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

[Cassidy]

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.

No one argued that. The point is they usually are resilient and play to their best or close to it in the run in. Whether that is going away to a rival and taking a crucial point or winning the game needed to clintch the title. At the business end of the season they get the job done

If during the run in you start to fall apart you likely wont win the title

 

[SirHenryPercy]

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

Oh, so now we are saying games can be decided by extremely fine details or even a bit of luck here and there (something I agree with). But on here I thought that the general consensus was that games are decided purely by which team are the biggest bottlers?

Lose and it's because you bottled it, right?

 

[Attila]

Oh, so now we are saying games can be decided by extremely fine details or even a bit of luck here and there (something I agree with). But on here I thought that the general consensus was that games are decided purely by which team are the biggest bottlers?

Lose and it's because you bottled it, right?

Tbh don't know what you're on about now. Was just replying to your post saying Mourinho failed at Real Madrid

Anyone watching Monday Night Football? Carragher just called Spurs big game bottlers

 

[SirHenryPercy]

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.

It doesn't sit right in your brain because it's a nonsense and there is no logic to it.

Let's use a different side, Arsenal who are annually accused of bottling it. They have a GK with numerous PL titles plus a CL. A defence with a World Cup winner, Euro Championships finalist, Cup winners medals and titles. Midfield players that have won WC's and Euros, titles and cups and also Sanchez who has won everything at club level plus a Copa America. Really are we saying that such a decorated group of players lack the bottle to win a title?

Bottling it is just a fashionable term used by people who can't get their heads round there being other bigger and more significant factors.

 

[Dominos]

No one argued that. The point is they usually are resilient and play to their best or close to it in the run in. Whether that is going away to a rival and taking a crucial point or winning the game needed to clintch the title. At the business end of the season they get the job done

If during the run in you start to fall apart you likely wont win the title

Of course. But as I've said you can potentially get a 50/30 and win the title but it's just rare that a team has that much variance, they're generally quite consistent.

Let's see if Spurs are indeed faltering in the 2nd half of seasons compared to first half.

Last season 35/35
31/33
34/35
33/39

So again. They didn't perform any worse in the 2nd half of last season (where they "bottled it"), compared to the first half. That's pretty consistent with what title winning teams do, similar amount of points in both halves of the season. Maybe, just maybe, they weren't good enough to get 82+ points that it would have required to win the league, heck, when there was absolutely no pressure in the first half of the season, they only got 35. That's not title winning form, even under no pressure they weren't in title winning form.

 

[SirHenryPercy]

Tbh don't know what you're on about now. Was just replying to your post saying Mourinho failed at Real Madrid

Was using your post to emphasise the stupidity of the 'bottling it' argument.

But yes I read the Mourinho post, and 2 trophies in 3 years at Real isn't success.

 

[SirHenryPercy]

Of course. But as I've said you can potentially get a 50/30 and win the title but it's just rare that a team has that much variance, they're generally quite consistent.

Let's see if Spurs are indeed faltering in the 2nd half of seasons compared to first half.

Last season 35/35
31/33
34/35
33/39

So again. They didn't perform any worse in the 2nd half of last season (where they "bottled it"), compared to the first half. That's pretty consistent with what title winning teams do, similar amount of points in both halves of the season. Maybe, just maybe, they weren't good enough to get 82+ points that it would have required to win the league, heck, when there was absolutely no pressure in the first half of the season, they only got 35. That's not title winning form, even under no pressure they weren't in title winning form.

Spot on, plus we downed tools in the last two games.

We've never been good enough to get 82 points without an enormous amount of luck, and we won't get them this year either. Leicester weren't good enough to get 81, it just all fell for them, sometimes that's football.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Was using your post to emphasise the stupidity of the 'bottling it' argument.

But yes I read the Mourinho post, and 2 trophies in 3 years at Real isn't success.

I'd argue his title winning season was very successful when you consider nobody else there has been able to do it for ten years now (Someone at Atletico aside which was an incredible accomplishment) against that mighty Barcelona team. Especially when they got a record points total and goal total at the time. His biggest failure at Real was not winning a CL but to say he wasn't a success is wrong. No other manager could have done better.

 

[SirHenryPercy]

I'd argue his title winning season was very successful when you consider nobody else there has been able to do it for ten years now (Someone at Atletico aside which was an incredible accomplishment) against that mighty Barcelona team. Especially when they got a record points total and goal total at the time. His biggest failure at Real was not winning a CL but to say he wasn't a success is wrong. No other manager could have done better.

