Also has a 97% approval rating.
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Doubt there’s anyone right minded who would lay all the blame on Poch. Many factors at play when it comes to a successful transfer window or otherwise. Just as it’s wrong to entirely blame Levy when we don’t sign someone too, but there’s pages and pages of posts in here that do exactly that.
Poch, as much as I love him has an awful record in the transfer market.
Even his good moves didn't make much sense. Signing Ndombele AND Gio for a combined 100m when we still didn't have a recognised DM in the squad was beyond stupid. Then going in for Dybala as well....genuinely intrigued as to what his vision was with that group of players.
Hardly a surprise that the one season Poch spent some ££ it turned into a shambles of a season.
Even his good moves didn't make much sense. Signing Ndombele AND Gio for a combined 100m when we still didn't have a recognised DM in the squad was beyond stupid. Then going in for Dybala as well....genuinely intrigued as to what his vision was with that group of players.
Hardly a surprise that the one season Poch spent some ££ it turned into a shambles of a season.
Sissoko doesnt need micro management at all. He needs to be played in his best position like anyone else...DM not fucking right wing.
Poch made it very clear when he was here that he did not have control of transfers. I’m sure he had meaningful input but we all know Levy controls transfers when it comes down to it. Also a little strange to bring up Ndombele and Lo Celso as your examples given that both transfers have worked out. I see and agree with your point about having other needs. But as mentioned, Jose’s timing was better than Poch’s in terms of the transfer market.
Can you perhaps quantify/define that somehow? "We all know" is an easy statement to make, but aside from the fact that he holds the purse-strings and oversees the paperwork like a typical chairman, what exactly do you think "we" know....?
(I had this argument in another thread the other day, but - e.g. - once one accepts that funds were available in the summer 18/19, in what way is it still down to Levy that we brought no-one in?)
As was typical of Poch, he made very few things "clear" when he had his little moans..... He never said he didn't have a semblance of control (significant influence) over whom we brought in... Despite not being specific, he made his moan at the tail end of the summer 19/20 window in the context of not having players early enough in pre-season.
Also, what do you mean by "timing"....?
Last edited:
Bump!!!
Why do people keep making out he is tactically stupid? He has a limited skill set but ask him to do what he can and he is a asset. I am almost entirely coming to believe that most players failings are to do with the short comings of the coach. I love Poch but its been a bit of a wake up watching jose fix long standing problems with such little fuss and by buying the right player to compliment.
Its very easy. Dont ask players to do what they cant do.
The issue is when a player thinks he can do what he cant do, aka Pogba. If concentrated on doing the Sissoko role he would be the worlds best midfielder.
Fair question. I’m thinking specifically of the interview Poch gave where he pointed out he’s just the coach, he doesn’t control transfers. Do you remember the one I’m talking about?
By timing, I mean when he joined the club. Poch had to live through the stadium construction which hamstrung the transfer budget. Jose came after that was done AND lucked into a pandemic that wreaked havoc on some clubs’ finances and ginned up some transfer market bargains.
Yep... That's the one I alluded to. He didn't come close to saying "someone else picks the players", which is what people commonly imply when referencing said comments..... Like I say that was right at the end of the window when he was bristling about not having a proper pre-season with with the GLC & Sessengon deals still in the air.
Gotcha!
It has to be said that Poch spent £460m in his 5 years with us.
If not being backed means getting nearly £100m a year to spend, then fair enough.
My recollection is that Tottenham’s net spend during Poch’s time in charge is one of the lowest in the PL and certainly nowhere near in line with our top 6 rivals. Am I misremembering?
Liverpool's is crazy low....
Chavs isn't as high as one would think either.....
Net isn't the be all and end all.... You presumably wouldn't argue that Klopp wasn't backed for instance.
Ah, the old "net spend" argument.
Our net spend during Poch's reign was higher than the Dippers.
Yes to a degree you are - we spent Net more than Liverpool, how did that work out for them?
Woolwich and Utd are pretty big Net spenders but that's because all their players leave for bugger all, would you like to follow that model? it's not doing all that well right now.
Truth is for most clubs it's how you spend the money not just how much you spend (although City spending 500m on defenders will do it) we spent poorly under Poch, probably not his fault just a failure in the transfer committee to get the right targets, a job they've done far better with Mourinho.
For me the real issue with Poch was not understanding player limitations, Sissoko as a creator? Eriksen taking corners? Dier in midfield? and not progressing good players to the next level Kane, Son, Serge etc.
