A serious look at Mauricio Pochettino

Kapardin said:
If Ole delivers, of course we should keep him. It's a no-brainer, a United legend and an incredibly positive guy to have as a manager. But I don't think we can judge him based on the 2 wins we have seen.

If Ole shows tactical acumen in the tough games to come against the top 6 and PSG in the CL, and manages to keep this good football going while getting us to a respectable position in the league in terms of results (closely fought 5th is ok) -- only then we can open a discussion on him in the same sentence as Poch, Zidane or whoever are our other candidates.
Click to expand...

Ole has shown plenty of acumen getting a Norwegian team to compete with teams from richer, stronger leagues in Europe.

Unlike our last manager he actually managed to win a game against Sevilla despite Molde's football heritage.

Ole isn't a competition winner. He couldn't save Cardiff? So what? Neither could Superman. Rijkaard got Sparta Rotterdam relegated before beginning Barca's era of dominance. So why discount Ole? He has actually won titles as a manager after all.
 
breakout67 said:
Remember when Aleggri brought on Asemoa and Lichstenstiner and completely changed the game last season in the CL? Tactical changes aren't really about player quality, they are about tactical changes (a bit self explanatory really).

Switching to back 3 was a clear option if he had wanted to defend the lead (move Davies inside and bring on Rose). But I don't think Pochettino really has that in him. He is very set in his ways on how to win a match, if his plan for a game doesn't work he almost never changes things.
Click to expand...

Asamoah and Lichtsteiner are good squad options, and very experienced players. When we've played with a back three we haven't looked more defensively solid, and it wouldn't have stopped us from conceding the equaliser from a corner. It wouldn't have changed the total lack of energy our forwards/midfielders had in the second half, which allowed Wolves to get a proper grip on the game and trap us in our own third, with Moutinho being a crucial substitution.

Pochettino made a good sub in Lucas (fresh legs, rapid) but otherwise would have been relying on youth players, which is very risky in a game where the ascendancy has changed and the pressure is on.
 
#07 said:
Not for the Glazers.

If Mou had kept his mouth shut and guaranteed top 4 he'd still be in post.

The owners must look at Pochettino, how little he's spent and yet how he consistently delivers Spurs Champions League TV money, and see him as the dream coach.
Click to expand...
This old Chestnut. Winning trophies is good for business. Period.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
I said it before, but what proactive substitutions would you suggest he made?

He brought in Moura, who with our current injury situation is our only substitution you can expect to make a difference. You then have a mix of youth players (mostly defenders, and Skipp who keeps it tidy but isn't really the guy you want to be bringing in to the last 20 minutes of a tense, must win game) and the likes of Nkoudou.

I'm sure Poch could see it coming, but there is little he can do with his squad options. He had to hope we could hold on, but alas they got the goal from the set piece and that set off a chain reaction.
Click to expand...
As @breakout67 has already better stated, a change in tactics could have helped. But simply sitting there and doing nothing just reminds me of our days under Van Gaal were all we were treated to a typical right back change at random points in games.

Spurs hardly had any attempt in that second half and tried to play out for that 1 nil. Only really seemed to wake up once they conceded. Perhaps they needed that sort of drive to get the second instead.
 
Still on the Poch train. Will take more than that to get me off.:D
Understand some of the doubts though.
 
K2K said:
This squad is good enough to have won some trophies though.

Spurs haven't exactly losing to giants most times in their failures to win trophies. A good example is their defeat to us last season in the FA Cup after having scored first too.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he can't be criticised, it's today's criticism in particular that is bizarre. Saying he should have won trophies up to now is absolutely fine, saying they lost today because of some lack of bottle is near-deliberately stupid.
 
ivaldo said:
This old Chestnut. Winning trophies is good for business. Period.
Click to expand...

It depends on your business goals. Do you think Stan Kronke has been unhappy with his returns from Arsenal?

Of course the most successful team will be able to sign the most valuable sponsorships etc. But it's a question of perspective. What if to keep winning you need to sink more and more money into the club? As opposed to this you could spend half but only see a 10/15% drop in profitability?