Ask the majority of Real fans if he was a success and if they would like him back.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Ask the majority of Real fans if he was a success and if they would like him back.

Yeah because Real fans are known for being rational and appreciative.

 

[dirkey]

Yeah because Real fans are known for being rational and appreciative.

Ha, exactly. The same Real fans who boo Ronaldo.

 

[Sammyjunn]

Cant that SirHenry guy get banned, clear WUM.

 

[Cassidy]

Of course. But as I've said you can potentially get a 50/30 and win the title but it's just rare that a team has that much variance, they're generally quite consistent.

Let's see if Spurs are indeed faltering in the 2nd half of seasons compared to first half.

Last season 35/35
31/33
34/35
33/39

So again. They didn't perform any worse in the 2nd half of last season (where they "bottled it"), compared to the first half. That's pretty consistent with what title winning teams do, similar amount of points in both halves of the season. Maybe, just maybe, they weren't good enough to get 82+ points that it would have required to win the league, heck, when there was absolutely no pressure in the first half of the season, they only got 35. That's not title winning form, even under no pressure they weren't in title winning form.

Spurs last season started poorly as I already previously said. They started playing well around December and got them selves into title contention then fell off.

 

[Dominos]

Spurs last season started poorly as I already previously said. They started playing well around December and got them selves into title contention then fell off.

So what you're saying is teams go through poor form and good form throughout a season.

Why is their poor form at the end of the season necessarily any different than their form at the start of the season? Why are teams allowed to drop points at the beginning of the season but at the end of the season it's because they've bottled it?

 

[Rhyme Animal]

So what you're saying is teams go through poor form and good form throughout a season.

Why is their poor form at the end of the season necessarily any different than their form at the start of the season? Why are teams allowed to drop points at the beginning of the season but at the end of the season it's because they've bottled it?

The psychological pressure increases as the zenith of any particular campaign grows nearer.

If you've ever made decisions where the consequence is higher than you're used to, you'll be aware that remaining in control of your basic common sense is a well respected attribute that not everyone has.

Losing control of your better qualities, repeatedly, whenever the stakes are the highest would be 'bottling it'.

Some teams have qualities that actually run through the club, and become a culture within the fabric of the club - Barca play beautiful football, Man Utd are attacking, Chelsea are ruthless winners, West Brom are physical, Swansea play 'the right way', Arsenal always 'bottle' the title but get top 4 etc.

Spurs have a long history of bottling it. That's why they get called 'bottlers'. It isn't an insult, even, rather an observation.

Hope this helps you out.

 

[Attila]

The psychological pressure increases as the zenith of any particular campaign grows nearer.

If you've ever made decisions where the consequence is higher than you're used to, you'll be aware that remaining in control of your basic common sense is a well respected attribute that not everyone has.

Losing control of your better qualities, repeatedly, whenever the stakes are the highest would be 'bottling it'.

Some teams have qualities that actually run through the club, and become a culture within the fabric of the club - Barca play beautiful football, Man Utd are attacking, Chelsea are ruthless winners, West Brom are physical, Swansea play 'the right way', Arsenal always 'bottle' the title but get top 4 etc.

Spurs have a long history of bottling it. That's why they get called 'bottlers'. It isn't an insult, even, rather an observation.

Hope this helps you out.

Carragher mentioned that today about Spurs

It's a problem Carragher believes they have to address. "I was so disappointed with Spurs [against Liverpool]," said the Sky Sports pundit on Monday Night Football. "It was going back to a Spurs performance you'd see 10 or 15 years ago. That's not Pochettino and it's not this Spurs team.

"The reason I'm highlighting this is I'm a massive fan of that manager, that team. They can't be remembered over the next 18 months, two years, as a team who didn't win anything.

"I've seen it too often with Spurs, they fail to turn up in big games, maybe going back 20 years. Is it a belief thing? Is it a mentality thing, ingrained in the club?

"If that doesn't change, they are going to become like Leeds. Fantastic Leeds, got to the semi-final of the European Cup - so what? They didn't win anything.

"At the end of their time at Tottenham - maybe in 10 years' time, maybe in two years, I don't know - you want to be able to say 'I've won that'. Show us your medals. If they don't win big games, they're never going to get there.

"I'm not questioning them for not winning the league or the Champions League, but go and win an FA Cup. Go and win the Europa League. They should be the best team in the Europa League, the players they've got now.

"But if they don't win big games and change these stats, they'll never win anything."

