Mourinho Sacked! Solskjær new interim manager

[BaZ87]

Yup I agree with all that and it is totally valid, its the reasons why he is being touted for top jobs in the first place, Im just putting the other side of the coin out there.

Its NOT just two games against Man Utd and one against Juventus though. Its the season Leicester won the league and in fact you can even look at the Wolves game last week as an example. Spurs are a great side when the pressure is off and they are just off the pace but when the potential for legitimate success comes around they seem to be slightly lacking. Maybe that's because they have a team that can only be taken so far with limited resources, in which case their manager will be a tremendous success if he has more cash to spend however maybe its because he isn't quite a top level manager when the pressure is on. Spurs would sweep teams like Wolves aside quite happily but when people start saying "win this and you have a legitimate title challenge" they seem to slip up.

Im currently reading the Diary of his season from a year or so back, its been quite an interesting read so far but Im still in the early stages, perhaps that will give me more of a feel for what he is like behind the scenes.

I don't believe it had anything to do with pressure, the squad just wasn't capable and while you're going to point out that it was better than Leciester's, that was a freak season and not something you can use as a benchmark. As I said earlier, the challenges Poch faces at Spurs will be completely different than what he faces at Utd if he were to join them. Maybe pressure was or has been an issue for them in the past but he's got a relatively inexperienced squad that haven't been in those situations, at Utd, Real or whoever else he'll have an experienced squad that have been in title run-ins or deep in Cup competitions, maybe that won't be an issue.

You can only judge him on what he's done and how that can be transferred to another side. Nobody could argue that he's not done and incredible job overall at Spurs, how transferrable it is will be the key question. In terms of style of play then it shouldn't be an issue but how he deals with egos and star players will be the biggest obvious difference.

Of course they are lucky. Almost every player that is bought with the same potential and given the same treatment as Kane, Alli and Coutinho doesn't turn into one of the worlds best players. Before you come back and explain how they aren't lucky please bear in mind that luck doesn't imply a lack of work or skill. Tottenham have a thin squad, little money and lack the pull of the biggest clubs in England. They have operated on shrewd buys, developing players and being lucky with some of the players they have bought. There are probably 15 other clubs that work under similar limitations in the league who haven't "developed" the next Kane, Alli or Coutinho. Tottenham have had some luck in the same way United were lucky with the class of 92.

fez seriously, read what you've said. This is plain mad. The difference between Spurs and the 15 other clubs that work under similar limitations is luck. All these players that have developed from being fairly mediocre prospects into first team players in a side at the top end of the PL was down to luck. I have no idea why the **** Utd want Poch then.

Of course there is an element that's out of the clubs hands - they can put all the work in but if that player just doesn't want to put the work in himself or simply doesn't have the required talent then he'll never succeed. I'd argue that was part of the identification process though - clubs don't just look at a players technical ability but their attitude and application too. To dismiss the influence a coach has on a player though is just mad though. Poch has consistently developed players into better players than they were and it's not just the examples of Kane or Alli but look at players like Trippier too. With the exception of Sanchez, who have Spurs signed that were either already the required quality to be at a side at the top end of the PL or were regarded as the next big thing and had to fight off massive interest from the rest of Europe? Spurs have built a squad from players have either been picked up from lower end sides and or brought through by Poch. To put that down to luck is ridiculous.

 

[fez]

fez seriously, read what you've said. This is plain mad. The difference between Spurs and the 15 other clubs that work under similar limitations is luck. All these players that have developed from being fairly mediocre prospects into first team players in a side at the top end of the PL was down to luck. I have no idea why the **** Utd want Poch then.

Come on Baz, try not to take everything at its simplest and most literal interpretation. I rate Poch and I think hes a great manager and I really hope we get him at United at some point. That doesn't mean I don't think he has been lucky with Spurs.

