This "PL Proven" Bollocks

[Leftback99]

Think this PL Proven Bollox should apply more to players instead of managers. Can list hundreds of players since PL inception which performed better than their PL proven counterpart. Exampe from just current crop: KdB, Fernandinho, Bernardo Silva (actually almost all of City midfielders), Salah, Firmino, Fabinho, Ruben Dias, Alisson, Ederson, Bruno, Odegaard, Son, etc etc etc.

I can list loads who flopped because because they couldn't handle it. Same with managers.

Rather than the OPs list of managers who eventually won the league with great squads how about a list of managers with no PL experience who were sacked before winning anything?

 

[Dan_F]

He meant that you do not need PL experience to win your first title. Of course after a full season any coach will have PL experience.

The narrative is that if you do not have PL experience you won't make it here. So first you need to take on a job at a smaller club, and work your way up which OP's example has show is not the case.

I know exactly what he was trying to say. The data is not backing up his point like he thinks it is. You cannot use Fergie’s 13 titles to show that the league has been won 13 times by managers with no PL experience. You can use the wording “at the time of appointment” to make it fit his narrative, but it’s just stupid.

Also, if you want to go down this route, out of the managers listed, winning the Dutch league with Ajax twice is probably close to the weakest of achievements on that list.

I don’t even have a massive opinion on this either way, but it just hurt my eyes having read it.

 

[Adam-Utd]

In the case of pundits "I would go for X because he's PL proven" often just means "I know X because he managed in the PL, the only league I actually watch."

Pretty much this. There is a huge bias towards people they actually know and have seen in action before.

Gary Neville is a big one for this - he knows Poch and has spoken to him personally before, heard reports from players etc.

He knows nothing about Ten Hag, but I guarantee if Tottenham or City signed him he'd be raving about him in a few months time.

 

[JPRouve]

I can list loads who flopped because because they couldn't handle it. Same with managers.

Rather than the OPs list of managers who eventually won the league with great squads how about a list of managers with no PL experience who were sacked before winning anything?

What would be the point of that? Those criteria apply to almost all managers with PL experience including highly experienced guys like Moyes or Allardyce.

 

[Leftback99]

What would be the point of that? Those criteria apply to almost all managers with PL experience including highly experienced guys like Moyes or Allardyce.

No point. But more point than a list of managers who've won the league (which I'm confident our next manager won't do anyway, whoever it is).

 

[JPRouve]

No point. But more point than a list of managers who've won the league (which I'm confident our next manager won't do anyway, whoever it is).

No point but more point? What are those points?

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

With managers it's a nonsense to talk of " (insert name)league experience." Success, progress and winning experience is what counts. Deoending on the job a given manager is being sought for.

 

[DannyCAFC]

People really have short-term memories don't they - why are we forgetting Pochettino did an excellent job at both Southampton and Spurs?

Yes he didn't win a trophy at Spurs, but it was a surprise they were challenging in some of these competitions as it was.

The biggest stain on him is not winning the league last year, but even then there's the caveat that they were 3rd when he took over and his PPG was better than Tuchel's over the first half of that campaign.

I'm not saying he's a better appointment than Ten Haag, but the fact people are making him out to be trash now is comical considering the love-in a before this season.

 

[wolvored]

You can't include Fergie really as not being premier league proven. He had managed Utd for 6 seasons in the old division 1 which was exactly the same league as the Premier. If he had managed under the Glazers from day 1 he would have been sacked before the Premier league started.

 

[JPRouve]

People really have short-term memories don't they - why are we forgetting Pochettino did an excellent job at both Southampton and Spurs?

Yes he didn't win a trophy at Spurs, but it was a surprise they were challenging in some of these competitions as it was.

The biggest stain on him is not winning the league last year, but even then there's the caveat that they were 3rd when he took over and his PPG was better than Tuchel's over the first half of that campaign.

I'm not saying he's a better appointment than Ten Haag, but the fact people are making him out to be trash now is comical considering the love-in a before this season.

Is it really a surprise that a top 6 team finishes on average more than 10 points behind the champions? I would suggest that the short memory would be to forget that Tottenham were a good club before Pochettino and that they didn't actually did a lot better with him despite his tenure coinciding with most traditional top 4 clubs rebuilding.

Regarding PSG, it's worth remembering that Tuchel had to deal with a covid outbreak and injuries at the beginning of the season which is when they lost points using players that most don't know.