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...e-record-to-win-trophies-says-jamie-carragher

 

[AR87]

@Attila

That Carragher quote is quite interesting. I don't think they'll go all out for Europa though. Considering their position in the league and the size of the squad you'd think that CL qualification via top-4 will be their priority rather than attempting to balance the two out. Obviously that could change if they suddenly drop behind the pace in the league and get through to the next round of Europa, but as of now I'd expect maximizing performance in the league to be their top goal.

 

[Dominos]

The psychological pressure increases as the zenith of any particular campaign grows nearer.

If you've ever made decisions where the consequence is higher than you're used to, you'll be aware that remaining in control of your basic common sense is a well respected attribute that not everyone has.

Losing control of your better qualities, repeatedly, whenever the stakes are the highest would be 'bottling it'.

Some teams have qualities that actually run through the club, and become a culture within the fabric of the club - Barca play beautiful football, Man Utd are attacking, Chelsea are ruthless winners, West Brom are physical, Swansea play 'the right way', Arsenal always 'bottle' the title but get top 4 etc.

Spurs have a long history of bottling it. That's why they get called 'bottlers'. It isn't an insult, even, rather an observation.

Hope this helps you out.

So explain to me why they got the same points in the first half of the season when the pressure was off as when the pressure was on. What went wrong in the first half of the season?

 

[Mihai]

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.

You don't have to, the league success is relative to how the other teams play. You can get more points in the second half and still bottle it.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Carragher mentioned that today about Spurs

Said this earlier in the thread. From Spurs position at Jan 1: a trophyless season is a huge disaster and a massive step closer to their top players leaving. Be it this summer or the next.

I stand by it. Win things. They do not have the financial ability to 'consolidate top 4' long term in any way that actually means something.

 

[ti vu]

So explain to me why they got the same points in the first half of the season when the pressure was off as when the pressure was on. What went wrong in the first half of the season?

They were slow starter. Got on good run to be in top 3 for majority of season, then bottled it.

We used to be a slow starter too, but at the same time a deadly sprinter in the last few meters (Fergie's time strait in game & in league form).

City has developed as a quick starter, but very inconsistent during the season. Has been this way for some time now. Should be considered as a strait.

Arsenal with February melt down strait (CL knock out which influence their mentality)...

 

[Massive Spanner]

They were slow starter. Got on good run to be in top 3 for majority of season, then bottled it.

We used to be a slow starter too, but at the same time a deadly sprinter in the last few meters (Fergie's time strait in game & in league form).

City has developed as a quick starter, but very inconsistent during the season. Has been this way for some time now. Should be considered as a strait.

Arsenal with February melt down strait (CL knock out which influence their mentality)...

A largely fabricated myth.

Our point difference in the first and second half of season's was always minimal and sometimes we had more in the first half of the season.

 

[ti vu]

A largely fabricated myth.

Our point difference in the first and second half of season's was always minimal and sometimes we had more in the first half of the season.

I'll check later but beside few odd seasons, I remembered us usually slipped behind at the beginning of the season under SAF. We did improve our start since Mourinho's first stint at Chelsea, but that came as SAF's realization of Mourinho's team consistency so it's harder to make up the gap in case we slip up too much in early stage of the season.

From horse's mouth:
"If you go back 12 years, our norm was to start the season and build up to the second half, and then we changed when Chelsea won the title two years in a row (2005 and 2006). We changed our approach to pre-season training. I think it (the slow starts) will be the last."

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/ferguson-wants-to-go-faster-1.546463 ( Not the best source, but workable until I find a better one)

Edit: Another one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...s-Harvard-management-techniques-analysed.html

"ON THE SHAPE OF THE SEASON

SAF: We don’t start the pre-season training at one hundred miles an hour. We do a gradual build-up. And we’re not normally the strongest in the early part of the season, but October is usually a month where we get ourselves going again.

I always tell the players, every season, that if we are within three points from the top come New Year’s Day, we’ve got a great chance at the title.

IL: This is interesting because United have tweaked pre-season routines in recent years to try and keep pace with Chelsea and Manchester City, who tend to come out of the blocks at lightning speed in August. Ferguson realised United were getting caught cold and has tried to address it. Mind you, they lost their opening game this season..."

The point is under SAF, we were slow starter (not myth with SAF admitted this himself), but we're not slow starter in the same mold as this Tottenham.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

So what you're saying is teams go through poor form and good form throughout a season.

Why is their poor form at the end of the season necessarily any different than their form at the start of the season? Why are teams allowed to drop points at the beginning of the season but at the end of the season it's because they've bottled it?