Of course there is an element that's out of the clubs hands - they can put all the work in but if that player just doesn't want to put the work in himself or simply doesn't have the required talent then he'll never succeed. I'd argue that was part of the identification process though - clubs don't just look at a players technical ability but their attitude and application too. To dismiss the influence a coach has on a player though is just mad though. Poch has consistently developed players into better players than they were and it's not just the examples of Kane or Alli but look at players like Trippier too. With the exception of Sanchez, who have Spurs signed that were either already the required quality to be at a side at the top end of the PL or were regarded as the next big thing and had to fight off massive interest from the rest of Europe? Spurs have built a squad from players have either been picked up from lower end sides and or brought through by Poch. To put that down to luck is ridiculous.

How did Leicester win the league a few years ago. They suddenly had 5-6 players that would usually be at top 4 clubs and went on to win the league (albeit a very weak season). How are they getting on now? Where are the replacements for those players. By your reckoning the club weren't lucky in their recruitment or development of those players so why haven't they got the same quality of player now. Even more than that, why haven't they got a better team now. They have had a huge injection of cash from selling some of those players.

In the grand scheme of footballers the best of them make up probably about 0.0.1% of the professionals in the game. You need a bit of luck to end up with those players no matter what you do to try and nurture and develop them.

People who get into Oxford and Cambridge are lucky. There are 10 people who are good enough to be there for every place they have. You need a bit of luck at the top level of everything.

 

[BaZ87]

Come on Baz, try not to take everything at its simplest and most literal interpretation. I rate Poch and I think hes a great manager and I really hope we get him at United at some point. That doesn't mean I don't think he has been lucky with Spurs.



How did Leicester win the league a few years ago. They suddenly had 5-6 players that would usually be at top 4 clubs and went on to win the league (albeit a very weak season). How are they getting on now? Where are the replacements for those players. By your reckoning the club weren't lucky in their recruitment or development of those players so why haven't they got the same quality of player now. Even more than that, why haven't they got a better team now. They have had a huge injection of cash from selling some of those players.

In the grand scheme of footballers the best of them make up probably about 0.0.1% of the professionals in the game. You need a bit of luck to end up with those players no matter what you do to try and nurture and develop them.

People who get into Oxford and Cambridge are lucky. There are 10 people who are good enough to be there for every place they have. You need a bit of luck at the top level of everything.

Your post is so random that I'm honestly struggling to reply. Your justification for Poch being lucky is a freak season from Leicester? Poch has shown it's not luck by repeatedly doing the same thing. It's not been one season or a small group of players - he's repeatedly improved players throughout his time at Spurs and before that at Southampton too.

I'm genuinely lost for words. If you think Poch has been lucky despite consistently improving players throughout his career then fair enough. I think that's bonkers.

 

[fez]

You’re right Baz, there is no luck involved in anything in football and Poch is 100% responsible for everything Tottenham have.

 

[BaZ87]

I think that statement is a hell of a lot more accurate than yours

 

[placeholder]

I don't believe it had anything to do with pressure, the squad just wasn't capable and while you're going to point out that it was better than Leciester's, that was a freak season and not something you can use as a benchmark. As I said earlier, the challenges Poch faces at Spurs will be completely different than what he faces at Utd if he were to join them. Maybe pressure was or has been an issue for them in the past but he's got a relatively inexperienced squad that haven't been in those situations, at Utd, Real or whoever else he'll have an experienced squad that have been in title run-ins or deep in Cup competitions, maybe that won't be an issue.

You can only judge him on what he's done and how that can be transferred to another side. Nobody could argue that he's not done and incredible job overall at Spurs, how transferrable it is will be the key question. In terms of style of play then it shouldn't be an issue but how he deals with egos and star players will be the biggest obvious difference.

Sorry but I dont think that's correct. You cant continually say the squad wasn't capable when it fails at the final hurdle if its clearly capable enough to get into the winning positions in the first place! If we were talking about general failure then yes you could cite that but when its specific to what appear to be winning opportunities or opportunities to close out achievements I just think its an easy get out to say the resources aren't there or they aren't good enough.

