judged as if he had none, unlike Postecoglou where it's the main excuse for being 17th.
At one point the squad was down to it's bare bones but it's as though Frank isn't allowed that excuse, it's only reserved for Postecoglou. Instead of realising people just switch the argument to ''ah but his only tactic was to get the ball to Kudus'' which may well be true a lot of the time, but that doesn't negate the injuries.
Cristian Romero comments: 'Disgraceful' that Tottenham had '11 players available' against Man City, says Spurs captain
Cristian Romero, who played against Manchester City despite being ill, has called it unbelievable but true and disgraceful that Tottenham Hotspur had only 11 players available for the game; Thomas Franks injury list at Spurs continues to increase
Last edited:
Son, Mads & Kulu were all attacking players.
What about the defense?
Foster in goal and Archie & Dragusin as the main defenders.
You should ditch the coloured glasses and look at reality.
What, do you think that I'm arguing Son, Maddison, and Kulusevski, are defenders?
I'm not arguing that Postecoglou had no injuries, I'm well aware it was a crisis situation at times, I'm stating that Frank should be allowed the same excuse for the injuries during his tenure.
I keep repeating myself and it's as though posters such as yourself are unable to acknowledge it.
No wonder there are so many pages to this thread, it's nearly impossible to explain a simple situation where two managers are being judged differently with the same criterion. The pushback is out of this world.
Last edited:
I agree that Frank had to deal with injuries too.
Kulu & Mads have been out for the entire season.
But the mob upstairs did bring in players as cover... Gallagher, Kudu(now injured), RKM, Simons etc.
My argument is that Ange had no players as back-up. That is the management's fault. There should be at least 2 competent players to cover every position in the squad.
I honestly believe that if Ange was still here, using the same available players, that we would be a lot higher up the table than we are now.
I don't have anything new to argue about Postecoglou that I haven't already stated, maybe he would have been better than Frank this season.
Last edited:
I literally agreed that our injury situation under Frank was dreadful.You don't seem to be able to comprehend even if Frank is the worst manager in the world, it still doesn't negate the fact that like Postecoglou is, he isn't permitted the heavily injured squad excuse.
As many posters can argue the point as articulately as they wish but it doesn't change that fact. So I'm not going to spend time reacting to their posts when their posts are skipping the crux of the point that I am making. If
If you had used the whole of my first sentence from the post you quote just up thread, instead of artfully clipping half of it out, you'll see I said:
I then went on to say:
So, like a number of others in this thread, I do accept that Frank also had a difficult injury situation, but that still doesn't mean he wasn't a very poor manager for us, and significantly worse than Ange.
Last edited:
OK.
We'll agree to disagree on whether Ange was a good manager or not.
Of course the irony of this is you've been told on many occasions that the injuries aren't the same and yet you still don't want to listen so you keep repeating the same mantra clogging up this thread with disingenuous nonsense.
Frank had Maddison, Kulu and Solanke out for the majority of his tenure but still had Xavi, Kudus and Rich and RKM, they are adequate replacements compared to Forster, Dragusin (who eventually did his ACL), Gray at CB, Maddison also missed 11 matches whilst his replacement was Bergvall!, Richarlison missed 30 matches and Odobert missed 20 - you also probably forgot that Bentancur was suspended for 7 matches for what he said about Son.
So you tell me why Frank should be allowed the same excuse when the situations are entirely different?
I'm not arguing that Frank was a good manager for us, I'm not even arguing he's a better manager than Postecoglou.
I'm arguing that this thread has been quite full of excuses for Postecoglou's tenure in the Premier League season 2. Insomuch that the 17th position is being mooted as acceptable because of all the injuries.
Frank's tenure is being mooted as unacceptable but with a similar injury issue.
If you go and look in Thomas Frank's thread on this forum, there isn't a swarm of posters making excuses for him. As I said in a recent post on this thread, it's as though Postecoglou is being awarded these excuses for the poor league form because the team won a trophy.
If there was no Europa League trophy he'd just be a bloke that got sacked for having the team in 17th position at the end of the season. You still find the need to add ''if we even accept'' in reference to the injuries in Frank's tenure. I'm not sure you're aware that you're doing it.
I think he did a good job in his first season, helped a lot with some astounding saves from Vicario but overall good enough.
IIRC Maddison was injured during preseason after Frank was hired.
Postecoglou had Son, Maddison, and Kulesevski fit for a lot of the time in his second season, there's quite a lot of goals there.
Look I'm not arguing who had the most injuries or was dealt the better hand, I'm just stating that no matter how many injuries Frank had, he's being judged as if he had none, unlike Postecoglou where it's the main excuse for being 17th.
At one point the squad was down to it's bare bones but it's as though Frank isn't allowed that excuse, it's only reserved for Postecoglou. Instead of realising people just switch the argument to ''ah but his only tactic was to get the ball to Kudus'' which may well be true a lot of the time, but that doesn't negate the injuries.
Cristian Romero comments: 'Disgraceful' that Tottenham had '11 players available' against Man City, says Spurs captain
Cristian Romero, who played against Manchester City despite being ill, has called it unbelievable but true and disgraceful that Tottenham Hotspur had only 11 players available for the game; Thomas Franks injury list at Spurs continues to increasewww.skysports.com
The *way* we played under Frank was inexcusable. It was timid, and worse, boring. That sent the message that he didn't rate the players. If that wasn't enough to get the message across to them, he made sure they knew it during his press conferences.
Terrible manager tactically and terrible motivator.
On your last point, Posgtecoglou would argue finishing 17th and winning the Europa were not independent events.
I'm not suggesting he aimed for 17th- hell of course he did not-but if we tanked out of the Europa earlier then its not unreasonable that we would have finished higher in the league than 17 th.
He may still have got the sack as the bloke who finished 10-12th.
Again this is all hypothetical