A serious look at Mauricio Pochettino

Enigma_87 said:
The thing is - the injury forced his hand and wasn't some kind of brilliant tactics. If he didn't introduce Sissoko he might have been 2-0 down at HT. He should've been 2-0 down at FT even with him, but that's another matter. Spurs were utterly clueless in the final third last night.


They spent 250m under Poch. Hardly nothing.
Click to expand...

Once again it seems that I'm going to have to address this spend thing that constantly get bought up as a stick to beat Pochettino with which is simply bizarre. Pochettino's net spend since he arrived at Tottenham is £29m based over 5 years, the reason you need to take net spend into account is because it generally means you need to sell players to buy.

Even if you want to focus on his spending for the sake of some inane argument, he has spent £262.8m in his time which is considerably less than than their nearest spenders Everton and Arsenal:

Man City 760m
Chelsea 735.1m
Man Utd 594.5m
Liverpool 583.5m
Everton 400m
Arsenal 385.7m
Spurs £262.8m

So whilst you may think it's right to dismiss it as 'hardly nothing' you can still make the case compared to their rivals.

But again this is just a myopic argument designed to put Poch in a bad light, generally if Spurs didn't sell players then the buy column wouldn't be as high regardless so it's complete nonsense to bring up his spend as some sort of negative.

In regards to last night though Spurs, yes looked clueless going forward it has to be said but that's kind of what happens when you have Kane and Son missing (that's 44 goals taken out the team) And no attacking subs on the bench.
 
He put Rose in midfield during the game to help them but it didn't work, Ajax still dominated then he was forced to put Sissoko on which worked out well.

Ajax did well enough even when the game became more even. The class still shone through from Ajax.
 
MagicKarpet said:
Once again it seems that I'm going to have to address this spend thing that constantly get bought up as a stick to beat Pochettino with which is simply bizarre. Pochettino's net spend since he arrived at Tottenham is £29m based over 5 years, the reason you need to take net spend into account is because it generally means you need to sell players to buy.

Even if you want to focus on his spending for the sake of some inane argument, he has spent £262.8m in his time which is considerably less than than their nearest spenders Everton and Arsenal:

Man City 760m
Chelsea 735.1m
Man Utd 594.5m
Liverpool 583.5m
Everton 400m
Arsenal 385.7m
Spurs £262.8m

So whilst you may think it's right to dismiss it as 'hardly nothing' you can still make the case compared to their rivals.

But again this is just a myopic argument designed to put Poch in a bad light, generally if Spurs didn't sell players then the buy column wouldn't be as high regardless so it's complete nonsense to bring up his spend as some sort of negative.

In regards to last night though Spurs, yes looked clueless going forward it has to be said but that's kind of what happens when you have Kane and Son missing (that's 44 goals taken out the team) And no attacking subs on the bench.
Click to expand...

Excellent post and really shows how blind some supporters our with regards to how much money their clubs spend. Getting value for money is just an afterthought, “lets spunk buckets of cash, we will surely won’t something” attitude.
 
Would have been the perfect choice. But I honestly think Levy priced us out for him. And I don't think for one moment that Ole was our first choice either. Under the circumstances it was easier to appoint Ole.

Pochettino will be at a top club sometime in the future, I'm sure of that. But like any manager who has not won anything, would the pressure be to big for him at a top club?
 
MagicKarpet said:
Once again it seems that I'm going to have to address this spend thing that constantly get bought up as a stick to beat Pochettino with which is simply bizarre. Pochettino's net spend since he arrived at Tottenham is £29m based over 5 years, the reason you need to take net spend into account is because it generally means you need to sell players to buy.

Even if you want to focus on his spending for the sake of some inane argument, he has spent £262.8m in his time which is considerably less than than their nearest spenders Everton and Arsenal:

Man City 760m
Chelsea 735.1m
Man Utd 594.5m
Liverpool 583.5m
Everton 400m
Arsenal 385.7m
Spurs £262.8m

So whilst you may think it's right to dismiss it as 'hardly nothing' you can still make the case compared to their rivals.

But again this is just a myopic argument designed to put Poch in a bad light, generally if Spurs didn't sell players then the buy column wouldn't be as high regardless so it's complete nonsense to bring up his spend as some sort of negative.