If you look at the squad that travelled to the FA Cup semi final vs Man Utd

Lloris
Vorm
Trippier
Sanchez
Vertonghen
Alderweireld
Lamela
Davis
Dier
Dembele
Wanyama
Sissoko
Eriksen
Alli
Son
Kane
Aurier
Lucas Moura

That's an incredibly strong squad filled with experienced internationals. Put them 1-0 up in a stadium they have used as their home all season and they should be closing that out. Im not going to list the squad for the Leicester season when the finished 3rd in a two horse race nor the team that played Juventus or even Wolves a couple of weeks ago but its not short on quality IMO.

They will probably crumble this season now that Son is away and Kane is injured and that's quite legitimate but I also suspect it will be seen as quite handy too. Pressure off again.

 

[fez]

Tottenhams biggest issue is injuries to the likes of Kane and Eriksen. There simply aren't replacements that are anywhere near good enough. I think I read that Kane was responsible for 38% of Tottenhams goals over the past few years.

 

[BaZ87]

Sorry but I dont think that's correct. ...

You're again coming back to individual games. You asked me about the Leicester season - there were at least 4 other sides that on paper were stronger than Leicester. Did they all just bottle it? Leicester had a freak season which coincided with the bigger sides having various issues of their own. Spurs fell off a cliff at the end of that season, was it pressure or was it because they were shot to bits?

You can't judge a manager based on a few individual games or else you'll find faults with every manager. City losing 3 in 4 over Christmas was because Pep can't handle pressure? Nobody could argue his squad wasn't good enough after all. I watched the Spurs - Wolves game and Spurs looked out on their feet in the 2nd half of that game. I can't say I recall the Utd game specifically but generally speaking, Kane looked clearly unfit/shattered in the 2nd half of last season. Had Spurs dropped a few more points earlier in the season and been 9-10 points behind Liverpool going into the Wolves game rather than 6 then Poch is still being praised for the job he's done and nobody is batting an eyelid at the fact Spurs lose that game because there wouldn't have been talk of a title challenge. It would be the same had Spurs lost in an earlier round of the FA Cup rather than the semi's. Spurs don't and haven't had the squad to win the PL (excluding a freak season like Leicesters) nor do they have the squad to expect them to win Cup competitions ahead of Utd, City or whoever.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to come up with a hell of a lot more than not being Juve, Utd and failing to win the League when Leicester won it to properly justify you claim that he can't handle the pressure because I'm certain that I could find as many examples for every other manager around.

 

[placeholder]

You're again coming back to individual games. You asked me about the Leicester season - there were at least 4 other sides that on paper were stronger than Leicester. Did they all just bottle it? Leicester had a freak season which coincided with the bigger sides having various issues of their own. Spurs fell off a cliff at the end of that season, was it pressure or was it because they were shot to bits?

You can't judge a manager based on a few individual games or else you'll find faults with every manager. City losing 3 in 4 over Christmas was because Pep can't handle pressure? Nobody could argue his squad wasn't good enough after all. I watched the Spurs - Wolves game and Spurs looked out on their feet in the 2nd half of that game. I can't say I recall the Utd game specifically but generally speaking, Kane looked clearly unfit/shattered in the 2nd half of last season. Had Spurs dropped a few more points earlier in the season and been 9-10 points behind Liverpool going into the Wolves game rather than 6 then Poch is still being praised for the job he's done and nobody is batting an eyelid at the fact Spurs lose that game because there wouldn't have been talk of a title challenge. It would be the same had Spurs lost in an earlier round of the FA Cup rather than the semi's. Spurs don't and haven't had the squad to win the PL (excluding a freak season like Leicesters) nor do they have the squad to expect them to win Cup competitions ahead of Utd, City or whoever.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to come up with a hell of a lot more than not being Juve, Utd and failing to win the League when Leicester won it to properly justify you claim that he can't handle the pressure because I'm certain that I could find as many examples for every other manager around.