Do you really think our owners, who are making a healthy profit, won't look at that and think on balance finishing fourth every year don't seem so bad? Vastly less expenditure for a small drop in profit? Between the columns they would probably make more for themselves.
 
sullydnl said:
I'm not saying he can't be criticised, it's today's criticism in particular that is bizarre. Saying he should have won trophies up to now is absolutely fine, saying they lost today because of some lack of bottle is near-deliberately stupid.
Click to expand...
But Spurs have consistently crumbled when the title pressure has been on them. Not just this season either. It's been a constant theme of theirs for a while. No one really thought of them in the title picture until now. And they probably won't be in it for much longer
 
#07 said:
It depends on your business goals. Do you think Stan Kronke has been unhappy with his returns from Arsenal?

Of course the most successful team will be able to sign the most valuable sponsorships etc. But it's a question of perspective. What if to keep winning you need to sink more and more money into the club? As opposed to this you could spend half but only see a 10/15% drop in profitability?

Do you really think our owners, who are making a healthy profit, won't look at that and think on balance finishing fourth every year don't seem so bad? Vastly less expenditure for a small drop in profit? Between the columns they would probably make more for themselves.
Click to expand...
They're looking to maximize their profitability. Without exception, the most profitable clubs in world football are also the most successful. You know this.

Of course I do. We aren't going to remain as profitable as we are if we aim only for top four, no matter how we try to manipulate it. They will continue to invest in order to protect the brand. This notion that they are content with continually missing out on the biggest trophies goes entirely against everything we know about what makes a club successful. By all means say they have no emotional attachment to club, but let's not make them out to be idiots.
 
sullydnl said:
I'm not saying he can't be criticised, it's today's criticism in particular that is bizarre. Saying he should have won trophies up to now is absolutely fine, saying they lost today because of some lack of bottle is near-deliberately stupid.
Click to expand...
Put it this way: if this was an unusual occurrence, no one will mention it. The reason why it's brought up after this result is because of all that happened before it.
 
Doesn’t get the hype with this guy. Struggles when as a coach he need to find solution. At this point I would want ole more than him to be united manager
 
King_Cantona07 said:
Doesn’t get the hype with this guy. Struggles when as a coach he need to find solution. At this point I would want ole more than him to be united manager
Click to expand...
Spurs have been relatively pressure free for years due to being so irrelevant. The very second Tottenham have come under any type of pressure or must win occasion, he's lost the game. fecking disaster of a manager at a big club if you ask me.
 
I like Poch, teams always seem to be near top but then they go out and lose matches like today. But not on the Ole train yet....only two matches ffs.
 
King_Cantona07 said:
Doesn’t get the hype with this guy. Struggles when as a coach he need to find solution. At this point I would want ole more than him to be united manager
Click to expand...
He is great at overperforming with limited resources, but at the same time really bad when there is some pressure to win. So no surprise that after people started mentioning them as title challengers, they crash next game.

I really don't want him as our new manager.
 
What is it that makes all of spurs losses “bottling” it. Is it losing from a winning position? Losing when the pressure’s on? Honestly, it’s only ever spurs. Are City’s recent loses due to “bottling” it?
 
T00lsh3d said:
What is it that makes all of spurs losses “bottling” it. Is it losing from a winning position? Losing when the pressure’s on? Honestly, it’s only ever spurs. Are City’s recent loses due to “bottling” it?
Click to expand...

Seems to be en vogue with lots of posters. It’s lazy and boring. Think it’s more used as an insult than anything actually meaningful.
 
I think if instead of saying 'bottling' to 'losing in high pressure situations' people would take it more seriously, it essentially means the same thing though.
Everytime Tottenham find themselves in a position in which they can push on and challenge for trophies; they seem to capitulate.
It could be argued that it is down to the squad, but we're constantly reminded how wonderful their team is, which in my opinion is why people then say well they must be bottling it.
I agree to be fair; they have a side that should be mounting a serious title challenge, and this is as good a season as any to do that.
 
