The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned

[Attila]

Jansen and Sissoko look like a waste of £50m. Sissoko seemed like an obvious poor signing in the summer, can't believe they spent £30m on him

 

[Dominos]

It's funny how teams get a free pass if they have a poor first half to the season. Teams go through peaks and troughs throughout the season, if you happen to have a good start but hit that trough or have a blip in the 2nd half of the season then you're bottlers. Meanwhile the likes of Van Gaal's teams and Moyes were never in contention for anything so have been spared the tag of "bottlers" and just labelled "not good enough". Whereas Spurs who perform infinitely better than us over a 38 game season are the "bottlers", it's just baffling logic.

Chelsea are on course for 90+ points. Is it any wonder Spurs are nowhere near them? When have Spurs ever had the quality to finish 1st on 90+ points? They're a victims of their own success, if they have a good season in contention near the top then they have to finish 1st or they're bottlers. It's ridiculous. They don't have the money, star power or the depth of squad to win the league. It's that simple. They lost away at Anfield because they played shit, Liverpool played well, and teams rarely come away with a win at Anfield. There's nothing more to it.

I mean they were labelled bottlers in 2012 for dropping down to 4th by the end of the season. This is Spurs, finishing in the CL places for the 2nd time in 3 seasons, and we're calling them bottlers for it.. As if it was their fault Chelsea somehow managed to win the Champions League.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I can see them winning all of their games up until the Swansea and Burnley away fixtures (2-4 points out of 6 there).

 

[SirHenryPercy]

Mourinho was at Real for 3 years and won 3 trophies...

That's the same trophy haul as Spurs have achieved in the last 30 years.

Mourinho won the league at Real against one of the greatest club sides of all time, he did that 5 years ago, and has won the PL since then...

Spurs haven't won a single league in 56 years.

To hear a Spuds fan claiming that José has failed at anything in his career seems very odd.

If you view his 3 years at Real as failure, how on Earth do you view MP's 3 years at Spurs!?

Er Spurs aren't Real Madrid.

Madrid are the worlds biggest and greatest football club, they expect to win everything every year and they also expect to do it with a flourish.

Forget the Spanish Super Cup, it's as meaningful as the Charity Shield. Mourinho won 2 trophys at Real in 3 years and didn't come close to a CL. Quite how you compute that as success at Real Madrid is baffling, I can tell you know Real don't remember it as success. It's failure and he's regarded in Spain as a failure because that's what happened, he failed.

Me being a Spurs fan has nothing to do with it, I was born into my football club, I didn't choose it because it was fashionable and wins things like a lot of people do. I don't actually care what we've won or more recently not won, it makes no difference to me, it won't change my blood.

But I am honest always, I always give an honest assessment of what I see on Spurs and even earlier this season when we were winning I was critical of our performances, said we had to significantly up our game. I'm honest now about our lack of quality in depth etc. And if I'm honest about Spurs then I'm also going to give an honest opinion on other clubs, players and managers, and IMHO if Real wanted to sign a Utd player, any one of them he would want to go, and the other thing I said was Utd don't have to worry about Real coming in for Mourinho as he's already failed there, which is true.

 

[Cassidy]

It's funny how teams get a free pass if they have a poor first half to the season. Teams go through peaks and troughs throughout the season, if you happen to have a good start but hit that trough or have a blip in the 2nd half of the season then you're bottlers. Meanwhile the likes of Van Gaal's teams and Moyes were never in contention for anything so have been spared the tag of "bottlers" and just labelled "not good enough". Whereas Spurs who perform infinitely better than us over a 38 game season are the "bottlers", it's just baffling logic.

Chelsea are on course for 90+ points. Is it any wonder Spurs are nowhere near them? When have Spurs ever had the quality to finish 1st on 90+ points? They're a victims of their own success, if they have a good season in contention near the top then they have to finish 1st or they're bottlers. It's ridiculous. They don't have the money, star power or the depth of squad to win the league. It's that simple. They lost away at Anfield because they played shit, Liverpool played well, and teams rarely come away with a win at Anfield. There's nothing more to it.

