Chronic,

I don't want to see boring football but I want to see winning football

We have been trying the pretty stuff for 20 years an basically achieved nothing - it's probably time we gave something else a go.

=========================

I agree with your “winning football” comment but playing the right way is Spurs’ trademark and we must never give that up. Of course we all prefer to come home with 3pts at the end of the day but it makes me more proud that we play the Spurs/ right way.






Don,

Where this glorified stoke thing comes from I don't know because we certainly didnt play like that last season.

===========================

That came from me but i didnt say we were a glorified Stoke, i just said i hope we do not turn into a glorified Stoke – a comment i still stand by.

And we wouldnt have finished 4th any other season because if 4 teams finish above you, in any season, you come 5th - its as simple as that.

Under graham we had ginola in the side and tried to give him the ball at every opportunity. Sounds like we tried to play attractive football to me.....

---------

Having one flair player in your side doesn't mean you are trying to play attractive football? Do you remember the Graham years? Awful, turgid football. Won a cup but we were dire. Allan Nielsen, Steffen Freund, Doherty et al. Don't try and tell me those are players you have when you are trying to be expansive.

He inherited Ginola and would never have signed him. He would have been lynched if he'd sold him immediately, but luckily for him he was getting on anyway.

Has to be said that Spurs being up at the league table business end, usually coincides with good football being played for some part of a season.

Having one flair player in your side doesn't mean you are trying to play attractive football?

-----

well it does if the way you play is to give your flair man the ball all the time.

plus you are arguing a totally different point with me.

you are saying we didnt play attractive football all the time. i agree... however i am saying that we tried to play in an attractive way most if not all of the time. whether or not we succeeded is a totally seperate debate, and the one which you seem to be persuing

whether or not graham signed ginola or not is totally irrelevant, the simple fact is that under graham we had ginola in the side and the side was set up to pretty much give him the ball all the time.

if you have a flair player as your playmaker, and your play goes through him whenevr possible, then how can you possibly argue that we didnt try to play good football..? doesnt make sense i am afriad.

Would everyone be happy with playing like Chelsea post-Sheva/Ballack and pre-AVB if it meant a few more wins?

Not just for a season or two, but for the foreseeable?

For me it falls in to Sugar Daddy category - both may improve us but we'd have sold out in the process

"For me it falls in to Sugar Daddy category - both may improve us but we'd have sold out in the process"

How can playing less attractive football more often have anything to do with Sugga Daddys ??

if there is one thing spurs cannot be accused of doing, its selling out.

anyway even under AVB, with our mentality totally changed, we still played the tottenham way....

conceded goals from set pieces all the time, shooting ourselves in the foot, struggling to break down lower table sides at home, and ultimately falling short in all competitions.......... same old spurs

OK Chronic, you think Graham tried to play good football. Having a team of workhorses who's sole purpose is to get it to the only player who can do damage is trying to play good football.

We'll leave it there. I've nothing more to say on that matter, and I doubt you will find any people old enough to remember it that will agree with you.

<standard> Spurs does not equal the "Spurs way" .

comment by The RDBD (demoted to supporting the team manag... (U1062)
posted 1 minute ago
"For me it falls in to Sugar Daddy category - both may improve us but we'd have sold out in the process"

How can playing less attractive football more often have anything to do with Sugga Daddys ??

---------

We have a proud history of trying to play good football. Win at all costs power football is the antithesis of this.

"We want our Tottenham back" was a regular song in the 90s for good reason. Even a trophy under Graham wasn't enough for the natives because we have a yearning to be entertained. If you can't do it properly you shouldn't do it at all. I wouldn't take him back if it guaranteed us winning a trophy every year

comment by HRH (U15236)




posted 1 minute ago



OK Chronic, you think Graham tried to play good football. Having a team of workhorses who's sole purpose is to get it to the only player who can do damage is trying to play good football.

We'll leave it there. I've nothing more to say on that matter, and I doubt you will find any people old enough to remember it that will agree with you.

-----------------

a team of workhorses? they werent even that... the team was just crap basically... that was the side we were... we werent a good side so we couldnt attract good players...

we had ginola.. and our game revolved around him.

now i am not saying graham tried to play expansive open football, but i am saying that the clear tactic was to give ginola the ball (he was by far our best player), and thus my point holds true.. that if you are trying to play all your football through your flair player, how can you be accused of not trying to play good football?

the fact that the rest of the team was so facking useless and turgid (most of them inherited by graham), just meant that no one else could play that type of game

"If you can't do it properly you shouldn't do it at all. I wouldn't take him back if it guaranteed us winning a trophy every year"

grandspur many moons ago made a succinct and true comment on the folklore of the Spurs "way" .

Confusing the presence of one stand-out player in a team of mediocrity is very much in that vein.

i am not saying that under graham we played the spurs "way"

whatever the spurs "way" is i have no idea as i am too young to remember anything than utter crap apart from the last 6 or 7 years.

i am a product of spurs in the 90's

the "spurs way" that i grew up with us for us to be shiiiiite. midtable mediocrity with the occasional flirt with relegation and cup run for good measure.

