Home
An article from Goal.com i find intresting....
Tottenham are discovering that it is often the intangible side of football that separates a great team from merely a good team. How many times over the last few years have we questioned the ability of Manchester United, only to see the red machine plough through the final months, emerging atop a bus laden with trophies?
Is it a simple case of luck? No, it's something that can't be measured; the spirit Sir Alex Ferguson has instilled in all his teams over the years.
There are few clubs in the English game you would consider resilient but it's no coincidence that they reside regularly at the top of the table. As an example, Roberto Di Matteo appears to have summoned the unbreakable spirit of the Jose Mourinho era to help push Chelsea to an FA Cup win and a Champions League final.
Meanwhile, on Sunday, over in the west Midlands, Tottenham's manager Harry Redknapp uttered this astounding statement in his post-match interview: “Once we're down to 10 men five minutes into the second-half, you'd take a draw all day long.” This is Tottenham isn't it? The glory-game and all that?
ars*nal's 3-3 draw with Norwich on Saturday handed Spurs the onus and Redknapp's team knew they could guarantee third place with two wins from their final two games. You would presume that was the only option as the team travelled to Villa Park on Sunday afternoon but the above quote offers a window into Redknapp's disposition.
For a side aspiring to be a permanent fixture in the top four of the Premier League, is it acceptable to take that attitude – particularly in the circumstances that surrounded the game? Tottenham's biggest rivals had stumbled, offering a fantastic opportunity to finish above them for the first time in 17 years but in a style some would say is typical of Spurs, they choked.
Just how much does this derive from the manager? I would propose that by looking at historical examples, you can make a reasoned argument. Football teams tend to reflect the personality of the man in charge.
Starting with Mourinho we can draw on his pantomime villain front as a ploy to take the pressure from his team. On the pitch, players like Pepe seem to embody the dark arts Mourinho is happy to promote within his team. It is a 'win at any cost' mentality.
Compare that to the image Redknapp has cultivated at Spurs – the manager prepared to indulge any question and offer any answer regardless of the logic. When times were good, the pleasure taken from the fantastic performances was evident. They were playing happy-go-lucky football without any pressure on them and Redknapp was more than pleased to take the plaudits.
Once you get to April, the landscape is different. Spurs had thrown away a huge lead on ars*nal to forfeit third place but a familiar excuse culture has returned. The “we couldn't have done any more” get-out-of-jail comments caused unwanted complacency through the squad at a time when the focus should have been on addressing various issues – particularly the profligacy in front of goal that had become so costly.
It might be deliberate. Redknapp rarely offers any great insight in his post-match interviews and it is possible to guess his agenda before he takes the first question. That suggests that it may just be a facade intended to relieve the pressure on his team.
Perhaps in the dressing room and on the training ground, his attitude is entirely different but this misses the point. The excuses he peddles to the media are not only absorbed by fans of the club but a much wider audience, including their opposition.
This front of Redknapp's now ceases to be relevant. Tottenham have carried a reputation for having a soft underbelly and though it briefly vanished, the fragility expected from a Spurs team has returned, shown so blatantly at Villa.
As discussed, the idea of settling for a point at a club struggling in the Premier League was criminal and that is ignoring the opportunity ars*nal had offered Spurs.
This transferred to Redknapp's decision making in the dugout where he opted to replace the club's third top-goalscorer Rafael Van der Vaart with Scott Parker.
Premier League
Rather surprisingly that was his only change in the 90 minutes and came just before the fourth official raised his board to indicate seven additional minutes were forthcoming. Jermain Defoe – Tottenham's top goalscorer - remained seated on the bench alongside Louis Saha in a non-decision that should provoke further questions.
Again, using the example of Mourinho seems apt. At Chelsea, Inter Milan and now Real Madrid, the 'Special One' exuded confidence and possessed an indefatigable spirit that suppressed some of the games all time greats. His latest victim of course being Pep Guardiola of Barcelona.
But where Mourinho succeeds, Redknapp falls short. Whether it be in front of the camera or his actions from the dugout, it is hard to support plans for a long-term future with Redknapp in charge. He has shown that he either lacks the nous or the understanding required to adapt to changing on-pitch scenarios and the 1-1 draw with Aston Villa was another prime example.
When Spurs needed their manager to put his front foot forward and lay serious claim to the final guarantee of Champions League football, Redknapp lost his bottle and ensured ars*nal retained the upper-hand in the north London rivalry.
The gap between the clubs may be closer than at any time in the 21st century, but Sunday's disappointment serves as yet further proof that Redknapp will not be the man to take Spurs above the Gunners.