I mean they were labelled bottlers in 2012 for dropping down to 4th by the end of the season. This is Spurs, finishing in the CL places for the 2nd time in 3 seasons, and we're calling them bottlers for it.. As if it was their fault Chelsea somehow managed to win the Champions League.

Its not baffling logic at all, in fact your first paragraph shows you exactly why they were labeled bottlers. They performed infinitely better up until the point where it actually mattered.

We on the other hand were just not good enough all season.

 

[balaks]

Its not baffling logic at all, in fact your first paragraph shows you exactly why they were labeled bottlers. They performed infinitely better up until the point where it actually mattered.

We on the other hand were just not good enough all season.

Would you rather just not be good enough or good enough to get close but not quite make it in the end and 'bottle it'?

 

[Cassidy]

Would you rather just not be good enough or good enough to get close but not quite make it in the end and 'bottle it'?

Did I intimate that I would prefer either? Of course bottling would have been better, I simply explained the logic of one being called bottlers and the others not good enough. It is not baffling logic at all is it?

I'm also gad that idiot of a manager got the sack. However if like for example Arsenal my team more or less bottled it every season I wouldn't be happy at all

 

[balaks]

Did I intimate that I would prefer either? Of course bottling would have been better, I simply explained the logic of one being called bottlers and the others not good enough.

Fair enough I agree with you - it's just that the term 'bottle jobs' etc. is being used as an insult in this thread yet other teams not being good enough at all gets glossed over.

 

[Cassidy]

Fair enough I agree with you - it's just that the term 'bottle jobs' etc. is being used as an insult in this thread yet other teams not being good enough at all gets glossed over.

Its a Spurs thread, I'm sure there were plenty of threads on here talking about how shite we were etc. Certainly not glossed over.

 

[Boycott]

Fair enough I agree with you - it's just that the term 'bottle jobs' etc. is being used as an insult in this thread yet other teams not being good enough at all gets glossed over.

It's a term which has grown legs and thrown around too much.

Someone said Costa 'bottled the penalty' against Liverpool.

Modern football - you can't have a bad day or your mentality and bottle is criticised.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Er Spurs aren't Real Madrid.

Madrid are the worlds biggest and greatest football club, they expect to win everything every year and they also expect to do it with a flourish.

Forget the Spanish Super Cup, it's as meaningful as the Charity Shield. Mourinho won 2 trophys at Real in 3 years and didn't come close to a CL. Quite how you compute that as success at Real Madrid is baffling, I can tell you know Real don't remember it as success. It's failure and he's regarded in Spain as a failure because that's what happened, he failed.

He didn't fail at winning La Liga though, did he? He succeeded at winning La Liga.

Before he won the league for them, they hadn't won it in 4 years...

And guess what, they haven't won La Liga since José won it for them.

I'll say that again - Real Madrid have failed to win La Liga since Mourinho succeeded in winning it for them...

You wanna have a word with yourself if you view that a failure. Especially when your own club haven't won anything of note for 30 years.

 

[Mihai]

Er Spurs aren't Real Madrid.


But I am honest always, I always give an honest assessment of what I see on Spurs and even earlier this season when we were winning I was critical of our performances, said we had to significantly up our game. I'm honest now about our lack of quality in depth etc. And if I'm honest about Spurs then I'm also going to give an honest opinion on other clubs, players and managers, and IMHO if Real wanted to sign a Utd player, any one of them he would want to go, and the other thing I said was Utd don't have to worry about Real coming in for Mourinho as he's already failed there, which is true.

It's your honest opinion, fair enough. But, apart from Ronaldo, who are the players who signed for Madrid and we wanted to keep them?

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

Well this thread seems like a cool place to hang out! Yeah we have a problem pushing past that line that will take us to silverware. Sure opposition supporters will call us bottlers, and to an extent yeah that problems there. I see it as more a experience problem.

 

[Cassidy]

It's a term which has grown legs and thrown around too much.

Someone said Costa 'bottled the penalty' against Liverpool.

Modern football - you can't have a bad day or your mentality and bottle is criticised.