That all comes with experience, something Mourinho has in spades.
I would argue that net spending is the figure that matters, certainly not only looking at players a team has bought and ignoring what they’ve sold. Obviously the talent level present at a club when a manager joins matters too. Poch def got lucky to have Harry Kane on the team.
What Liverpool have done is crazy impressive.
Here's the popular net spend chart for 2015-20 that went around: The 20 Premier League clubs ranked by net spend over last five years - Planet Football
We're 15th in that chart- slightly below Liverpool and Chelsea, who I was going to say have sold very, very well (over 500m worth) but let's not forget they just spent 250m-ish in the last window
So they are much higher now. Liverpool have recruited fantastically but are also bolstered by selling for bigger fees, which I think reflects how good they are in both recruiting and selling players + maybe a higher original squad value.
Out of curiosity I took a look at 2015 to this season (sort by balance): Transfer income and expenditure
Yup, Chelsea jumped from 17th to 5th - still behind Arse and Everton, mind you (which also reminds me of how badly Everton are underperforming if their slide continues). Shoutout as well to Southampton, who have net-spent less than the club I think of as the quintessential "but they have pennies!" club in Burnley. (Also, transfermarkt shows a jump of 112m to 210m for us from last season to this one, which I actually couldn't figure out at first until I realized they counted Gio in this year - so basically 110m since last summer).
So that suggests net spend's not the end all or be all, especially when clubs are starting from different places (e.g. Aston Villa's spent a fantastic sum but they were coming from relegation battlers) though there's usually some correlation. I think that's mainly because people under-appreciate the importance of the selling side, for example Southampton's net spend is so low because they're selling so well from their academy but they can still spend a good chunk. I suspect gross spend is the better proxy then (sort by expenditure): the top 8 are roughly as you'd expect, City - Chelsea - United - Liverpool, then Everton - Arse - us - Leicester. We're still overachieving quite a bit if you consider our average position in the last 5 years.
The other proxy I've often heard as a much better one than net spend is wage bills, since it reflects the underlying quality of the current squad. That sounds about right looking at Surprise Premier League club makes UEFA's top 20 highest wage bills in Europe - the top PL wage bills are United, Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arse, Everton, us, Leicester, Crystal Palace. It's very similar to gross spend, we're in 7th and overachieving while United, Arse, and Everton are badly underachieving. Liverpool are still overachieving, but at 255m their wage bill dwarfs ours (143m).
We're 15th in that chart- slightly below Liverpool and Chelsea, who I was going to say have sold very, very well (over 500m worth) but let's not forget they just spent 250m-ish in the last window
So they are much higher now. Liverpool have recruited fantastically but are also bolstered by selling for bigger fees, which I think reflects how good they are in both recruiting and selling players + maybe a higher original squad value.Out of curiosity I took a look at 2015 to this season (sort by balance): Transfer income and expenditure
Yup, Chelsea jumped from 17th to 5th - still behind Arse and Everton, mind you (which also reminds me of how badly Everton are underperforming if their slide continues). Shoutout as well to Southampton, who have net-spent less than the club I think of as the quintessential "but they have pennies!" club in Burnley. (Also, transfermarkt shows a jump of 112m to 210m for us from last season to this one, which I actually couldn't figure out at first until I realized they counted Gio in this year - so basically 110m since last summer).
So that suggests net spend's not the end all or be all, especially when clubs are starting from different places (e.g. Aston Villa's spent a fantastic sum but they were coming from relegation battlers) though there's usually some correlation. I think that's mainly because people under-appreciate the importance of the selling side, for example Southampton's net spend is so low because they're selling so well from their academy but they can still spend a good chunk. I suspect gross spend is the better proxy then (sort by expenditure): the top 8 are roughly as you'd expect, City - Chelsea - United - Liverpool, then Everton - Arse - us - Leicester. We're still overachieving quite a bit if you consider our average position in the last 5 years.
The other proxy I've often heard as a much better one than net spend is wage bills, since it reflects the underlying quality of the current squad. That sounds about right looking at Surprise Premier League club makes UEFA's top 20 highest wage bills in Europe - the top PL wage bills are United, Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arse, Everton, us, Leicester, Crystal Palace. It's very similar to gross spend, we're in 7th and overachieving while United, Arse, and Everton are badly underachieving. Liverpool are still overachieving, but at 255m their wage bill dwarfs ours (143m).