• 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

Was sacking Ange a good idea?

  • Yes, I think it was a good idea.

    Votes: 72 64.3%

  • No, I think it was a bad idea.

    Votes: 40 35.7%
  • Total voters
    112
walter said:
No, I was just using your post as a springboard to point out that Ange had somehow 'normalised losing' was a load of old bollocks.

It wasn't intended as a dig at you - unless you also subscribe to the nonsensical idea that Postecoglou 'made losing acceptable'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Personally I think Frank didn't do anything to make the team play better in the Premier League than they did last season. If anything he made a clean sheet more difficult by reminding everyone on live television about last season's woes. So I think if there is a hangover in form from one season to the other it's due to Frank not Postecoglou.

RDZ has a difficult job now to try and turn the team's form around, do you blame the present form of the team on Thomas Frank?
 
walter said:
He definitely got lucky during some of the games we won last season, most notably the Europa League final.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the Premier League the team played the same way, or at least tried to, regardless of the injuries, the most notable is the Chelsea match from the previous season, even down to 9 men, piling forward like berserkers.

Last season even with all the injuries the inverted fullbacks, focus on attack, etc etc continued as the team slid down the league, it was Postecoglou's way and he seemed to want to stick to it no matter what, injuries or not.

So taking that into consideration, why does he throw it all over his shoulder like discarding an empty beer can in the outback, and completely change the approach of the team in the closing rounds and most notably the final of the Europa League?

Isn't it an admission that he didn't think his usual way of managing the team to play was going to work? Why didn't he use those same Europa League tactics in the Premier League?

IDK something just doesn't seem to add up.
 
McCOYS said:
In the Premier League the team played the same way, or at least tried to, regardless of the injuries, the most notable is the Chelsea match from the previous season, even down to 9 men, piling forward like berserkers.

Last season even with all the injuries the inverted fullbacks, focus on attack, etc etc continued as the team slid down the league, it was Postecoglou's way and he seemed to want to stick to it no matter what, injuries or not.

So taking that into consideration, why does he throw it all over his shoulder like discarding an empty beer can in the outback, and completely change the approach of the team in the closing rounds and most notably the final of the Europa League?

Isn't it an admission that he didn't think his usual way of managing the team to play was going to work? Why didn't he use those same Europa League tactics in the Premier League?

IDK something just doesn't seem to add up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I Just think it was a matter of both teams playing really bad at the time imo.

We also did not have Bergvall, Kulu or Maddison who are key creative players so perhaps the cause wasnt a matter of intention to play defensive but because we were holding the lead.
 
Bergvallclass said:
I Just think it was a matter of both teams playing really bad at the time imo.

We also did not have Bergvall, Kulu or Maddison who are key creative players so perhaps the cause wasnt a matter of intention to play defensive but because we were holding the lead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That makes sense, but IMO there were times in the Premier League when injuries would have meant it would have been a good idea to change from the all out attack approach, so are we to take from this that in the Europa League Postecoglou was careful, and in the Premier League reckless?

I don't recall any Premier League matches that the team went all out to defend a 1-0 lead, regardless of injuries.
 
AberdeenYid said:
This “made losing acceptable” thing is the biggest pile of horseshit being shoveled on this forum. And it’s up against some serious competition.

Lots of clubs go through periods of losing, then change something and the period ceases. No club has ever “normalized losing” to the extent that their new manager or another significant happening doesn’t give a chance to turn it round.

Man U were shite. Changed their manager. Became less shite.

Wolves were shite. Changed their manager. Became less shite.

West Ham were shite. Signed a couple of clogger forwards. Were less shite.

I could do this for every shite team in every league in every fucking season. But we’re the one example of it not being the case? Anyone who peddles this bullshit can go and throw a load of fuck at themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Barack Obama Applause GIF by Obama
 
McCOYS said:
In the Premier League the team played the same way, or at least tried to, regardless of the injuries, the most notable is the Chelsea match from the previous season, even down to 9 men, piling forward like berserkers.

Last season even with all the injuries the inverted fullbacks, focus on attack, etc etc continued as the team slid down the league, it was Postecoglou's way and he seemed to want to stick to it no matter what, injuries or not.

So taking that into consideration, why does he throw it all over his shoulder like discarding an empty beer can in the outback, and completely change the approach of the team in the closing rounds and most notably the final of the Europa League?

Isn't it an admission that he didn't think his usual way of managing the team to play was going to work? Why didn't he use those same Europa League tactics in the Premier League?

IDK something just doesn't seem to add up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because in the PL matches he was building what would hopefully become a top contender in the year(s) to come. And because the bumps wouldn't have any catastrophic result taking into account the existing three bottom clubs.
Not very hard to understand since he also said so a number of times.
 
Auscock said:
I agree with you 100%.
I missed your previous post so my question was rather irrelevant.

Another question, if I may:
Do you think that Ange's high-line pressing strategy was superior to Frank's (I don't know what you call it) strategy?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not very good at discussing tactics, I'm more into the players attitudes, desire, ambition, bravery, etc so I'll say this.

I think Postecoglou injects more umph into the team, if anything Frank deflated the team.
 
marxoulis said:
Because in the PL matches he was building what would hopefully become a top contender in the year(s) to come. And because the bumps wouldn't have any catastrophic result taking into account the existing three bottom clubs.
Not very hard to understand since he also said so a number of times.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nothing catastrophic but the paying supporters want to see a team doing all it can do to win matches, surely when the team is depleted it's time to batten down the hatches, leaking goals and getting battered week in week out isn't useful is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top