Having a bad day, at a crucial point/moment, isn't that the definition of bottling it?
I.E you couldn't perform to your usual standard when it really mattered (crucial point/moment)

 

[NK86]

It's funny how teams get a free pass if they have a poor first half to the season. Teams go through peaks and troughs throughout the season, if you happen to have a good start but hit that trough or have a blip in the 2nd half of the season then you're bottlers. Meanwhile the likes of Van Gaal's teams and Moyes were never in contention for anything so have been spared the tag of "bottlers" and just labelled "not good enough". Whereas Spurs who perform infinitely better than us over a 38 game season are the "bottlers", it's just baffling logic.

Chelsea are on course for 90+ points. Is it any wonder Spurs are nowhere near them? When have Spurs ever had the quality to finish 1st on 90+ points? They're a victims of their own success, if they have a good season in contention near the top then they have to finish 1st or they're bottlers. It's ridiculous. They don't have the money, star power or the depth of squad to win the league. It's that simple. They lost away at Anfield because they played shit, Liverpool played well, and teams rarely come away with a win at Anfield. There's nothing more to it.

I mean they were labelled bottlers in 2012 for dropping down to 4th by the end of the season. This is Spurs, finishing in the CL places for the 2nd time in 3 seasons, and we're calling them bottlers for it.. As if it was their fault Chelsea somehow managed to win the Champions League.

I agree with most of your post but just don't see how Spurs performed "infinitely better than us" last season. Sure we played some tumescent football but we still ended the season 4(?) points behind Spurs who had their best season in over a decade and we still managed to win some silverware to boot.

 

[MartialsBeard]

It's funny how teams get a free pass if they have a poor first half to the season. Teams go through peaks and troughs throughout the season, if you happen to have a good start but hit that trough or have a blip in the 2nd half of the season then you're bottlers. Meanwhile the likes of Van Gaal's teams and Moyes were never in contention for anything so have been spared the tag of "bottlers" and just labelled "not good enough". Whereas Spurs who perform infinitely better than us over a 38 game season are the "bottlers", it's just baffling logic.

Chelsea are on course for 90+ points. Is it any wonder Spurs are nowhere near them? When have Spurs ever had the quality to finish 1st on 90+ points? They're a victims of their own success, if they have a good season in contention near the top then they have to finish 1st or they're bottlers. It's ridiculous. They don't have the money, star power or the depth of squad to win the league. It's that simple. They lost away at Anfield because they played shit, Liverpool played well, and teams rarely come away with a win at Anfield. There's nothing more to it.

I mean they were labelled bottlers in 2012 for dropping down to 4th by the end of the season. This is Spurs, finishing in the CL places for the 2nd time in 3 seasons, and we're calling them bottlers for it.. As if it was their fault Chelsea somehow managed to win the Champions League.

Whats funny is that a team like United is usually expected to challenge year on year for the title and most cups and up until 3 years ago we did, during those three years I don't think many realistic or level headed United fan expected us to win anything we just hoped wed be in some contention and considering the managerial changes, the change in plan and the disappointing seasons have left us licking our wounds but we all know and feel that we are on the rise and as soon as this season could finish second that's the expectation a club like Spurs must strive to achieve and also actually achieve it to remove this tag of bottlers. I mean to challenge for the title and then combust and finish below Arsenal is an absolute bottle job and that was under Poch.

I don't see anything, any valid improvement to suggest they don't just bottle it again this year.

 

[AN17]

Mourinho at Real is remembered as a failure, in fact he's largely despised by most Real fans.

Forgetting Spain's version of the charity shield he won 2 trophies in 3 years and didnt make a CL final. If you think that at the worlds greatest football club that's classed as a success then you are sorely mistaken.

Real were in for him but he had already set his sights on us and agreed a deal. So your initial post itself was wrong.

His team broke the La liga scoring records and won the league which they haven't been able to replicate since. Go on, keep talking down his acheivements if it gives you any comfort.

 

[Boycott]

Having a bad day, at a crucial point/moment, isn't that the definition of bottling it?
I.E you couldn't perform to your usual standard when it really mattered (crucial point/moment)

Footballers aren't robots. Mistakes happen, bad days happen and always will.

The accusation of bottling it wasn't used in the 90s when by modern usage we bottled it three times (91/92, 94/95 and 97/98)

 

[Cassidy]

Footballers aren't robots. Mistakes happen, bad days happen and always will.