But I presume your other managers either have examples of when they can handle pressure or aren't being linked with one of the most high pressure jobs in the game?

Pochettino has this issue IMO until he can demonstrate than he can get a team over the line from a winning position. The season when Leicester won the title was a whole season so there are plenty of examples there if you want. Are we saying Leicester had a better squad and more resources? Other examples will be a handful of games because semi finals, title run-ins and CL knock out stages ARE just a handful of games and top managers will be judged on how they perform in these type of matches.

No one is saying Pep cant handle pressure because he has a CV of league titles, cups and CLs to demonstrate that he can. Everyone loses games and has bad runs but Spurs are doing it almost exclusively when the pressure is turned on. Are you really saying they have a squad good enough to get to semi's, to be beating Juve, to go head to head with Leicester for a title but then magically the squad becomes inferior when it comes to closing it out? It doesn't make a lot of sense really.

Maybe its a non-issue and if handed the resources to expand the Man Utd squad it wouldn't be a problem for him, but on what he has done so far maybe it would. I think its a valid question.

 

[BaZ87]

But I presume your other managers either have examples of when they can handle pressure or aren't being linked with one of the most high pressure jobs in the game?

And there lies the problem. These other managers have had far more opportunities to play in these big games or high pressure moments and done so with bigger and better squads - you cannot compare like for like. A game vs Utd and a game vs Juve doesn't tell you much - these are very hard, tight games which they lost marginally. Any manager could those these two games and do so with better squads available than what Poch had. If and when he's played 7 or 8 of these games and not had a far inferior side then fair enough.

And no, I'm not saying Leicester had a better squad. It was a freak season which you can't use to justify a great deal. Everything that could possibly go right for Leicester went right. And they didn't go head to head with Leciester - I've just had a quick look and at this stage of that season Spurs were 4th and with 6 games to go they were 2nd but 7 points behind.

And no, I don't think Spurs' squad is good enough to be going deep in the CL nor to be expected to pick up 80+ points in a PL season. Look at the side they put out vs Utd - Winks and Sissoko were the central midfield and due to 1 injury and 1 player away on International duties, they're going to have Llorente up front for them for the next few weeks.

 

[placeholder]

And there lies the problem. These other managers have had far more opportunities to play in these big games or high pressure moments and done so with bigger and better squads - you cannot compare like for like. A game vs Utd and a game vs Juve doesn't tell you much - these are very hard, tight games which they lost marginally. Any manager could those these two games and do so with better squads available than what Poch had. If and when he's played 7 or 8 of these games and not had a far inferior side then fair enough.

And no, I'm not saying Leicester had a better squad. It was a freak season which you can't use to justify a great deal. Everything that could possibly go right for Leicester went right. And they didn't go head to head with Leciester - I've just had a quick look and at this stage of that season Spurs were 4th and with 6 games to go they were 2nd but 7 points behind.

And no, I don't think Spurs' squad is good enough to be going deep in the CL nor to be expected to pick up 80+ points in a PL season. Look at the side they put out vs Utd - Winks and Sissoko were the central midfield and due to 1 injury and 1 player away on International duties, they're going to have Llorente up front for them for the next few weeks.

Im not comparing like for like, Im simply replying to you mentioning Pep so Im telling you why its not a question mark for him.

There just always seems to be an excuse. Leicester had a freak season, other teams are better and have more money. The thing is Im not arguing these general points about where Spurs end up. Im talking about the manner in which they slip from being in with a shout to being out of the medals as it were.

 

[Janesy B]

If you look at the squad that travelled to the FA Cup semi final vs Man Utd

Vorm

He was the problem tbh, he was given the start because he's contracted or there was an agreement for him to play in cup games up to the final and he was crap. The Man Utd squad was no joke, and Mourinho is the master of getting wins out of these games. There's too much narrative around 'bottling it' when in fact it's just losing to the better team or better tactics.

The pressure is always on, the league is highly competitive. We were all but out of the Champions League and we had to go to the Nou Camp and match Inter's result at home to PSV.