Because the pressure is on physically and mentally when there is something up for grabs at that stage of the season. Bottling it may be an annoying analogy but its a fairly accurate one. Not sure why people are spending so much energy trying to crusade against benign football terminology.

 

[Balu]

Because the pressure is on physically and mentally when there is something up for grabs at that stage of the season. Bottling it may be an annoying analogy but its a fairly accurate one. Not sure why people are spending so much energy trying to crusade against benign football terminology.

It's not fairly accurate. It has become a synonym for losing and is just a stupid dig at other clubs these days, certainly on the Caf.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

It's not fairly accurate. It has become a synonym for losing and is just a stupid dig at other clubs these days, certainly on the Caf.

whether its used as a dig or not is irrelevant. That's why its a synonym because the shoe fits...

 

[Dominos]

You don't have to, the league success is relative to how the other teams play. You can get more points in the second half and still bottle it.

That's just ridiculous. You can't win every game. You can get 50 points out of 57 in the last 19 games of the season, and still miss out on the title if someone pips you by a point.

"Look at these bottlers, they couldn't even win 19 games in a row. Pressure clearly got to them".

They were slow starter. Got on good run to be in top 3 for majority of season, then bottled it.

We used to be a slow starter too, but at the same time a deadly sprinter in the last few meters (Fergie's time strait in game & in league form).

City has developed as a quick starter, but very inconsistent during the season. Has been this way for some time now. Should be considered as a strait.

Arsenal with February melt down strait (CL knock out which influence their mentality)...

Or, teams go through good runs of form and bad runs of form throughout a season, and over 38 games your quality will be reflected in your points haul. There's absolutely no reason teams should be getting more points in the 2nd half of the season than the first, the quality of the team will be reflected over a decent sample size, if they got 35 points in the first half of the season they're probably not good enough to get 47 points in the 2nd half of the season that it would have required to win the league.

Simply attaching a tag to a period of bad form doesn't legitimise your argument, "oh that was just a slow start"... Why don't we call the end of the season a "slow finish".

I'll check later but beside few odd seasons, I remembered us usually slipped behind at the beginning of the season under SAF. We did improve our start since Mourinho's first stint at Chelsea, but that came as SAF's realization of Mourinho's team consistency so it's harder to make up the gap in case we slip up too much in early stage of the season.

From horse's mouth:
"If you go back 12 years, our norm was to start the season and build up to the second half, and then we changed when Chelsea won the title two years in a row (2005 and 2006). We changed our approach to pre-season training. I think it (the slow starts) will be the last."

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/ferguson-wants-to-go-faster-1.546463 ( Not the best source, but workable until I find a better one)

Edit: Another one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...s-Harvard-management-techniques-analysed.html

"ON THE SHAPE OF THE SEASON

SAF: We don’t start the pre-season training at one hundred miles an hour. We do a gradual build-up. And we’re not normally the strongest in the early part of the season, but October is usually a month where we get ourselves going again.

I always tell the players, every season, that if we are within three points from the top come New Year’s Day, we’ve got a great chance at the title.

IL: This is interesting because United have tweaked pre-season routines in recent years to try and keep pace with Chelsea and Manchester City, who tend to come out of the blocks at lightning speed in August. Ferguson realised United were getting caught cold and has tried to address it. Mind you, they lost their opening game this season..."

The point is under SAF, we were slow starter (not myth with SAF admitted this himself), but we're not slow starter in the same mold as this Tottenham.

Fair enough. But what we're saying is in Fergie's last 8 seasons we had no noticeable difference in our 1st half and 2nd half season performance... Our approach to pre season training in the 90s is irrelevant in asssessing whether Spurs should be expected to get more points in the 2nd half of the season in 2016.

 

[Dominos]

Because the pressure is on physically and mentally when there is something up for grabs at that stage of the season. Bottling it may be an annoying analogy but its a fairly accurate one. Not sure why people are spending so much energy trying to crusade against benign football terminology.

You don't know if it's fairly accurate. If Spurs can lose at Anfield in September then why can't they lose in February?

Why are the reasons for the loss necessarily any different?

 

[Cascarino]

It's not fairly accurate. It has become a synonym for losing and is just a stupid dig at other clubs these days, certainly on the Caf.

Agree with this, there are so many variables when it comes to football, if team A loses, it's far too easy to put it down to 'bottling'.
There are instances when you could argue that a team has imploded or let the pressure get to them, but on the caf it seems any team that aren't perennial winners are bottlers, same as any player who isn't 100% consistent, it's a lazy mantra. Not pointing this at anyone in this thread, just I see the term bottlers all over the caf.

