Manager Ange Postecoglou

[Notabadsquad]

Legacy - normalised losing. won a European trophy. Opposite ends of the spectrum.

Not a top level manager. More salesman than coach.

No more to say from me on this monstrosity of a thread.

I would say if this was a court matter, the prosecution should rest its case but I suspect this will run and run.

 

[Shadydan]

No more to say from me on this monstrosity of a thread.

Click to shrink...

 

[Phomesy]

Legacy - normalised losing. won a European trophy. Opposite ends of the spectrum.

Not a top level manager. More salesman than coach.

No more to say from me on this monstrosity of a thread.

I would say if this was a court matter, the prosecution should rest its case but I suspect this will run and run.

Click to shrink...

Think this is the fifth time you posted something like this.


Fickle.

 

[McCOYS]

Oh look who's back after he said he's going to leave the thread for the 100th time, if anyone is guilty of bumping this thread it's you and your ilk and no one can tell me why - very apt you mentioned mental health in this post isnt it...

Anyway if you want to do comparisons Ange's first 10 matches don't count according to the derangers so if you're doing this comparison thing then why should we count Frank's first 10...? Which means he would have had us on 11 points in 16 matches which would have made us the 2nd worst team in the league just above Wolves at the time of getting the boot, now unless you think Frank was well on his way to winning the Champions League and lets face it he wasn't, he remains our worst manager in the Premier League era bar none and that's even when I'll allow you to have his first 10 matches.

We've been down this comparison and Frank backers always end up losing, don't try snd be a loser.

Click to shrink...

 

[Shadydan]

Click to shrink...

Very wise decision

 

[www]

But couldn't that mean that he thinks he's worse than Postecoglou?

Click to shrink...

...only in Lalaland.

 

[McCOYS]

Interesting take on Frank. Maybe bring it to his thread and see if you can resuscitate that.

As to Postecoglou, I was all for his sacking (although I did wobble, I'll admit, when we won the Europa). I never compared our injury crisis under Postecoglou to the one we experienced under Frank. So the brainwashing epithet does not, if you'll pardon the pun, wash when it comes to me.

I think, with the exception of one or two, most contributors to this thread who are positive about him are in the 'getting 5th in his first season and, notwithstanding a shit 2nd league season, winning the Europa in his second season might, in hindsight, mean he was underestimated as a manager".

For me, I think we would not be where we are now had he been given a shot at a third season. If our league form had continued to be dire, he would have been sacked by November. The new manager would have had time, and a transfer window, to deal with the issues. Frank was given the benefit of the doubt for far too long. He was appointed before the season started and was given time he should not have had.

Who knows, maybe the team would not have been shit under a third Postecoglou season. We'll never know. What we got was the worst of all options.

Thanks for the chat. Another few contributions to the 5000 page journey!

Click to shrink...

I'm only bringing Frank's name into this thread to highlight how a rational person would provide the same excuses about his tenure as Postecoglou's, and that it's arguably irrational to not give both managers the same allowance.

Isn't what what rational people do?

 

[Ionman34]

I disagree with this because it's great to be involved in any European competition, let alone win it.
European nights and glory are what this club is all about, so to say that we'd have been angry about it in previous eras is just not true.

I'm 51 years old and I've never been disappointed with my club playing in Europe, never.

Click to shrink...

I can remember the 90's and nigh on 2 decades of missing out on any European qualification. How we wished for them under the lights European nights.

Now not just getting those nights, but actually winning one of the trophies again, and this is looked on with disdain by a certain cadre in here?

Unreal.

 

[Shadydan]

I'm only bringing Frank's name into this thread to highlight how a rational person would provide the same excuses about his tenure as Postecoglou's, and that it's arguably irrational to not give both managers the same allowance.

Isn't what what rational people do?

Click to shrink...

Ange finished 5th in his first season, where did Frank leaves us in his first season when he was sacked?

We can do this all day by the way.

 

[John Duncan]

Interesting take on Frank. Maybe bring it to his thread and see if you can resuscitate that.

As to Postecoglou, I was all for his sacking (although I did wobble, I'll admit, when we won the Europa). I never compared our injury crisis under Postecoglou to the one we experienced under Frank. So the brainwashing epithet does not, if you'll pardon the pun, wash when it comes to me.

I think, with the exception of one or two, most contributors to this thread who are positive about him are in the 'getting 5th in his first season and, notwithstanding a shit 2nd league season, winning the Europa in his second season might, in hindsight, mean he was underestimated as a manager".

For me, I think we would not be where we are now had he been given a shot at a third season. If our league form had continued to be dire, he would have been sacked by November. The new manager would have had time, and a transfer window, to deal with the issues. Frank was given the benefit of the doubt for far too long. He was appointed before the season started and was given time he should not have had.

Who knows, maybe the team would not have been shit under a third Postecoglou season. We'll never know. What we got was the worst of all options.

Thanks for the chat. Another few contributions to the 5000 page journey!

Click to shrink...

The debate In a nutshell. 10000 % agree .