In regards to last night though Spurs, yes looked clueless going forward it has to be said but that's kind of what happens when you have Kane and Son missing (that's 44 goals taken out the team) And no attacking subs on the bench.
Click to expand...
Whilst this is true, you also have to account the fact that Poch came after Spurs got the Bale money and spent 110m pounds the year before.

During that Summer they got Eriksen (their second best player), Lamela - still playing for them. And during Poch they sold Capoue, Chadli, Chiriches, Soldado and Paulinho - recouping most of their money there.

You are comparing them with the nearest rivals, but since then Spurs won diddle squat compared to:

Man City - PL, 3 LC
Chelsea - 2 PL, 1 FA, 1 LC
Man Utd - 1 EL, 1 FA, 1 LC
Liverpool - CL final
Everton - Nothing
Arsenal - 2 FA cup
Spurs - 1 LC final
Leicester - with next to nothing indeed - 1 PL

In other words whilst being solid top four during his stint he also has nothing to show for in terms of trophies. All those teams that spend more than him actually won something and the only team that outspent him and did less was Everton.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Whilst this is true, you also have to account the fact that Poch came after Spurs got the Bale money and spent 110m pounds the year before.

During that Summer they got Eriksen (their second best player), Lamela - still playing for them. And during Poch they sold Capoue, Chadli, Chiriches, Soldado and Paulinho - recouping most of their money there.

You are comparing them with the nearest rivals, but since then Spurs won diddle squat compared to:

Man City - PL, 3 LC
Chelsea - 2 PL, 1 FA, 1 LC
Man Utd - 1 EL, 1 FA, 1 LC
Liverpool - CL final
Everton - Nothing
Arsenal - 2 FA cup
Spurs - 1 LC final
Leicester - with next to nothing indeed - 1 PL

In other words whilst being solid top four during his stint he also has nothing to show for in terms of trophies. All those teams that spend more than him actually won something and the only team that outspent him and did less was Everton.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, spend money win trophies. I don’t mean to be rude but what’s your point?
 
InLevyITrust said:
Exactly my point, spend money win trophies. I don’t mean to be rude but what’s your point?
Click to expand...
My point is that this keeps brought up that Poch spent nothing and got Spurs where they are and he has done some kind of an awesome job.

But where they are exactly? Spurs were top 4 contender before he joined and got top finish in 2 of the last 5 years before he joined. Sure he got 4 out of 5 during his tenure, but to claim he has punched above their weight is not accurate. You can use that for Simeone or Ranieri, but Poch who won nothing is a bit too much.

Your investment and return of investment is spot on to what you actually got during that time. For example United prioritized EL in 16/17 instead of top 4 and it showed in the final standings.

It's easier to come up with top four finish compared to some of the rivals when you are out of all other competitions come April.
 
A huge step below Pep and Klopp. He's not better than Emery, Sarri or Ole. Disappointing Spring'19 by the Spurs (when the titles are won or lost).

Not impressed. Glad Man Utd didn't sign him. I'd rather sign the current Ajax manager if Ole had to go.
 
i agree. nothing overtly special. spurs have been a top 4-ish side for years. probably if it wren't for pep klopp would be walking the league.

losing 12+ games... they are lucky to be third. and yes ot looks like ajax are about to dump them out of the cl
 
Last edited:
Casanova85 said:
A huge step below Pep and Klopp. He's not better than Emery, Sarri or Ole. Disappointing Spring'19 by the Spurs (when the titles are won or lost).

Not impressed. Glad Man Utd didn't sign him. I'd rather sign the current Ajax manager if Ole had to go.
Click to expand...
What has Ole done to suddenly be on that list? :lol:
 
Varun said:
What has Ole done to suddenly be on that list? :lol:
Click to expand...

Turning a depressed midtable 6th-8th position team into a Top4 contender. Also knocking-out PSG.

This season was over by Nov 2018, but somehow Ole was expected to win titles by Feb. He's done more than enough in a forgettable transitional season that could have been even worse than 13-14.
 
Casanova85 said:
Turning a depressed midtable 6th-8th position team into a Top4 contender. Also knocking-out PSG.

This season was over by Nov 2018, but somehow Ole was expected to win titles by Feb. He's done more than enough in a forgettable transitional season that could have been even worse than 13-14.
Click to expand...
He's subsequently gone on one of our worst runs since the 60s.