The accusation of bottling it wasn't used in the 90s when by modern usage we bottled it three times (91/92, 94/95 and 97/98)

Yes we did bottle it. We were not able to hold our nerve. That to me if the definition.
Yes I know footballers are not robots, they why sometimes they can bottle it.

EDIT: One being a bottle job though is a different story, thats one who usually bottles it at crucial points. Bit like Arsenal can show up when it doens't matter, but usually when it does they go missing.

 

[Boycott]

Yes we did bottle it. We were not able to hold our nerve. That to me if the definition.
Yes I know footballers are not robots, they why sometimes they can bottle it.

I hear your point of view mate but the term is so loosely thrown around it's lost value. If you lose the lead in May - sure - if you lose one game it's not bottling it.

Case in point: Man City 2-2 Spurs
Man City go ahead - the caf is banging on about 'Spurs are bottlers' 'bottling it again' etc etc

Spurs pull it back to 2-2 - 'City have bottled it'

It's silly.

 

[Cassidy]

I hear your point of view mate but the term is so loosely thrown around it's lost value. If you lose the lead in May - sure - if you lose one game it's not bottling it.

Case in point: Man City 2-2 Spurs
Man City go ahead - the caf is banging on about 'Spurs are bottlers' 'bottling it again' etc etc

Spurs pull it back to 2-2 - 'City have bottled it'

It's silly.

In that case yes I agree. I wouldn't use it that loosely

 

[Dominos]

Its not baffling logic at all, in fact your first paragraph shows you exactly why they were labeled bottlers. They performed infinitely better up until the point where it actually mattered.

We on the other hand were just not good enough all season.

It all matters, 3 points in gameweek 1 are worth the same in gameweek 38. Depending on the season you can win the league by getting 50 points in the first half of the season and 30 points in the 2nd half. And 30 points is absolutely dreadful form, the sort of form that sees teams "bottle it" (but only if it's a season where a team is good enough to overtake you). This idea that 2nd half of the season is more important is stupid, there was a myth that Sir Alex teams came on strong in the 2nd half of the season, if you go though year by year there's little to suggest there was a strong trend that we outperformed ourselves in the 2nd half of the season. It varied and was often very even too.

It'll take 90 points to beat Chelsea to the league this season, you think Spurs' team is capable of getting that?

Teams have good patches and bad patches throughout the season. Some teams distribute their points very evenly from month to month even, some have a good first half to the season and tail off, some have a poor first half to the season and come storming through in the 2nd half.

Southampton had a great season a couple of years ago, they were in the top 4 for most the season but they ran out of steam. They weren't good enough to amass the necessary points to finish in the CL spots. On the flip side Everton under Moyes had seasons where they had top 4 form for the 2nd half of the season to make up for the dreadful first half.

The point of having a 38 game season is your quality will be reflected by the end of the season, a good run of form where you play above your squad's ability isn't going to last for the full year playing every team twice (I suppose Leicester broke that rule).

Talk of bottling the title this year is absurd, they were never anywhere near Chelsea, and they have European football to contend with whereas Chelsea don't, they were never in the race, and now they lose at Anfield then it's enough to say they've bottled it.

The term is just thrown around any time a team isn't good enough to win the league/finish top 4 or whatever. And always to the same teams because people can't think for themselves, we had 4th in our hands at the end of last season, if Spurs or Arsenal had finished 5th in the manner we did last year they'd never hear the end of it. In reality we were just a bit shit and couldn't beat West Ham because they played out their skins and we weren't good enough to deal an away game where the opposition were well up for it.

 

[Cassidy]

It all matters, 3 points in gameweek 1 are worth the same in gameweek 38. Depending on the season you can win the league by getting 50 points in the first half of the season and 30 points in the 2nd half. And 30 points is absolutely dreadful form, the sort of form that sees teams "bottle it" (but only if it's a season where a team is good enough to overtake you). This idea that 2nd half of the season is more important is stupid, there was a myth that Sir Alex teams came on strong in the 2nd half of the season, if you go though year by year there's little to suggest there was a strong trend that we outperformed ourselves in the 2nd half of the season. It varied and was often very even too.

It'll take 90 points to beat Chelsea to the league this season, you think Spurs' team is capable of getting that?