Probably a lot of reasonable minded supporters share this “ middle ground “ opinion. And as you say “ We’ll never know “ and we’ve been royally overtaken by events subsequently .

And as a previous contributor perceptively described the “ debate “ it is in many ways a case of “ Emotion v Reality “ . But I would say it’s actually a potent combination of both; for many of us . Hence the near 5000 pages of “ impassioned yet healthy argument “ ; with no end in sight.

FWIW I reckon the International Atomic Clock in Paris will grind to a halt before this thread expires.

Which is a good thing, but then again possibly not . What do others think / feel ?

 

[walter]

IMO blaming the injury crises and not Postecoglou for the 17th position finish, is the same as blaming the injury crises and 16th (I think it was) position and not Frank.

So a rational argument could be made that Frank was as good as Postecoglou, IMO he was a bit worse but there is a rational argument that could exist regardless.

It seems all the excuses that were made for Postecoglou, Frank wasn't entitled to. Maddison and Kulusevski are probably the best two attacking players at the club.

Frank didn't win a trophy but the team was doing well in the Champions League, which is regarded as a tougher competition than the Europa League.

Seems like people want to make excuses for Postecoglou's league position but refuse to make the same excuses for Frank.

A mental health professional, could well find that deranged, and like Shadydan once said, Postecoglou has brainwashed the supporters, so I assume the supporters he was referring to includes you.

Click to shrink...

I don't think anyone here, who was against the sacking of Postecoglou (even with the benefit of hindsight), isn't aware that there were issues with his tenure too.

Despite the mitigating factors of injuries and the clear focus on the cup runs rather than the Premiership, our league form was still extremely poor, and if he'd have been given a third season, continuing that performance would definitely be grounds for dismissal, trophy or no trophy.

Nonetheless, even in his second season, his underlying metrics were undisputibably better than Frank's with much the same players. Yes Kulu and Madds were out, but they were for large parts of last season too. Besides players such as Xavi, Kudus and Kolo Muani were supposed to be quality upgrades / additions.

Frank was also supposed to be a much more defensive-minded coach than Ange, but if anything our defensive record under him was even worse than it was under Postecoglou, despite Frank having the luxury of his first choice defenders available for most of his reign.

True Tomas Frank didn't win a European trophy, but that's because he blew a 2-0 lead going into the final minutes of the Super Cup. Yes, his record in the Champions League was pretty good, but who's to say Ange wouldn't have done better? He did manage to actually beat Bodo/Glimt both home and away, after all.

And that's my biggest gripe about Postecoglou's sacking. He'd clearly sacrificed League position to try and win something, and actually managed it, qualifying for the Champions League in the process.

He deserved to be given the chance to use that as a platform to push the club onwards. Instead we sacked him. No wonder the only level of manager we could attract was the likes of Tomas Frank, given that's how we reward success at Spurs.

 

[McCOYS]

Oh look who's back after he said he's going to leave the thread for the 100th time, if anyone is guilty of bumping this thread it's you and your ilk and no one can tell me why - very apt you mentioned mental health in this post isnt it...

Anyway if you want to do comparisons Ange's first 10 matches don't count according to the derangers so if you're doing this comparison thing then why should we count Frank's first 10...? Which means he would have had us on 11 points in 16 matches which would have made us the 2nd worst team in the league just above Wolves at the time of getting the boot, now unless you think Frank was well on his way to winning the Champions League and lets face it he wasn't, he remains our worst manager in the Premier League era bar none and that's even when I'll allow you to have his first 10 matches.

We've been down this comparison and Frank backers always end up losing, don't try snd be a loser.

Click to shrink...

You seem incapable of understanding that nobody was expecting Postecoglou to be sacked for his first 10 matches, the issue was the majority of his second season, which was as bad as Frank's part season. Both managers were sacked for the same reason, both managers also had lots of injuries.

It was you, yes you who stated Postecoglou had the supporters brainwashed, and here we are with Phomesy and crew counting the thread pages.

The curiosity is that you've become what you described.

he has brainwashed our fans,

Click to shrink...

 

[Ionman34]

Nope. We did play very good football first season for a good part of it, we just never developed that or improved on that or dealt with other teams exploiting us. I have zero issue with De Zerbi wanting to emulate what we did early under Ange, but I’m sure he’d also then want to actually kick on and have a bit more nous about us tactically.

Click to shrink...

That's the long and the short of it really.

If he can get those attacking patterns of play going, whilst having the defensive pragmatism I prayed Potecoglou would show in his second season, but didn't, then we will go places under RDZ.

It was that lack of even a modicum of pragmatism, in the second season, that had me finally see that his tenure was done, after the euphoria of the cup win had run its course, and I was possibly one of the first to be fully invested in AP when he was with us.

There's no shame in coming to the realisation that he needed to go, just as there's no shame in still reminiscing about winning the trophy. Why each side of this "argument" can't just step back and accept this is indicative of how this forum is less about Spurs "discussion" and more about picking fights for the sake of it.

