:vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert:
.....PATHETIC. :dembelewtf:
My 5yr old niece has more balls than you.
-
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
:vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert::vert:
.....PATHETIC. :dembelewtf:
My 5yr old niece has more balls than you.
He was very inconsistent at Sampdoria.
And he was nowhere near top 10 Premier League level when he was there.
I tend to feel slightly different to you then pal. We're a club who had what 9 players make the semi finals of the World Cup last summer, a further 2 that made the knockout stages, the likes of Winks, Foyth & Sissoko called into their respective country squads for upcoming international fixtures so I really don't think it's as bad as people believe it to be.
We've unearthed the potential in the likes of Son, Alderweireld, Dele over the last few years, developed fine footballers further in their skill set in the form of Winks and Kane etc and whilst some of our goings on have been tedious agreed, I think we conduct our business with a level of respect for ourselves, one that sees us not even short change ourselves whilst ticking along nicely. A lot is made of the players we missed out on that came good but very little on the ones that did nothing after a potential move to us came and went.
For every Suarez we've opted against there's been a move for Anton Ferdinand, Yann M'vila etc that proved to be right not to pursue. Dortmund do some great business yes but they aren't at our level and have far less risk should they make a signing that proves to be a dud. Their league isn't anywhere near as competitive as ours, they can make mistakes in the market yet still realistically qualify for Champions League competition the seasons following. We're evolving, we haven't thrown our money away and although I do think we need a little more proactivity I don't think a team with starting XI that consists of the likes of Lloris, Trippier, Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Rose, Winks, Dier, Eriksen, Dele, Son & Kane which has cost us c£75m-£80m or so can be seen as shambolic. We've done very well compared to most, hence our rise up the league and in Europe
Last edited:
I'm sure they are...which is why it's a bad time to be a Brexit politician I imagine, even the ones who have made their name on being Brexit proponents will find themselves voted out for "failing" an impossible task. There's just no way to overnight change immigration population short of violent civil unrest.
Best you can do, lest you want to bury your courts under a mountain of legal challenges, is agree on new Visa laws and set a future date for them to be enacted whilst allowing already issued visas to roll on and expire. The idea of an in-today out-tomorrow Brexit is a petulant and fool-hardy bit of impractical fantasy.
Anyway...transfers. I say we don't do any, worked out well for us thus far.
Agreed, and agreed. Just, that is what they're trying to do, and yes, they are that stupid.
Perhaps, not, but he was also 21-22. Not yet a finished article, but looked like someone who could be really good with better coaching.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I feel that with more proactive squad management, we'd have been in a better place and not needing a major rebuild, with a starting eleven that was better than it is.
Yeah, seems to have gone up a few levels over the last few seasons. Hard to know whether that's because the Portuguese League is a few levels below the bigger leagues or he's just improving at a great rate.
What's promising is that his stats are improving year on year.
15/16
3 goals and 4 assists
16/17
5 goals and 3 assists
17/18
16 goals and 20 assists
18/19
32 goals and 17 assists
I mean those last two seasons were both in the Portuguese League. but that's incredible improvement regardless.
Last edited:
I definitely believe that there could have been improvements or moves made to make us stronger, absolutely but I don't think it's a travesty that we didn't. We've had the issue of the stadium to contend with, no home advantage, no pre-season for most of our guys due to how successful they were in the World Cup and more importantly we have gotten away with it, our money is still ours.
When I look at the areas of the squad that need improving I see a few but I also see a lot of pro-active class that's with us for many years ahead hopefully. Foyth, Sanchez, Winks, Dele, Sonny, Kane etc are yet to hit their physical peak based on the average footballer and with record profits, record revenues etc and a far greater brand image mixed with a few nearing the end of their contracts, I fully expect a few ins and outs over the course of the next month to three months.
We've got lucky agreed but equally we have been unlucky when you look at the vat amount on injuries we've faced in the last 12 months. Over 50 games and we've only been able to field Dele, Eriksen, Son & Kane in I believe 8 of them. I also remember seeing something that said that we've never actually started a game with Rose, Vertonghen, Alderweireld & Aurier in defence which to me is our strongest defensive unit. We've had it rough yet we still achieved our realistic objectives.
Didn’t need him back then - we had Simon Davies
This is trotted out quite frequently as a convenient and pithy rebuttal of a person's argument. However, I think this is a specious argument that says more about the judge than the player because the evaluation of a player is never going to have a data set full enough to provide 100% surety and 0% risk in a player's future performance.