Hes nowhere near that elite list. Or better said.. He isn't until he consistently proves himself. 2 good months followed by 2 woeful months don't do that at all.
 
K2K said:
He's subsequently gone on one of our worst runs since the 60s.

Hes nowhere near that elite list. Or better said.. He isn't until he consistently proves himself. 2 good months followed by 2 woeful months don't do that at all.
Click to expand...

The players' fault. Easily our worst squad in decades.
 
I'd argue the main reason for our poor run (other than the fact we've had to play the likes of Barca and City) is the injuries to the side.
We've had a terrible set of injuries again this season, it seems like Ole pushed too hard and the players broke.
I may be wrong but I remember Klopps Liverpool going through a torrid bit of form due to similar circumstances.
Losing Herrera was the straw that broke the camels back. It pretty much left us without a midfield.
EDIT: didn't realise this was Poch's thread, but where Poch is Ole comparisons aren't far behind so oh well.
 
FigmentOfYerImagination said:
In one of the interviews he gave yesterday, it seemed that he actually admitted his choice to play with three defenders and giving Ajax the pressing advantage was a mistake.

Then he went on to acknowledge the substitution and subsequent change in system worked to the advantage of Tottenham. But it didn't seem like it was a planned move, nor a conscious decision to change it. It seemed like he just did whatever with Rose and Sissoko based on who was available to replace Vertonghen.

He really seemed to have made the assessment in advance that sitting back and countering would be a workable strategy against Ajax. To me it appeared he hadn't anticipated it might backfire at all. Despite all the probably scouted matches in which this Ajax utterly dominated against such sitting back teams.

That says a lot to me about his analytical qualities, because anyone could tell you that Ajax throughout the years always has had most problems against teams that make it a physical match first and foremost, unless they were even better at pressing than Ajax.

I'm not sure he realised this till his team got more physical, or that he actually ordered them to do so.
Click to expand...

It does? This one occasion?

Weird if true.
 
Enigma_87 said:
My point is that this keeps brought up that Poch spent nothing and got Spurs where they are and he has done some kind of an awesome job.

But where they are exactly? Spurs were top 4 contender before he joined and got top finish in 2 of the last 5 years before he joined. Sure he got 4 out of 5 during his tenure, but to claim he has punched above their weight is not accurate. You can use that for Simeone or Ranieri, but Poch who won nothing is a bit too much.

Your investment and return of investment is spot on to what you actually got during that time. For example United prioritized EL in 16/17 instead of top 4 and it showed in the final standings.

It's easier to come up with top four finish compared to some of the rivals when you are out of all other competitions come April.
Click to expand...

What a lot or arse! Exactly what I’m talking about, complete blindness to the money involved and the ramping up of spending in the last 5 years. Remember we are only talking about transfer fees here right now, taking a look at wages is also important. His has been gone over and over it’s pointless. If you don’t rate Poch just say so it’s much simpler.

Ranieri was a one off and Athletico are a massive club and only have Madrid and Barca ahead of them money and status wise. Tottenham have 4 other clubs with much more money at their disposal than us, it’s obvious tonanyone wihout an agenda.
 
K2K said:
And it wasn't the players when he went on that winning run you praised him for?

You can't only have it your way when it suits you.

Based on that logic we can't praise him for that winning run either.
Click to expand...

Key Top players failed this past March-April (Pogba, DDG, Martial) and fitness is at an all-time-low. Injuries didn't help either. Ole did more than enough with the materials he was given in December.
 
InLevyITrust said:
What a lot or arse! Exactly what I’m talking about, complete blindness to the money involved and the ramping up of spending in the last 5 years. Remember we are only talking about transfer fees here right now, taking a look at wages is also important. His has been gone over and over it’s pointless. If you don’t rate Poch just say so it’s much simpler.

Ranieri was a one off and Athletico are a massive club and only have Madrid and Barca ahead of them money and status wise. Tottenham have 4 other clubs with much more money at their disposal than us, it’s obvious tonanyone wihout an agenda.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Sevilla and Valencia have spent 100m or more on several occasions during Simeone, he has rebuilt couple of teams already and won a lot of stuff during that time. His spending is pretty close to what other top 4 candidates are showing off.