 

[Phomesy]

There's no shame in coming to the realisation that he needed to go, just as there's no shame in still reminiscing about winning the trophy. Why each side of this "argument" can't just step back and accept this is indicative of how this forum is less about Spurs "discussion" and more about picking fights for the sake of it.

Click to shrink...

Exaclty. But they all keep coming here to pick fights with Spurs fans for the crime of not hating a manager that won a European trophy with us.

It's so weird but if they want a fight they will get it

 

[McCOYS]

I don't think anyone here, who was against the sacking of Postecoglou (even with the benefit of hindsight), isn't aware that there were issues with his tenure too.

Despite the mitigating factors of injuries and the clear focus on the cup runs rather than the Premiership, our league form was still extremely poor, and if he'd have been given a third season, continuing that performance would definitely be grounds for dismissal, trophy or no trophy.

Nonetheless, even in his second season, his underlying metrics were undisputibably better than Frank's with much the same players. Yes Kulu and Madds were out, but they were for large parts of last season too. Besides players such as Xavi, Kudus and Kolo Muani were supposed to be quality upgrades / additions.

Frank was also supposed to be a much more defensive-minded coach than Ange, but if anything our defensive record under him was even worse than it was under Postecoglou, despite Frank having the luxury of his first choice defenders available for most of his reign.

True Tomas Frank didn't win a European trophy, but that's because he blew a 2-0 lead going into the final minutes of the Super Cup. Yes, his record in the Champions League was pretty good, but who's to say Ange wouldn't have done better? He did manage to actually beat Bodo/Glimt both home and away, after all.

And that's my biggest gripe about Postecoglou's sacking. He'd clearly sacrificed League position to try and win something, and actually managed it, qualifying for the Champions League in the process.

He deserved to be given the chance to use that as a platform to push the club onwards. Instead we sacked him. No wonder the only level of manager we could attract was the likes of Tomas Frank, given that's how we reward success at Spurs.

Click to shrink...

You've just made my point even clearer. Somehow, for some reason, the injuries for Postecoglou are more valid than the injuries (of similar number) for Frank.

You guys will argue until you're blue in the face that the injuries during Postecoglou's tenure were more important than the injuries during Frank's tenure, thus excusing Postecoglou's 17th league position and refusing to excuse Frank's.

it's a tad deranged, and irrational.

 

[citizenabel]

Where did the bad man touch you?

Click to shrink...

Not sure of your whereabouts.

 

[Shadydan]

You seem incapable of understanding that nobody was expecting Postecoglou to be sacked for his first 10 matches, the issue was the majority of his second season, which was as bad as Frank's part season. Both managers were sacked for the same reason, both managers also had lots of injuries.

It was you, yes you who stated Postecoglou had the supporters brainwashed, and here we are with Phomesy are crew counting the thread pages.

The curiosity is that you've become what you described.

Click to shrink...

So you're gonna ignore the first season because it doesn't align with your agenda and it destroys your argument, brilliant.

A disingenuous comparison at best and it's actually laughable that people such as yourself has the audacity to question those who speak favourably for Ange and yet here you are doing to same for Frank who was categorically worse than Ange.

Almost as funny as moaning about the club not winning trophies and then moving the goalposts of your argument when Ange wins us a trophy

 

[Phomesy]

You've just made my point even clearer. Somehow, for some reason, the injuries for Postecoglou are more valid than the injuries (of similar number) for Frank.

You guys will argue until you're blue in the face that the injuries during Postecoglou's tenure were more important than the injuries during Frank's tenure, thus excusing Postecoglou's 17th league position and refusing to excuse Frank's.

it's a tad deranged, and irrational.

Click to shrink...

Wtf are you talking about? I've been clear all along that the reason we're in this shit is INJURIES and a meh squad. I've said it over and over and over. And yes that goes for Frank as well.

Why do you people lie and lie and lie?

 

[Ionman34]

Lol, Ange first season had one game a week and a perfectly normal amount of injuries. It still fell apart after an excellent start because the momentum went and we didn’t develop or adapt. We never again played consistent good footy under him after the honeymoon.

Click to shrink...

That's not actually true.
We had a spell, starting with the Chelsea game (losing a significant amount of our spine) where we lost 4 of 5, with a draw sandwiches in between. We then went 16 games with only 3 losses. It was the finale to the season, with our last 7 games, that we lost 5 and drew 2.
Up until those last 7 games, our Football might not have been as fluent as.in the early part of the season, but that was in the midst of our first injury crisis. We were still winning games, with a better than average momentum, right up until that final quarter or so of the season.

Guy ended the season with a near fully fit team clinging on to fifth desperately. We could only beat Sheffield and Burnley.

Click to shrink...

That was the mystifying part. We got our best players back but they made little to no difference.

Net, only Conte had more invested in to the squad than Ange did. Let’s hope RDZ can make more of the players he has, doesn’t run the team in to the ground, and can adapt tactics a bit and not rely entirely on momentum and can prepare for more than one match a week.

Click to shrink...

Agreed

 

[Shadydan]

Why do you people lie and lie and lie?l

Click to shrink...

Because it's all they have