That said, my contention is that you can absolutely evaluate a player on 90 minutes of football depending on what assessments you are looking for, provided they get through enough of the ball in that 90, and the level of competition is of a suitable standard. If watching a player for a season will give you 90% confidence in a players future performance (pulling the trigger on a transfer) I would like to believe that 90 minutes should give you about 70% confidence ie should I come back to see this guy or not.
There is a point where the evaluation of a player changes from 'are they good enough' to 'what is wrong with them'. And this is the part of it that the "No to 90 minutes" folks don't understand. It takes significantly less time to know if a player is good enough than most people believe. The rest of the time spent trying to find a player's warts and the novel situations that bring them out.
A 'for instance' for that last part. When Tripps was being recruited everyone and their brother trotted out his fecking assist stats but few mentioned the potential pitfalls. Playing for Burnley over a 38 game season likely never put him in a situation of defending high up the pitch or running back to his goal ie novel situations. He had no field to defend at Burnley and was free to flight in crosses because that's Burnley's move.
Evaluation Tripps for a single 90 minutes would have given you the same impression as over a 38 game season, this guy is good enough (if you're Poch and many on these boards). But evaluating Tripps over any 1 game for Spurs this season would evince his warts and give you pause (unless you're Napoli or some fecker whose idea of a good time is to coat himself in soft-ripened cheese and fruit jellies while pondering the making of his next outfit and tending to his sphinx moths).
So, one 90 can be enough provided the competition is suitably high, the player has enough ball, and you know what you are looking for. Should players be looked at only for 90? Obviously not. But I also believe that a fairly confident assessment can be made in about 10 touches but I won't make that argument here as I fear for the local population around
bus-conductor
's place.
Last edited:
From mid table teams in Italy to the third best team in Portugal. It’s normal to be much more effective.
Don't generalize. Just because you don't know about a player doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. I, personally, have seen at least 50 (conservative estimate) of his games and I know a few on here that have seen significantly more than his CL games.
With Marseille missing out on CL football they are going to have to have a bit of a firesale.
I would not say no to Thauvin, Lopez or Sanson to be honest. Ocampos would also be a good squad addition.
I would not say no to Thauvin, Lopez or Sanson to be honest. Ocampos would also be a good squad addition.
Would never slag this kind of move off if the scouts and Poch are happy.
Could be a Brooks-esque coup.
Could be a Brooks-esque coup.
This is trotted out quite frequently as a convenient and pithy rebuttal of a person's argument. However, I think this is a specious argument that says more about the judge than the player because the evaluation of a player is never going to have a data set full enough to provide 100% surety and 0% risk in a player's future performance.
That said, my contention is that you can absolutely evaluate a player on 90 minutes of football depending on what assessments you are looking for, provided they get through enough of the ball in that 90, and the level of competition is of a suitable standard. If watching a player for a season will give you 90% confidence in a players future performance (pulling the trigger on a transfer) I would like to believe that 90 minutes should give you about 70% confidence ie should I come back to see this guy or not.
There is a point where the evaluation of a player changes from 'are they good enough' to 'what is wrong with them'. And this is the part of it that the "No to 90 minutes" folks don't understand. It takes significantly less time to know if a player is good enough than most people believe. The rest of the time spent trying to find a player's warts and the novel situations that bring them out.
A for instance for that last part. When Tripps was being recruited everyone and their brother trotted out his fecking assist stats but few mentioned the potential pitfalls. Playing for Burnley over a 38 game season likely never put him in a situation of defending high up the pitch or running back to his goal ie novel situations. He had no field to defend at Burnley and was free to flight in crosses because that's Burnley's move.
Evaluation Tripps for a single 90 minutes would have given you the same impression as over a 38 game season, this guy is good enough (if you're Poch and many on these boards). But evaluating Tripps over any 1 game for Spurs this season would evince his warts and give you pause (unless you're Napoli or some fecker whose idea of a good time is to coat himself in soft-ripened cheese and fruit jellies while pondering the making of his next outfit and tending to his sphinx moths).
So, one 90 can be enough provided the competition is suitably high, the player has enough ball, and you know what you are looking for. Should players be looked at only for 90? Obviously not. But I believe also believe that a fairly confident assessment can be made in about 10 touches but I won't make that argument here as I fear for the local population around
10 touches, fucking amateur, I can tell from a players name if he’s good enough.
He’s been playing as a L8 in a 433 a lot of the time this season. If we switched to a 433, or the 41212 diamond I think he probably could, as long as there’s a good holder in there.