 

[Mihai]

That's just ridiculous. You can't win every game. You can get 50 points out of 57 in the last 19 games of the season, and still miss out on the title if someone pips you by a point.

"Look at these bottlers, they couldn't even win 19 games in a row. Pressure clearly got to them".

Ok mate, don't worry.

You think it's irrelevant when a team picks points, a win is always 3, be it September or may. I think titles are lost and won towards the end of the season, when the pressure gets to the players/managers and they bottle it.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Agree with this, there are so many variables when it comes to football, if team A loses, it's far too easy to put it down to 'bottling'.
There are instances when you could argue that a team has imploded or let the pressure get to them, but on the caf it seems any team that aren't perennial winners are bottlers, same as any player who isn't 100% consistent, it's a lazy mantra. Not pointing this at anyone in this thread, just I see the term bottlers all over the caf.

Nope, just Spurs, really.

Arse bottle the title every year, but always make Top 4.

The reason Spurs are known as constant 'nearly-men' is because, for decades, they've been constant 'nearly-men'.

There is a culture of bottling it running through the club, as Carragher has pointed out himself.

 

[balaks]

Nope, just Spurs, really.

Arse bottle the title every year, but always make Top 4.

The reason Spurs are known as constant 'nearly-men' is because, for decades, they've been constant 'nearly-men'.

There is a culture of bottling it running through the club, as Carragher has pointed out himself.

That's just not accurate though, until the last 5 or 6 years we have been nowhere near a title challenge and have been a mid-table side (apart from 2005/06) since the 1990's. We have not been 'nearly-men' at all - we have been 'nowhere-near men'. I've supported Spurs for around 35 years roughly and the vast majority of those years we have been a mid-table side, that's a fact. The odd cup win here and there has been all we could have hoped for due to the size of the club and the financial mis-management that has plagued the club for decades. The past 6 years have probably been the best years I've had as a Spurs fan. Depressing really but true. Despite our lack of success I love the club - I'm also a Northern Ireland fan - so you can tell I'm generally used to disappointment!

 

[Cascarino]

Nope, just Spurs, really.

Arse bottle the title every year, but always make Top 4.

The reason Spurs are known as constant 'nearly-men' is because, for decades, they've been constant 'nearly-men'.

There is a culture of bottling it running through the club, as Carragher has pointed out himself.

I can't speak for this thread or the arguments used to justify the term, it's just over the last few days I've seen Arsenal, Liverpool, Man City, Roma, Napoli, Argentina, Kane, Higuain, all called bottlers in the past couple weeks.

I genuinely didn't mean to accuse anyone in this thread of over using the term, just the caf as a whole.

 

[Stacks]

I'd argue his title winning season was very successful when you consider nobody else there has been able to do it for ten years now (Someone at Atletico aside which was an incredible accomplishment) against that mighty Barcelona team. Especially when they got a record points total and goal total at the time. His biggest failure at Real was not winning a CL but to say he wasn't a success is wrong. No other manager could have done better.

To be honest the quality of your opponents isn't a mitigating factor when managing Real Madrid as they had 2 former Balon D'or winners in the team Kaka and Ronaldo and really a star studded squad with Di Maria Xabi Alonso, Ozil, Higuain, Benzema. All these players are big players for big clubs now, one went for 80 million even. His title winning season was definitely successful but the other 2 seasons, I don't believe their successes matched the investment into the squad. a copa del rey was the end result in season 1 and a super cup in season 3. That's weak. Despite Barcelona having an even better forward line, Real seem to win the champions league more often than not atm and are on course to winning the title too

 

[balaks]

I just did a check and our average points total in the history of the Premiership is... wait for it... 56.7 points. Puts things into perspective I think. We have improved so much over the past few years.

 

[Mihai]

I just did a check and our average points total in the history of the Premiership is... wait for it... 56.7 points. Puts things into perspective I think. We have improved so much over the past few years.

No one denies the fact that Spurs have improved in recent times. From "it's spurs lads" to having to catch up with you in the table. What you're missing is a trophy. You have the team, manager and soon will have the financial pull to add more quality to your side. And if you don't win a trophy soon, you will become the new Arsenal, which I am sure, no Spurs supporter would like.

 

[NoPace]

We don't have any wingers in the squad, at least not the traditional kind. We don't play with wingers anyway. We have wide forwards and width from the full-backs.