Teams have good patches and bad patches throughout the season. Some teams distribute their points very evenly from month to month even, some have a good first half to the season and tail off, some have a poor first half to the season and come storming through in the 2nd half.

Southampton had a great season a couple of years ago, they were in the top 4 for most the season but they ran out of steam. They weren't good enough to amass the necessary points to finish in the CL spots. On the flip side Everton under Moyes had seasons where they had top 4 form for the 2nd half of the season to make up for the dreadful first half.

The point of having a 38 game season is your quality will be reflected by the end of the season, a good run of form where you play above your squad's ability isn't going to last for the full year playing every team twice (I suppose Leicester broke that rule).

We'll have to agree to disagree.
Of course you need to have a good/decent start to the season, but staying in contention and getting into your best form for the run is very important IMO

 

[KingMinger22]

Mourinho winning La Liga against probably the best club side ever in Barca at the time was remarkable.

I'd say Spurs most likely will get in the top 4.

It's gonna be tight.

I think United will get in.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Yes we did bottle it. We were not able to hold our nerve. That to me if the definition.
Yes I know footballers are not robots, they why sometimes they can bottle it.

EDIT: One being a bottle job though is a different story, thats one who usually bottles it at crucial points. Bit like Arsenal can show up when it doens't matter, but usually when it does they go missing.

Kudos to that man for bringing a little fecking humble honesty to the table.

I have no idea why my spuds mates in real life can regularly chat about the 'bottle it culture' that needs addressing at Spurs, but on here we're debating IF Spurs are a side who 'bottle it'. This is after last season's 'St Totteringham's Day' which should never have happened.

THFC mates I have in real life are genuinely sound fellas, those online though are almost uniformly delusional and bitter with an inability to chat objectively about their club's failings.

I remember earlier in season, I questioned their depth in this very thread, and immediately I'm shouted down by the usual muppets. Then MP comes out and says the same point, and now, those who shouted me down like @SirHenryPercy are actually conceding the same point I was talking about at the beginning of the season...

As I said earier today in here. They need experience and leadership, big time. And rather than signing a slew of average players, as they generally do, they'd be much better to sign 2 older experienced players - players who've actually won things and are capable of instilling that in the dressing room.

A bit like their own Cantona. Or, to a lesser extent, what we've done with Zlatan.

 

[Dominos]

We'll have to agree to disagree.
Of course you need to have a good/decent start to the season, but staying in contention and getting into your best form for the run is very important IMO

So you must think you should be amassing more points in the 2nd half of the season than the first?

Some evidence from the eventual champions over say a decent sample size would be nice, but you wont find it.

Leicester 39/42
Chelsea 46/41
City 41/45
United 46/43
City 45/44

So that's the last 5 seasons. In 3 of those teams have got more points in the first half of the season.

 

[Cassidy]

So you must think you should be amassing more points in the 2nd half of the season than the first?

Some evidence from the eventual champions over say a decent sample size would be nice, but you wont find it.

Leicester 39/42
Chelsea 46/41
City 41/45
United 46/43
City 45/44

So that's the last 5 seasons. In 3 of those teams have got more points in the first half of the season.

They are all quite close are they not? So basically not of them fell off in terms of form in the second half of the seaaon.

4 3 and 1 point less. That to me is sustanined good form. Anyway agree to disagree.

 

[Mihai]

So you must think you should be amassing more points in the 2nd half of the season than the first?

Some evidence from the eventual champions over say a decent sample size would be nice, but you wont find it.

Leicester 39/42
Chelsea 46/41
City 41/45
United 46/43
City 45/44

So that's the last 5 seasons. In 3 of those teams have got more points in the first half of the season.

If you're talking about bottling, then the latest parts of the second half of the season are the most important. United is the prime example for it, we've conceded 8 points lead in 8 games to city. Had it been the other way round, ie. being at -8 at Christmas and getting level on points by the end of the season, nobody would talk about bottling it.

 

[Dominos]

They are all quite close are they not? So basically not of them fell off in terms of form in the second half of the seaaon.

4 3 and 1 point less. That to me is sustanined good form. Anyway agree to disagree.

I agree it's sustained. It's just not fitting with the narrative that the 2nd half is more important than the first half. Every game is a potential 3 points.