Atletico massive club? They got 2 4th places before Simeone took over since their relegation 20 years ago. You do seem to overrate him beyond belief. He's better than Ole and more experienced granted. But has he achieved more than Emery or Sarri? I don't think so.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I thought his in game management last night was quite impressive. Identified the issue and fixed it with an early sub/change in formation. Thus completely changing the balance of power in the match. He's done it a few times. Including against us.
Click to expand...
Er, no he didn't. He was forced to sub Vertonghen which turned things around. His approach wouldn't be different before that HT if the injury didn't happen.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Er, no he didn't. He was forced to sub Vertonghen which turned things around. His approach wouldn't be different before that HT if the injury didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Can I borrow that crystal ball of yours? I have lotto number to pick.
 
Enigma_87 said:
So you think Poch would sub Sissoko on before HT anyway? :confused:
Click to expand...

He had just changed our shape and system prior to this by moving Vertonghen to left back and switching Rose to midfield to go to a 442 - Vertonghen getting injured just meant he had to play sissoko and moved Rose back to left back. Did you watch the game at all?
 
balaks said:
He had just changed our shape and system prior to this by moving Vertonghen to left back and switching Rose to midfield to go to a 442 - Vertonghen getting injured just meant he had to play sissoko and moved Rose back to left back. Did you watch the gamne at all?
Click to expand...
Sissoko played a blinder and was easily your best player on the pitch last night. His physical presence in the middle gave you the edge since he was introduced. Rose in midfield wouldn't have the same effect IMO.
 
balaks said:
Did you watch the game at all?
Click to expand...

LWB: Danny Rose – 4

Involved in an early tussle with Joel Veltman and failed to every really get the better of the right-back, despite being afforded plenty of space out on the left.

SUB: Moussa Sissoko (on for Vertonghen, 39 mins) – 9

The stand-out player for Spurs, who dismissed any concerns over his fitness with a brilliant driving performance off the bench.

Was so much more physical than his midfield team-mates and grabbed hold of the game, and his opponents, after his introduction for Vertonghen.

Went close with one rasping drive and has turned into one of Spurs’ most influential performers this season – the Frenchman will be vital in the Netherlands next week.
Click to expand...

Did you?
 
Enigma_87 said:
Sissoko played a blinder and was easily your best player on the pitch last night. His physical presence in the middle gave you the edge since he was introduced. Rose in midfield wouldn't have the same effect IMO.
Click to expand...

Sissoko was coming back from an injury so he probably wanted to use him sparingly. He had already changed the formation before he came on and would, no doubt, have brought him on for Rose soon enough regardless. As I said, he’s made similar changes plenty of times before. To very good effect. Including the previous round of the same competition.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Sissoko was coming back from an injury so he probably wanted to use him sparingly. He had already changed the formation before he came on and would, no doubt, have brought him on for Rose soon enough regardless. As I said, he’s made similar changes plenty of times before. To very good effect. Including the previous round of the same competition.
Click to expand...
Anyone who watched the game last night would say that it was Sissoko that changed things around for Spurs, not Danny fecking Rose who was also subbed off due to underwhelming all round performance. Wanyama was struggling and was having a poor game. Sissoko was pivotal in the change of the approach and overall facet of the game.

You are telling me that without his introduction only moving Rose to LM would have the same effect, despite:
A - he was poor up till that point and average afterwards
B - Wanyama was also struggling with the game and having a poor one
C - Eriksen was forced to be in much deeper position causing the necessity to lump it forward to Llorente
and most importantly
D - they needed strong physical presence in midfield against that Ajax side.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Sissoko played a blinder and was easily your best player on the pitch last night. His physical presence in the middle gave you the edge since he was introduced. Rose in midfield wouldn't have the same effect IMO.
Click to expand...

True of course but clearly Poch didnt want to risk Sissoko due to him only coming back from injury.
 
balaks said:
True of course but clearly Poch didnt want to risk Sissoko due to him only coming back from injury.
Click to expand...
balaks said:
not sure what you are trying to suggest other than trying to deflect from the fact your argument is bullshit as Poch had already changed the system prior to Sissoko coming on? Care to clarify?
Click to expand...