T00lsh3d said:
What is it that makes all of spurs losses “bottling” it. Is it losing from a winning position? Losing when the pressure’s on? Honestly, it’s only ever spurs. Are City’s recent loses due to “bottling” it?
Click to expand...
No, city don’t bottle it because they’ve already gone the distance. The difference is that when the pressure is on spurs they seem to not have the nerve for it
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Seems to be en vogue with lots of posters. It’s lazy and boring. Think it’s more used as an insult than anything actually meaningful.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that’s my take on it

golden_blunder said:
No, city don’t bottle it because they’ve already gone the distance. The difference is that when the pressure is on spurs they seem to not have the nerve for it
Click to expand...

Well, maybe they’re just not good enough? City, by contrast, are...so aren’t they bottled it more (this season)?
 
Dec9003 said:
I think if instead of saying 'bottling' to 'losing in high pressure situations' people would take it more seriously, it essentially means the same thing though.
Everytime Tottenham find themselves in a position in which they can push on and challenge for trophies; they seem to capitulate.
It could be argued that it is down to the squad, but we're constantly reminded how wonderful their team is, which in my opinion is why people then say well they must be bottling it.
I agree to be fair; they have a side that should be mounting a serious title challenge, and this is as good a season as any to do that.
Click to expand...
Liverpool are on course for 102+ points... How on earth is this a good chance for Spurs to win the league? They've not even signed any players. Not a penny spent in the summer. And they're bottlers because they won't get the 100+ points it will take to win the title. It's unbelievable it really is.

golden_blunder said:
No, city don’t bottle it because they’ve already gone the distance. The difference is that when the pressure is on spurs they seem to not have the nerve for it
Click to expand...
They've lost several times this season already. It's simply your own confirmation bias that leads you to labelling today's result a bottle job whilst every other defeat this season is just a side dropping points.

So if a team wins the title one year then they presumably can't bottle anything in the following seasons. How many years does that last? 2 years, 3, 4? If City spend 500 million over the next 3 years and fail to win the league they're not bottlers because they won it in 2018, but Spurs who don't spend a penny will be bottlers because they've not won it in decades.. Makes perfect sense.
 
Are people now annoyed with the word "bottling" and not the consequence of them having such fragile mentality, which after being the same several years under Poch, can't be anything except down to the manager ? Talk about clutching on straws. We can stop using it but it won't change anything.
 
Dominos said:
Liverpool are on course for 102+ points... How on earth is this a good chance for Spurs to win the league? They've not even signed any players. Not a penny spent in the summer. And they're bottlers because they won't get the 100+ points it will take to win the title. It's unbelievable it really is.
Click to expand...
This is the best Tottenham have been in a while, and were within 6 points was it? Before they lost to wolves.
Money spent is a stupid argument considering the quality players Tottenham have, it Eriksen and Kane cost 100 mil each does that mean they should challenge?
All that matters once the window closes is the quality of the side and Tottenham have as good a team as anyone. The difference is Tottenham prefer to manage expectations rather than push on and challenge.
 
K2K said:
Not convinced by Ole either and I do think the tough games will come.

I just think there's no magical cure and that's the sad part.
Click to expand...
Staying true to what we are is the best way forward. Ole might not be the one to restore us to former glory and he might get a couple of seasons before he eventually gets the boot but our next manager will be coming in knowing what we expect and what the standards at the club are. None of this "Please come and fix us" bullshit to whichever big name manager is doing well in Europe. I'm sick of seeing our club be dragged into mediocrity because some shit manager had success somewhere else and thinks he can replicate everything to exactly how it was at his previous club, get to feck with that shit.
 
I don't think this is the best Spurs have been at all. Spurs were in my opinion the best in 16/17 and have tread water since then.
 
T00lsh3d said:
What is it that makes all of spurs losses “bottling” it. Is it losing from a winning position? Losing when the pressure’s on? Honestly, it’s only ever spurs. Are City’s recent loses due to “bottling” it?
Click to expand...
It's bottling it because over the years they have consistently lost when the pressure was on. Spurs have been irrelevant for years which is why they've been successful, the second there's any pressure to win they bottle it. That's why it's bottling and Pochettino is the ultimate bottler.
 
Still think he would be the ideal coach. His ability to develop young players and give the team a style of play is just great. Think he could do a lot of good to United!

Don't think Levy would let him go - especially not to us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.