 

[Dominos]

If you're talking about bottling, then the latest parts of the second half of the season are the most important. United is the prime example for it, we've conceded 8 points lead in 8 games to city. Had it been the other way round, ie. being at -8 at Christmas and getting level on points by the end of the season, nobody would talk about bottling it.

Yes that's the narrative of bottling, but realistically if you can go on a 3 game streak without a win in December, that can just as easily happen in April - for even the exact same reason as the December drought.

The only difference is December will automatically be put down to bad performances/poor form, and April it must be because the players couldn't handle the pressure. But then that's just guesswork and lazy cliches.

I don't doubt teams can falter under pressure, but frankly we'll never know the exact reason why a team failed to win a game. If Spurs lost at Anfield first game of the season, why must the reason for the loss be different than the loss that happened the other day?

 

[Eire Red United]

It all matters, 3 points in gameweek 1 are worth the same in gameweek 38. Depending on the season you can win the league by getting 50 points in the first half of the season and 30 points in the 2nd half. And 30 points is absolutely dreadful form, the sort of form that sees teams "bottle it" (but only if it's a season where a team is good enough to overtake you). This idea that 2nd half of the season is more important is stupid, there was a myth that Sir Alex teams came on strong in the 2nd half of the season, if you go though year by year there's little to suggest there was a strong trend that we outperformed ourselves in the 2nd half of the season. It varied and was often very even too.

It'll take 90 points to beat Chelsea to the league this season, you think Spurs' team is capable of getting that?

Teams have good patches and bad patches throughout the season. Some teams distribute their points very evenly from month to month even, some have a good first half to the season and tail off, some have a poor first half to the season and come storming through in the 2nd half.

Southampton had a great season a couple of years ago, they were in the top 4 for most the season but they ran out of steam. They weren't good enough to amass the necessary points to finish in the CL spots. On the flip side Everton under Moyes had seasons where they had top 4 form for the 2nd half of the season to make up for the dreadful first half.

The point of having a 38 game season is your quality will be reflected by the end of the season, a good run of form where you play above your squad's ability isn't going to last for the full year playing every team twice (I suppose Leicester broke that rule).

Talk of bottling the title this year is absurd, they were never anywhere near Chelsea, and they have European football to contend with whereas Chelsea don't, they were never in the race, and now they lose at Anfield then it's enough to say they've bottled it.

The term is just thrown around any time a team isn't good enough to win the league/finish top 4 or whatever. And always to the same teams because people can't think for themselves, we had 4th in our hands at the end of last season, if Spurs or Arsenal had finished 5th in the manner we did last year they'd never hear the end of it. In reality we were just a bit shit and couldn't beat West Ham because they played out their skins and we weren't good enough to deal an away game where the opposition were well up for it.

Yes, aka we "bottled it" as we couldn't perform when the pressure was on and we really needed a win.

 

[SirHenryPercy]

He didn't fail at winning La Liga though, did he? He succeeded at winning La Liga.

Before he won the league for them, they hadn't won it in 4 years...

And guess what, they haven't won La Liga since José won it for them.

I'll say that again - Real Madrid have failed to win La Liga since Mourinho succeeded in winning it for them...

You wanna have a word with yourself if you view that a failure. Especially when your own club haven't won anything of note for 30 years.

Once again what has Real Madrid got to do with Spurs? They are two clubs on completely different levels, I thought that would excite you, instead you seem to want to compare them.

2 trophies in 3 years at Real Madrid is failure, you can view it however makes you feel better about Jose, but he failed. Ask the majority of Real fans if they would want him back and they'd run a mile.

Real have won 2 CL's in 3 years since Mourinho left, the natives are happy again. For your club comparison I can only ever dream of Spurs winning a CL, let alone 2 in 3 years.

 

[Mihai]

Yes that's the narrative of bottling, but realistically if you can go on a 3 game streak without a win in December, that can just as easily happen in April - for even the exact same reason as the December drought.

The only difference is December will automatically be put down to bad performances/poor form, and April it must be because the players couldn't handle the pressure. But then that's just guesswork and lazy cliches.