Sissoko for that big whack of cash instead of someone like Dembele (obviously all of Europe wishes they'd signed him), Mane or someone I'm not thinking of to provide some pace out wide would really help Spurs.

If Spurs can find a winger, pay for half of it by shipping out Sissoko or Lamela and have Son, Eriksen and this new winger covering the 2 wide spots, I think they'll be tougher in big games next year, since they could probably sit deeper and still generate offense.

Kane, Eriksen, Alli and Son has to be the slowest front 4 in the top 7 in the Prem. It's like if we played Zlatan (probably still quicker than Kane), Mata (similar to Eriksen) and then Alli and Son equivalents, who we don't really have as good pace comparisons to, but I would say are closest to Pogba (covers long distances well like Alli but not super quick) and maybe 2 years ago Ashley Young (still quite quick), this forum would be constantly bitching about how little pace we have and quick wingers like Giggs, Ronaldo and even Kanchelskis and Nani being needed again.

Basically, they need a Tony Martial and if Mourinho sells him this summer I'll be furious.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

I just did a check and our average points total in the history of the Premiership is... wait for it... 56.7 points. Puts things into perspective I think. We have improved so much over the past few years.

I think too much is made of this. When you look back over the last 9 years, you can see that your points score has stayed in a very similar place, for almost a decade now.

'Arry got you up to 70 points in the '09 season, and then up to 69 points in the 11/12 season.

Also, Redknapp got you through to a CL quarterfinal in 2010/11...

Then AVB got you up to 72 points in 12/13.

2008/09 - 51 points
2009/10 - 70 points
10/11 - 62 points
11/12 - 69 points
12/13 - 72 points
13/14 - 69 points
14/15 - 64 points
15/16 - 70 points
16/17 - currently on 50 points

So, have you really improved that much...?

I think it's more likely that you've maintained your usual form in a PL that's spent a few years in flux after the balance was disrupted by SAF/Moyes and Chelsea's meltdown.

Foxes winning the PL last year would tell us that the league itself has been anomalous.

Likewise, your rather limp display in the CL this season would suggest that not that much has really changed with you lot.

 

[balaks]

I think too much is made of this. When you look back over the last 9 years, you can see that your points score has stayed in a very similar place, for almost a decade now.

'Arry got you up to 70 points in the '09 season, and then up to 69 points in the 11/12 season.

Also, Redknapp got you through to a CL quarterfinal in 2010/11...

Then AVB got you up to 72 points in 12/13.

2008/09 - 51 points
2009/10 - 70 points
10/11 - 62 points
11/12 - 69 points
12/13 - 72 points
13/14 - 69 points
14/15 - 64 points
15/16 - 70 points
16/17 - currently on 50 points

So, have you really improved that much...?

I think it's more likely that you've maintained your usual form in a PL that's spent a few years in flux after the balance was disrupted by SAF/Moyes and Chelsea's meltdown.

Foxes winning the PL last year would tell us that the league itself has been anomalous.

Likewise, your rather limp display in the CL this season would suggest that not that much has really changed with you lot.

Depends on your perspective - from my perspective as a fan from before the Premiership even existed as I said the majority of years supporting Spurs has been mediocre at best so for me this is a great period for the club rather than the norm. If this continues over the next 10/15 years I'll be delighted and yes then I'll feel like it's the norm because believe me this is not the norm.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think too much is made of this. When you look back over the last 9 years, you can see that your points score has stayed in a very similar place, for almost a decade now.

'Arry got you up to 70 points in the '09 season, and then up to 69 points in the 11/12 season.

Also, Redknapp got you through to a CL quarterfinal in 2010/11...

Then AVB got you up to 72 points in 12/13.

2008/09 - 51 points
2009/10 - 70 points
10/11 - 62 points
11/12 - 69 points
12/13 - 72 points
13/14 - 69 points
14/15 - 64 points
15/16 - 70 points
16/17 - currently on 50 points

So, have you really improved that much...?

I think it's more likely that you've maintained your usual form in a PL that's spent a few years in flux after the balance was disrupted by SAF/Moyes and Chelsea's meltdown.

Foxes winning the PL last year would tell us that the league itself has been anomalous.

Likewise, your rather limp display in the CL this season would suggest that not that much has really changed with you lot.

I think this is basically right. Spurs are a level above where they were in the pre-Redknapp PL era but have been bumbling along with a similar points haul under a bunch of different managers for the last 7 or 8 seasons. A level below the top teams but always able to give them a fright in a season where they take their eye off the ball. Hard to know what changed around 09/10 though. Anyone got any theories?