Counting caretaker managers is idiotic. If that was the case, Man Utd have had 10 managers since Ferguson retired. It would also mean Chelsea have had 22 managers since 2001.
-
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...
Management ENIC
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Counting caretaker managers is idiotic. If that was the case, Man Utd have had 10 managers since Ferguson retired. It would also mean Chelsea have had 22 managers since 2001.
And that’s the case (well not quite with Chelsea as a few of the managers you have duplicated, which wasn’t done with Mason for example)
Just because you don’t think they should be counted doesn’t necessarily mean it is idiotic, just the metric being used.
They could just as easily say you missing mangers out that managed multiple games (in 2 cases over half a season) is idiotic, as the players didn’t pick the team itself during those matches, a manager to do that was appointed
Last edited:
The celebrity guest star interim periods definitely speak to the lack of seriousness at United, IMO.
And then there's the Ralf Rangnick thing which was one of the most half-baked ideas I've ever seen at a major club.
A sheer count of the number of managers at Tottenham only speaks to part of the issue.
The problem of Daniel Levy is that there's always some new au courant ultra-modern forward-thinking "plan" and "structure" that will bring more results for less player spending, the plans are often relatively well thought out and staffed, have their moment, the underinvestment takes its inevitable toll, and then all of those great staff are made scapegoats and the next even more modern forward-thinking "plan" arrives.
The underinvestment is the religion of the project, it can never and will never change. And there will never, ever be accountability at the top.
It's a disgusting and exhausting way to run an organization.
We nicked our trophy though. Bully for us.
It is though isn't it. They aren't managers that were hired and sacked. They were people standing in the dugout inbetween signings.
You and I both know the metric is being used to imply multiple people have come and gone or have been sacked/quit/failed. Counting people who temporarily stepped in is twisting the metric to be something it isn't. If Pleat was being counted, it implies he was sacked or quit 4 times.
As per the Chelsea point, though - trying to attach number of managers to bad ownership doesn't even make sense. The vast majority of spurs fans have lusted for an Abramovich-style owner (and still do) , and would use him as a datum point for 'good ownership' and yet he went through more.
So why do people use Liverpool as some sort of reference point then? They've spent half as much money on the squad, and have just patched up anfield instead of investing properly in infrastructure. The only issue with Spurs is that we've had to generate our own finances for the projects, but based on that revenue stream we've invested significantly in the club, from top to bottom. Spent over £500m net on players since 20/21.
How is that under-investment? Why does it only count if it is externally and artificially generated?
Of course it’s being done to try and show our club in a bad light, hence why they picked Liverpool, who apart from West Ham (I assume as they only had about 4 in first 100 years) have had the least turnover.
And I really don’t care that much about it as a stat, as you say Chelsea model worked and their turnover of managers has been lot more than ours (however bankrolled)
To me what they wrote is not false, yes it is cherry picked stats, but let’s be honest most on this site have used cherry picked stats over last few days, such as ignore the first 10 matches, only count matches when players x y & z are playing, ignore 17th we won a cup, ignore cup we finished 17th with most losses in our history, double the amount of injuries we have ever had before Ange joined, so must be medics fault, or must be Anges fault
All confirmation bias stats twisted to get to point, but none of them incorrect, but none of them showing full picture
Those were not my words. Do keep up dear.
This is a good read....from the BBC
Tottenham: Ange Postecoglou sack shows glory is not what matters to Daniel Levy
Tottenham: Ange Postecoglou sack shows glory is not what matters to Daniel Levy
Is it? Which bit is a 'good read'? I read it before and thought 'what a load of regurgitated nothing, all of which has already been said by countless people, including many on this site over the last few days'. Which bit(s) did you find particularly interesting / informative? (Not meaning to be a dick btw, just genuinely interested in what prompted you to post it here as 'a good 'read', as I read it and instantly thought it lazy, thoughtless and empty).
EDIT: I just read it again - isn't it simply saying that Levy decided the cup win doesn't cancel out the terrible league season, but that several pundits are (inexplicably) struggling to understand that? Or am I missing something?
Yeah I think you need to have a break from this site for many reasons
My point is that it is incorrect as we haven't had 15 'managers'. There's no cherry picking involved there, just dog-whistling.
If you want to be pedantic like that we have had a lot less “managers” than you suggest. Last few including Ange were head coaches not managers, so if you want to ignore someone whose title was interim manager, and include those whose titles didn’t include manager to be in your list of managers, then whatever makes you happy, I won’t lose any sleep over it and I am sure neither will the author of the piece you are contesting.
I believe you are willfully missing his point - those recruited for the long term, whether they are called 'managers' or 'head coaches', cannot by any reasonable person be considered in the same way as interims known to just be there for a few games, and anyone claming not to believe that is simply being disingenuous for the sake of it.
He's not being pedantic, he's simply recognising the obvious difference between interims and 'intended long-term' hires when counting how many 'managers' a team has had as an indication of it's turmoil / failure of continuity etc.
Hardly post these days, so Thankyou for your unwanted advice . It’s also gay month so I think it’s quite appropriate
No.
I am just saying that his point is one view, and the person that said we had 15 different people doing the job (3 of which are being ignored managed more games than 2 which are being included) is another viewpoint which is equally as valid.
We have had 11 people that were employed from outside the club specifically to do the job of running the football team (whether as manager or head coach) in the period, but also had another 4 in the same period that were employed to do exactly the same role (1 of which Sherwood had his role changed from interim to full time during his incumbency anyway)
To suggest one viewpoint is the only valid viewpoint as you are doing is just wilfully playing with the truth also.
Last edited:
No, it's not the same at all - there is a huge difference between people employed to do the job long-term, and people employed just for a few games, in relation to measuring our turmoil / lack of continuity / 'mismanagement of managerial appointments by the board' (or whatever you want to call it), which is clearly what that original post was doing. When assessing people's usage of different criteria when analysing data to form an opinion, you have to take into account the relevance of those differing criteria to the topic they are trying to address / the point they are trying to make.