I don't doubt teams can falter under pressure, but frankly we'll never know the exact reason why a team failed to win a game. If Spurs lost at Anfield first game of the season, why must the reason for the loss be different than the loss that happened the other day?

Technically speaking, it's correct, a loss on day one is the same points accumulated as a loss on day 38. However, it's probably due to motivation and the league table developing in a certain way. At the start of the season, and in early stages there're games you can lose without too many consequences. I remember even under SAF our first games were always dull and players seemed not interested in getting a win (like a loss to Burnley on the first day of the season). Take Leicester for example, the wins now have more importance than wins a couple of months ago, because they are now in relegation battle.

If Spurs lose to Liverpool on the first day of the season, they will be at -3 points from first position, with 37 games to go. Plenty of time to recover. The more you advance in the season, the more motivated the players should be to get points (if the team is in positions to win or achieve something at the end, be it champions, top 4 or avoid relegation).

I am not following it too much, but as far as I know, runners say in 1000m, they run at a constant speed till they get to last stages and then rush till the finish. If it's irrelevant, why don't they try it the other way round?

 

[SirHenryPercy]

Whats funny is that a team like United is usually expected to challenge year on year for the title and most cups and up until 3 years ago we did, during those three years I don't think many realistic or level headed United fan expected us to win anything we just hoped wed be in some contention and considering the managerial changes, the change in plan and the disappointing seasons have left us licking our wounds but we all know and feel that we are on the rise and as soon as this season could finish second that's the expectation a club like Spurs must strive to achieve and also actually achieve it to remove this tag of bottlers. I mean to challenge for the title and then combust and finish below Arsenal is an absolute bottle job and that was under Poch.

I don't see anything, any valid improvement to suggest they don't just bottle it again this year.

So you have to finish way beyond were your financial position indicates to not be labelled bottlers.

That's probably the most stupid thing I've ever read.

As so many of you take great delight in pointing out we have nowhere near the financial muscle of the teams in and around us, but here we are year in year out in and around them punching above our weight. If anybody isn't bottlers it's us, our issues are plain and simple, if you can't see them then you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Attila]

Once again what has Real Madrid got to do with Spurs? They are two clubs on completely different levels, I thought that would excite you, instead you seem to want to compare them.

2 trophies in 3 years at Real Madrid is failure, you can view it however makes you feel better about Jose, but he failed. Ask the majority of Real fans if they would want him back and they'd run a mile.

Real have won 2 CL's in 3 years since Mourinho left, the natives are happy again. For your club comparison I can only ever dream of Spurs winning a CL, let alone 2 in 3 years.

You're acting as if Madrid were winning loads of trophies every year when he went there. And ignoring the fact they were competing with probably the best club side ever at that time in Barcelona. Winning La Liga isn't easy...the fact they have won it once in eight years should make that obvious. Here's a good post you should read

Does he do well only at smaller clubs? Not really, IMO - he's done well everywhere he's been, apart from his second spell at Chelsea (which was distinctly below par in terms of performances in European football). I think managers of the class of Mourinho and Fergie would've done well wherever they'd been - be it at a mega club, or a smaller one (the latter did and has tangible proof on his side, but Mourinho is still quite young in managerial terms, too - and the United job could be a great barometer in that sense because of the upper management's relatively less intrusive approach). Actually winning the Champions League requires a bit of random luck, so while he didn't lead Madrid to La Decima, his time there is slightly underrated in retrospective terms, though some Madrid fans will undoubtedly argue otherwise. Games at a certain stage are decided by extremely fine details - and we could easily be looking a realistic alternate history - where United's goal vs Porto stands, or Barcelona score a late goal at Camp Nou vs Internazionale to go through on away goals, or Garcia's goal is disallowed.

eg. at Madrid, first season: Finished 4 points behind Barcelona in the league, won the Copa del Rey - facing Barcelona in the final, the Champions League semi first leg was kinda decided in no small part by the genius of Messi at the Bernabéu.

Second season: Wins the league with record points and goals scored, faces Barcelona in the Copa de Rey - again, and this time the Catalans prevail, faces Heyneckes' Bayern in the Champions League semis, and somehow his best players forget how to take penalties:



Third season: This was a bit disappointing to be fair, especially with all the background drama. Dismantled in the first leg of the semi-finals vs Dortmund in the Champions League, distant second in the league, lose to Simeone's Atlético in the Copa de Rey final.