Sure, but giving Poch credit for being forced to sub him on is odd beyond belief. :confused: It wasn't Rose playing in midfield that changed the game it was Sissoko in the middle..
 
Enigma_87 said:
Anyone who watched the game last night would say that it was Sissoko that changed things around for Spurs, not Danny fecking Rose who was also subbed off due to underwhelming all round performance. Wanyama was struggling and was having a poor game. Sissoko was pivotal in the change of the approach and overall facet of the game.

You are telling me that without his introduction only moving Rose to LM would have the same effect, despite:
A - he was poor up till that point and average afterwards
B - Wanyama was also struggling with the game and having a poor one
C - Eriksen was forced to be in much deeper position causing the necessity to lump it forward to Llorente
and most importantly
D - they needed strong physical presence in midfield against that Ajax side.
Click to expand...

Honestly no fecking clue what you are on about. Sissoko wasnt fully fit and CLEARLY Poch didnt really want to use him for fear of him getting injured again.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Sure, but giving Poch credit for being forced to sub him on is odd beyond belief. :confused: It wasn't Rose playing in midfield that changed the game it was Sissoko in the middle..
Click to expand...

HE HAD CHANGED THE SHAPE ALREADY - its the shape that made the difference. Sissoko did great of course but you suggested that Poch was shite because he was forced to change things - I'm telling you he already had addressed the problem and changed things without Sissoko involved. It's honestly getting tiring trying to explain this to you.
 
balaks said:
Honestly no fecking clue what you are on about. Sissoko wasnt fully fit and CLEARLY Poch didnt really want to use him for fear of him getting injured again.
Click to expand...
balaks said:
HE HAD CHANGED THE SHAPE ALREADY - its the shape that made the difference. Sissoko did great of course but you suggested that Poch was shite because he was forced to change things - I'm telling you he already had addressed the problem and changed things without Sissoko involved. It's honestly getting tiring trying to explain this to you.
Click to expand...

I guess you have no clue. It's not the shape but the physical presence of Sissoko in the middle that changed things for you. Just changing the shape wouldn't fix the problems I've already put up above..

How can you deny it's Sissoko that changed the game since every report on the planet is giving him MoTM performance for your team is beyond belief.

Without Vertonghen getting injured there will be NO SISSOKO ON THE PITCH. How is that difficult to understand?
 
Enigma_87 said:
I guess you have no clue. It's not the shape but the physical presence of Sissoko in the middle that changed things for you. Just changing the shape wouldn't fix the problems I've already put up above..

How can you deny it's Sissoko that changed the game since every report on the planet is giving him MoTM performance for your team is beyond belief.

Without Vertonghen getting injured there will be NO SISSOKO ON THE PITCH. How is that difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

Ok I'm done. You may continue to scream nonsense into an empty room.
 
Enigma_87 said:
I guess you have no clue. It's not the shape but the physical presence of Sissoko in the middle that changed things for you. Just changing the shape wouldn't fix the problems I've already put up above..

How can you deny it's Sissoko that changed the game since every report on the planet is giving him MoTM performance for your team is beyond belief.

Without Vertonghen getting injured there will be NO SISSOKO ON THE PITCH. How is that difficult to understand?
Click to expand...


Well if I do remember Sissoko was training before Vertonghen got injured. And he was the only one who went to get ready so yes, WE don't know when it would have happened, or what would have been the game with Vertonghen; Try to make assumptions on something that didn't happen makes no sense; but clearly Sissoko was prepared himself to go on the pitch. So it's actually wrong to assert "there will no be Sissoko on the pitch."

Actually I do remember pundits asking themselves if Poch was going to change things at halftime with Sissoko or before. And this was before the injury. Maybe it would have been for Wanyama or Sanchez and not Vert. I think Rose was pretty good and in form during the game. But It's in his plan...

Anyway a good manager is also someone who can adjust his team through the progression of the game. Sissoko was probably not fit enough to start that kind of game as Dembele was not fit when Valverde sub him. Things didn't happen as planned and Poch reacted. I don't get the bitter criticism...

The only criticism I could make is about Trippier. Foyth is clearly better but also less experiment so.
 
Last edited:
Can't be too harsh on him for last night. He only has two quality players at his disposal and neither were available. To get this far with this squad, whilst achieving top 4, is impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.