There is also a reason why teams that aren't competing in Europe have won the title lately, other than Man City who can afford to have multiple 50m+ players to cover positions. Aguero is injured? Oh, well we have a Brazilian international striker to back him up. Oh we already have Sane, Sterling and Silva, well Mahrez wants to leave Leicester so may as well snap him up. How do you even compete with that? The dilemma is that the board cares about league position and champions league football, fans just want a domestic cup to start off with.

With the season that Leicester won the league, you had other managers saying it would be great if they won it - Hazard even came out and said we don't want Tottenham winning this, it should go the Leicester. https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...-league-title-leicester-deserve-a3232441.html. I'm not saying there's some massive conspiracy about it, but it seemed everyone wanted Leicester to win the league and wanted to stop Tottenham. No one really mentions the fact that Arsenal were top of the league at points in that season and also lost out to that Leicester side, just the fact Spurs 'bottled' it, despite never being top of the table!

Anyway I think Pochettino isn't put off by the expectation at Manchester United, he's hugely ambitious and talks about winning the League and Champions League with Tottenham. I think his concerns would be more around how Man Utd are run and the influence Woodward would have, along with their plans of putting in a director of football. At Tottenham it's manager first and players after, we've seen with Mourinho if the players don't fancy it - the manager is out.

He has plenty of time in his career to invest in the 'project' at Tottenham and if it doesn't work out in 3-5 years, there will be a position for him to take up.

 

[BaZ87]

Always? Two one off games vs sides with far greater resources than them and a mad season from Leicester. I brought up Pep to show that every manager can lose a one off game, it happens even if you've got a far better squad. Just like City, Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool also didn't challenge Leicester when they won the league.

You've come up with 3 supposed situations where you claim that handling the pressure is what cost Spurs, ignoring that in 2 of those situations Spurs faced costlier and stronger squads than their own. The sample size is so small and once you add a bit of context to it, it proves nothing. If and when Spurs & Poch have been in these situations 7 or 8 times and faced a mixture of sides inferior and superior to them and continually failed then fair enough.

Anyway, we're going around in circles. My view is that it's a lazy criticism of Poch and Spurs to say they bottled it whenever they lose a big game. When they went to Old Trafford and turned Utd over their bottle seemed fine to me. As I said before, judge him on the job he's done as a whole and whether you think he can transfer what he's done at Spurs to Utd - looking for individual failings is pointless because you'll find holes in every manager that way.

 

[Janesy B]

When Spurs finished second with 86 points on 16/17, that would have been enough points to win the league most seasons, is that really bottling it - or were Chelsea just something else that year?

It's just a cheap and lazy narrative that everyone loves to buy into. Yeah of course Spurs should be winning the league, with a Crystal Palace/West Ham like wage bill and transfer budget....

 

[placeholder]

Always? Two one off games vs sides with far greater resources than them and a mad season from Leicester. I brought up Pep to show that every manager can lose a one off game, it happens even if you've got a far better squad. Just like City, Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool also didn't challenge Leicester when they won the league.

You've come up with 3 supposed situations where you claim that handling the pressure is what cost Spurs, ignoring that in 2 of those situations Spurs faced costlier and stronger squads than their own. The sample size is so small and once you add a bit of context to it, it proves nothing. If and when Spurs & Poch have been in these situations 7 or 8 times and faced a mixture of sides inferior and superior to them and continually failed then fair enough.

Anyway, we're going around in circles. My view is that it's a lazy criticism of Poch and Spurs to say they bottled it whenever they lose a big game. When they went to Old Trafford and turned Utd over their bottle seemed fine to me. As I said before, judge him on the job he's done as a whole and whether you think he can transfer what he's done at Spurs to Utd - looking for individual failings is pointless because you'll find holes in every manager that way.