Mind, this was a Madrid team that hadn't reached the Champions League semi-final since 2002/03 - with 6 consecutive Round of 16 exits from 2004/05. And for added context, they were facing one of the best club sides of all time at their peak - with players that had developed chemistry and a common style over years (heightened by Guardiola's coaching), and he was facing an exceptional league manager. Plus, the little guy who could create something out of nothing, and if you take Pep's team out of the equation - he could have realistically won league titles on the bounce, a European Cup, and the might not have been sacked because the antagonism he created (that arguably led to his decline) wouldn't have been necessary. Ifs and buts, but again, the margins are very fine.

 

[acnumber9]

Whereas Spurs who perform infinitely better than us over a 38 game season are the "bottlers", it's just baffling logic.

Over the past two and a half seasons Utd and Spurs have amassed the same number of Premier League points. Utd have won one trophy and are in the final of another competition. Utd are a laughing stock and Spurs are held in high esteem. There's definitely some baffling logic being applied.

 

[Dominos]

Yes, aka we "bottled it" as we couldn't perform when the pressure was on and we really needed a win.

Well we got beat by Swansea and Bournemouth when there was no pressure. We simply weren't a very good team, we struggled in nearly all our away games, and we lost them both when the pressure was on and when there no pressure. We spent 38 games bottling it.

Technically speaking, it's correct, a loss on day one is the same points accumulated as a loss on day 38. However, it's probably due to motivation and the league table developing in a certain way. At the start of the season, and in early stages there're games you can lose without too many consequences. I remember even under SAF our first games were always dull and players seemed not interested in getting a win (like a loss to Burnley on the first day of the season). Take Leicester for example, the wins now have more importance than wins a couple of months ago, because they are now in relegation battle.

If Spurs lose to Liverpool on the first day of the season, they will be at -3 points from first position, with 37 games to go. Plenty of time to recover. The more you advance in the season, the more motivated the players should be to get points (if the team is in positions to win or achieve something at the end, be it champions, top 4 or avoid relegation).

I am not following it too much, but as far as I know, runners say in 1000m, they run at a constant speed till they get to last stages and then rush till the finish. If it's irrelevant, why don't they try it the other way round?

Well for your 1000m analogy, why don't you find me some evidence that title winning teams consistently get more points in the 2nd half of the season. You wont find it.

Leicester's wins now are no more important than a couple of months ago, if they'd been winning for the last 2 months then they wouldn't be in this position now, the games a couple of months ago were very fecking important.

You need 40 points to avoid relegation, you can get that in the first half of the season and not bother trying for the rest of the year. 3 points is 3 points.

 

[acnumber9]

So you must think you should be amassing more points in the 2nd half of the season than the first?

Some evidence from the eventual champions over say a decent sample size would be nice, but you wont find it.

Leicester 39/42
Chelsea 46/41
City 41/45
United 46/43
City 45/44

So that's the last 5 seasons. In 3 of those teams have got more points in the first half of the season.

That doesn't really prove your point. Utd and Chelsea won the league with games to spare and inevitably lost their intensity.

 

[Dominos]

Over the past two and a half seasons Utd and Spurs have amassed the same number of Premier League points. Utd have won one trophy and are in the final of another competition. Utd are a laughing stock and Spurs are held in high esteem. There's definitely some baffling logic being applied.

Fair enough, that wasn't really the intended tone of my post, more that being a few points ahead of United means they are in a position where they need to win the title or be considered bottlers and mentally weak. Whereas we can sit a few points behind them and laugh at their lack of bottle to win the league. It just doesn't sit right with the logical side of my brain.

 

[Dominos]

That doesn't really prove your point. Utd and Chelsea won the league with games to spare and inevitably lost their intensity.

It's a fair point but there are examples in there where teams had to go to the last game of the season to win the league.

My argument isn't that teams are stronger in the first half of the season, just that the evidence that title winning teams are signficantly better in the 2nd half of the season and this is consistent over a decent sample size in terms of number of seasons doesn't seem to be there.

If you're going to claim there is then I'll let you do the in depth mathematical analysis.