Tottenham are discovering that it is often the intangible side of football that separates a great team from merely a good team. How many times over the last few years have we questioned the ability of Manchester United, only to see the red machine plough through the final months, emerging atop a bus laden with trophies?
Is it a simple case of luck? No, it's something that can't be measured; the spirit Sir Alex Ferguson has instilled in all his teams over the years.
There are few clubs in the English game you would consider resilient but it's no coincidence that they reside regularly at the top of the table. As an example, Roberto Di Matteo appears to have summoned the unbreakable spirit of the Jose Mourinho era to help push Chelsea to an FA Cup win and a Champions League final.
Meanwhile, on Sunday, over in the west Midlands, Tottenham's manager Harry Redknapp uttered this astounding statement in his post-match interview: “Once we're down to 10 men five minutes into the second-half, you'd take a draw all day long.” This is Tottenham isn't it? The glory-game and all that?
ars*nal's 3-3 draw with Norwich on Saturday handed Spurs the onus and Redknapp's team knew they could guarantee third place with two wins from their final two games. You would presume that was the only option as the team travelled to Villa Park on Sunday afternoon but the above quote offers a window into Redknapp's disposition.
For a side aspiring to be a permanent fixture in the top four of the Premier League, is it acceptable to take that attitude – particularly in the circumstances that surrounded the game? Tottenham's biggest rivals had stumbled, offering a fantastic opportunity to finish above them for the first time in 17 years but in a style some would say is typical of Spurs, they choked.
Just how much does this derive from the manager? I would propose that by looking at historical examples, you can make a reasoned argument. Football teams tend to reflect the personality of the man in charge.
Starting with Mourinho we can draw on his pantomime villain front as a ploy to take the pressure from his team. On the pitch, players like Pepe seem to embody the dark arts Mourinho is happy to promote within his team. It is a 'win at any cost' mentality.
Compare that to the image Redknapp has cultivated at Spurs – the manager prepared to indulge any question and offer any answer regardless of the logic. When times were good, the pleasure taken from the fantastic performances was evident. They were playing happy-go-lucky football without any pressure on them and Redknapp was more than pleased to take the plaudits.
Once you get to April, the landscape is different. Spurs had thrown away a huge lead on ars*nal to forfeit third place but a familiar excuse culture has returned. The “we couldn't have done any more” get-out-of-jail comments caused unwanted complacency through the squad at a time when the focus should have been on addressing various issues – particularly the profligacy in front of goal that had become so costly.
It might be deliberate. Redknapp rarely offers any great insight in his post-match interviews and it is possible to guess his agenda before he takes the first question. That suggests that it may just be a facade intended to relieve the pressure on his team.
Perhaps in the dressing room and on the training ground, his attitude is entirely different but this misses the point. The excuses he peddles to the media are not only absorbed by fans of the club but a much wider audience, including their opposition.
This front of Redknapp's now ceases to be relevant. Tottenham have carried a reputation for having a soft underbelly and though it briefly vanished, the fragility expected from a Spurs team has returned, shown so blatantly at Villa.
As discussed, the idea of settling for a point at a club struggling in the Premier League was criminal and that is ignoring the opportunity ars*nal had offered Spurs.
This transferred to Redknapp's decision making in the dugout where he opted to replace the club's third top-goalscorer Rafael Van der Vaart with Scott Parker.
Premier League
Rather surprisingly that was his only change in the 90 minutes and came just before the fourth official raised his board to indicate seven additional minutes were forthcoming. Jermain Defoe – Tottenham's top goalscorer - remained seated on the bench alongside Louis Saha in a non-decision that should provoke further questions.
Again, using the example of Mourinho seems apt. At Chelsea, Inter Milan and now Real Madrid, the 'Special One' exuded confidence and possessed an indefatigable spirit that suppressed some of the games all time greats. His latest victim of course being Pep Guardiola of Barcelona.
But where Mourinho succeeds, Redknapp falls short. Whether it be in front of the camera or his actions from the dugout, it is hard to support plans for a long-term future with Redknapp in charge. He has shown that he either lacks the nous or the understanding required to adapt to changing on-pitch scenarios and the 1-1 draw with Aston Villa was another prime example.
When Spurs needed their manager to put his front foot forward and lay serious claim to the final guarantee of Champions League football, Redknapp lost his bottle and ensured ars*nal retained the upper-hand in the north London rivalry.
The gap between the clubs may be closer than at any time in the 21st century, but Sunday's disappointment serves as yet further proof that Redknapp will not be the man to take Spurs above the Gunners.
» Sky Sports News Links
» Hello....the site is still alive!
» 17 million deal for Musacchio
» How to Block Adverts on this Site !
» This is Our Season
» 'appy New Season
» Time to say goodbye
» Crouchinio