And you are misrepresenting what Im saying. He has done a very good job at Spurs. He plays good football and has unquestionably developed players. As a result of that there seems to be a clamour for him to get the Man Utd job and I can see why based on that. My question has simply been that when he has taken Spurs into certain positions they ultimately haven't got over the line. That may be down to resources, players, bad luck or simply not being good enough or IMO it may be because he has an issue with pressure situations. Im not saying that is 100% the case, Im just posing the questions. I think before Man Utd pay out £50m+ to get him (all presumptuous on my part, he may not want the job) I'd be giving it due consideration. Pointing out that other managers lose games too is really quite meaningless especially ones with a history of winning trophies. The clubs that didn't challenge Leicester that season are the very reason Spurs should have probably won it and those clubs have attempted to address the reasons why they didn't challenge.

As an aside I also feel Spurs have completely missed the boat by not backing him to strengthen the squad sufficiently to be proper challengers - had they done this I have no doubt my concerns would have been addressed one way or the other.

 

[placeholder]

When Spurs finished second with 86 points on 16/17, that would have been enough points to win the league most seasons, is that really bottling it - or were Chelsea just something else that year?

It's just a cheap and lazy narrative that everyone loves to buy into. Yeah of course Spurs should be winning the league, with a Crystal Palace/West Ham like wage bill and transfer budget....

I didn't mention that year, again that's just putting words in my mouth. Their wage bill doesn't negate them having far better players than Palace and West Ham. If Palace, West Ham and Spurs put their squads on the open market which one would yield the greater return regardless of whether the originally came to their respective clubs for a big fee or not?

Its not bottling it if you weren't actually properly challenging. When the expectation is off they play like world beaters, when they get close, not so much.

 

[BaZ87]

And you are misrepresenting what Im saying. He has done a very good job at Spurs. He plays good football and has unquestionably developed players. As a result of that there seems to be a clamour for him to get the Man Utd job and I can see why based on that. My question has simply been that when he has taken Spurs into certain positions they ultimately haven't got over the line. That may be down to resources, players, bad luck or simply not being good enough or IMO it may be because he has an issue with pressure situations. Im not saying that is 100% the case, Im just posing the questions. I think before Man Utd pay out £50m+ to get him (all presumptuous on my part, he may not want the job) I'd be giving it due consideration. Pointing out that other managers lose games too is really quite meaningless especially ones with a history of winning trophies. The clubs that didn't challenge Leicester that season are the very reason Spurs should have probably won it and those clubs have attempted to address the reasons why they didn't challenge.

As an aside I also feel Spurs have completely missed the boat by not backing him to strengthen the squad sufficiently to be proper challengers - had they done this I have no doubt my concerns would have been addressed one way or the other.

I've not misrepresented what you've said. I've not said you don't think he's a good manager or done a good job, I'm replying specifically to your point on how he deals with pressure sitauations. My argument is you cannot judge him on 3 instances. What you said re the Leicester season you could say about Arsenal, Utd, Chelsea, City or Liverpool - the others weren't good that season so that's a reason why x should have won. The reality is that for one reason or another none of those sides were capable of picking up 80+ points that season.

And again, the point re Pep or any other manager losing big games is to show that it happens sometimes and it happens with managers that have far bigger and better squads than Poch. Burton didn't bottle it the other night vs City. City didn't bottle it vs Liverpool in the CL last year. Until Poch wins a trophy it's going to be held against him but imo it's a lazy criticism because he's only ever reached the latter stages of a major tournament a couple of times and done incredibly well to get there in the first place.

 

[Janesy B]

I didn't mention that year, again that's just putting words in my mouth. Their wage bill doesn't negate them having far better players than Palace and West Ham. If Palace, West Ham and Spurs put their squads on the open market which one would yield the greater return regardless of whether the originally came to their respective clubs for a big fee or not?

Its not bottling it if you weren't actually properly challenging. When the expectation is off they play like world beaters, when they get close, not so much.

I wasn't really addressing you directly just the topic and narrative from my perspective.

Spurs have had the same tools as these other teams, look how much Everton have spent trying to make it into the top 6 and they just can't do it. The difference is a combination of the coaching staff, manager and considerable investment in the training facilities and academy.