Chronic

anyway even under AVB, with our mentality totally changed, we still played the tottenham way....

===================

Can you explain this mentality change in a bit more detail?

Assuming you mean its for the better, can you confirm how you measure this mentality improvement? What are the signs?

The Spurs "way" has only been seen in the manner the folklore believes it (style of play and its longevity) during the 60s and 80s.

There have been glimpses of it since Spurs first got back into the league top 5 (hence my comment about the style of play coinciding with the league placings) .

Assuming you mean its for the better, can you confirm how you measure this mentality improvement? What are the signs

---------

i found we were harder to beat and kept scoring late goals to gain us points - something very unusual for spurs.

The Spurs way is entertaining to watch for me. Something even the neutral would enjoy. Think us towards the end of 2009/10 or the CL home group games.

It's not Stoke, it's not Barcelona. It's a bit of everything

the "spurs way" is an outdated concept that older fans who remember the "glory glory" days of the 60s and 80s cling to because that is the way they feel spurs should play.

those of us who were not lucky enough to have ever seen "Glory glory" days, are happy to win games, and if we are entertained then that is even better.

half the reason why the club was going nowhere for absolutely ages is that the fans were satisfied with being midtable rubbish as long as the football was entertaining

"the "spurs way" is an outdated concept that older fans who remember the "glory glory" days of the 60s and 80s cling to because that is the way they feel spurs should play."

As grandspur suggested, because those are the only times that the style of play occurred with only consistent regularity.


"half the reason why the club was going nowhere for absolutely ages is that the fans were satisfied with being midtable rubbish as long as the football was entertaining"

And here comes the counter-myth.

half the reason why the club was going nowhere for absolutely ages is that the fans were satisfied with being midtable rubbish as long as the football was entertaining

-----------

Most of the 90s and half the 2000s we played some of the worst football about. This coincided with a general mid table constant.

The period prior to it we were winning trophies doing well in the league and had exciting players, and the period after it we established ourselves as a top side again, by playing good football.

come here RDBD

Chronic,

i found we were harder to beat and kept scoring late goals to gain us points - something very unusual for spurs.

=================

I have 3 questions on this statement:

1) Is scoring late goals actually a sign of a stronger mentality?

2) Wouldn't a better mentality be to score goals earlier (preferably more than one) to end the game comfortably?

3) If we do not score as many late goals next season, does this mean our mentality has weakened?

I have 3 questions on this statement:

1) Is scoring late goals actually a sign of a stronger mentality?

2) Wouldn't a better mentality be to score goals earlier (preferably more than one) to end the game comfortably?

3) If we do not score as many late goals next season, does this mean our mentality has weakened?

------

three valid questions... and three valid points too.

i think it depends on the situation.

for example i think dembele scoring the last minute goal at lyon to send us through was a sign of a never say die, strong mentality.. we kept plugging away, and it took a certain bravery to take that shot on from outside the box rather than pass it and look for an easier opening. i think that is something that we would have not done in the past.

i think its more that we keep playing to the last minute now (maybe we are fitter?) whereas before we were easier to subdue when we were chasing a game (broadly speakingm there are exceptions e.g. the 4-4- at the emirates)

i think redknapp had a part to play in the slowly changing mentality, jol too.. but more so redknapp, and that has been continued by AVB

Chronic

Personally i think you're generalising a bit just to fit you wanting to believe there is a new, stronger, mentality.

That shot that Dembele converted is no different to many that have happened in almost every game, in almost every season where we have desperately needed a goal. Players shoot in the last seconds - thats football. Last season we saw a few go in which was brilliant but that is the only difference - its not a mentality thing.

As i say, if Dembele takes a shot in the last seconds and hits it wide, will you claim our mentality is weaker? I doubt it.

And if we fail to hit from long range at all in injury time in the future, will you claim our mentality is weaker? Again, i doubt it.

Scoring late goals or desperately shooting from range late on is not a sign of having a strong mentality in my opinion, its the sign of panic late on - and if anything it papered over a few cracks where we failed to breakdown teams and win with comfort.

I've never known a Spurs side not try to score at the death when we are drawing (and need a win) or losing.

Things change, the "Barca" style of total possession football is only possible due to the talents they've unearthed. Try doing that with Blackburn and they'll get relegated.

Comparing is with them is ridiculous though, the Chelsea pre-Ballack is more apt. The crucial difference however is that we're trying to progress against the odds.

Mourinho had all the money in the world to shape the team he saw fit and he chose a powerful spine with pace down the wings.

If we have to replicate that style to win trophies so be it. That Chelsea side was impressive to watch at times, nothing like Stoke are today.

RDBD

" <standard> Spurs does not equal the "Spurs way" ."

How very pragmatic of you