Tottenham were an absolute joke in the 90's and early 00's, we'd hope to end the season with a positive goal difference, a decent cup run and qualifying for Europe via fair play. I don't understand the current expectations of the club from outsiders, the club is massively outperforming given it's current resources and my expectations will increase once we move into the new stadium and start seeing the financial benefit.

 

[placeholder]

I've not misrepresented what you've said. I've not said you don't think he's a good manager or done a good job, I'm replying specifically to your point on how he deals with pressure sitauations. My argument is you cannot judge him on 3 instances. What you said re the Leicester season you could say about Arsenal, Utd, Chelsea, City or Liverpool - the others weren't good that season so that's a reason why x should have won. The reality is that for one reason or another none of those sides were capable of picking up 80+ points that season.

And again, the point re Pep or any other manager losing big games is to show that it happens sometimes and it happens with managers that have far bigger and better squads than Poch. Burton didn't bottle it the other night vs City. City didn't bottle it vs Liverpool in the CL last year. Until Poch wins a trophy it's going to be held against him but imo it's a lazy criticism because he's only ever reached the latter stages of a major tournament a couple of times and done incredibly well to get there in the first place.

OK I think this has probably run its course except to repeat that in the season all the big clubs had a poor season these clubs WERE criticised and hammered for it and people lost their jobs as a result. Spurs should have taken advantage because they DIDN'T have a poor season, they had a very good season. If you looked at the Spurs team, the way they played for most of the season and the general vibe around the club and said "You have to put that against Leicester City for the title" I doubt there would be many that wouldn't have backed Spurs. Expectation would never be that they would win the title at the start of the season and finishing 3rd would be seen as a great success until you look at how it came about and panned out including being horsed by Newcastle on the last day of the season to chuck away 2nd place too.

"Sometimes" clubs go on bad runs, "sometimes" the best sides lose. I don't think anyone has argued that point. The equally valid point is that the better sides come back from these situations and the better sides still close out titles, cups etc. If Spurs were never in those situations in the first place then you would be right to cite a lack of resources and it would be valid because they do lack resources off the pitch and in terms of squad depth but the fact remains that the times that they do get in the mix they fail and for me that's a concern. They aren't the horse coming up on the rails to snatch a placing, they are the horse leading going over the final fence.

If you are 1-0 up in a semi final, on needing to beat a beat to secure 2nd place in the league or beating Juventus to progress in the CL or whatever it may be I don't see why depth of squad or financial resources at that point becomes your get out clause for any failings. If you are good enough to get into these positions you are good enough to see it out, its not a squad failing or a resource failing at that point despite these being issues overall.

Anyway I do respect your views and see the basis for them. Time will tell I suppose!

 

[BaZ87]

OK I think this has probably run its course except to repeat that in the season all the big clubs had a poor season these clubs WERE criticised and hammered for it and people lost their jobs as a result. Spurs should have taken advantage because they DIDN'T have a poor season, they had a very good season. If you looked at the Spurs team, the way they played for most of the season and the general vibe around the club and said "You have to put that against Leicester City for the title" I doubt there would be many that wouldn't have backed Spurs. Expectation would never be that they would win the title at the start of the season and finishing 3rd would be seen as a great success until you look at how it came about and panned out including being horsed by Newcastle on the last day of the season to chuck away 2nd place too.

Without going over the rest of the conversation again, this part feels a bit like you're re-writing history. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Spurs were 4th at this stage of that season and even with 6 games to go they were 7 points off Leiecester. I think it's a bit of an exaggeration when people talk about Spurs being in that title race - they half got themselves into a race with a few games to go but ultimately Leciester only dropped 6 points so even had Spurs won their remaining games, they still wouldn't have caught them.

The draw vs Chelsea certainly made them lose their heads and knocked the stuffing out of them going into their final two games but all that meant was that it kept Wenger safe in his job for another year.