 

[ManchesterManchester]

People really have short-term memories don't they - why are we forgetting Pochettino did an excellent job at both Southampton and Spurs?

Yes he didn't win a trophy at Spurs, but it was a surprise they were challenging in some of these competitions as it was.

The biggest stain on him is not winning the league last year, but even then there's the caveat that they were 3rd when he took over and his PPG was better than Tuchel's over the first half of that campaign.

I'm not saying he's a better appointment than Ten Haag, but the fact people are making him out to be trash now is comical considering the love-in a before this season.

Agree with your assessment although I think the issue is the board always seem to make the right decision but way too late, when the manager or player is on the decline. Bringing in Mourinho, Ronaldo etc

I think fans desperately wanted Poch and he would of been great for us. However, now a lot of fans reasonably fear that the time for Poch to come has been and passed. He is failing with PSG (in terms of their expectations). Yet suddenly while his reputation is at an all time low, we now finally decide to interview him.

Due to these past failed decisions. I think people just want us to be ahead of the game for once and get someone on a positive trajectory.

 

[Dante]

Whether it's Ole winning the Norwegian league with Molde or Ten Hag winning the Dutch league with Ajax, they're both born winners. That's the most important thing.

 

[Tavern in the town]

Slightly confused about your criteria here. While I’m not one to big up PL proven managers, if you’re using managers who have already won the league to be called “PL proven” then of course barely anyone will qualify. The only managers open to this criteria are managers who manage multiple PL clubs or managers who have more than one stint at a club.

 

[DannyCAFC]

Is it really a surprise that a top 6 team finishes on average more than 10 points behind the champions? I would suggest that the short memory would be to forget that Tottenham were a good club before Pochettino and that they didn't actually did a lot better with him despite his tenure coinciding with most traditional top 4 clubs rebuilding.

Regarding PSG, it's worth remembering that Tuchel had to deal with a covid outbreak and injuries at the beginning of the season which is when they lost points using players that most don't know.

This conveniently ignores the fact there were some absolute mammoth teams during this time. City won the league back-to-back with 100 and then 98 points on the board. Conte's Chelsea were one of the most dominant sides we've seen in the PL era and ended up on 93.

If you look at net spend between 2014-2019, Spurs were the 18th highest spenders in the PL which is absolutely ridiculous. In a league/game where spending money is unequivocally linked to success, they managed league finishes of 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, made a CL final in a season where they didn't spend a single penny and made 4 other cup finals/semi's in 5 years.

 

[Gordon Godot]

Slightly confused about your criteria here. While I’m not one to big up PL proven managers, if you’re using managers who have already won the league to be called “PL proven” then of course barely anyone will qualify. The only managers open to this criteria are managers who manage multiple PL clubs or managers who have more than one stint at a club.

Any United manager should have a track record of success. People seem to forget what Fergie achieved at Aberdeen before coming here, breaking the Old Firm duopoly and winning a European trophy against strong opposition. Moyes had never won a trophy or even got close, I doubt he ever will (though may be proved wrong). Many European leagues are weaker than Premier, but the idea that winning in Norway proved anything I think was dispelled when Ole went to Cardiff. Dutch league not strongest but its well ahead of Norway. TH at least also got to a EUropan cup semi with some top wins along the way, and he manages what is ultimately a selling club. Poch's inability to deliver trophies to date, beyond the French cup, is a concern. Assume the French league will be won this year.

 

[DannyCAFC]

Agree with your assessment although I think the issue is the board always seem to make the right decision but way too late, when the manager or player is on the decline. Bringing in Mourinho, Ronaldo etc

I think fans desperately wanted Poch and he would of been great for us. However, now a lot of fans reasonably fear that the time for Poch to come has been and passed. He is failing with PSG (in terms of their expectations). Yet suddenly while his reputation is at an all time low, we now finally decide to interview him.

Due to these past failed decisions. I think people just want us to be ahead of the game for once and get someone on a positive trajectory.

Agreed. I can totally understand the reservations about going for a manager who's seemingly on a downward slope* compared to somebody like Ten Haag who's on an upward trajectory and enjoys a growing reputation, it's more the revisionist history with Pochettino. The whole 'serial loser' thing is built not just on his current spell at PSG but on his career as a whole, when I doubt anybody would have expected him to win a trophy at Espanyol, or Southampton, or even Spurs. He's penalized for losing a CL final and finishing as a runner-up in the PL when nobody expected Spurs to be close to winning either of these competitions.


*Just to note on this - I wouldn't necessarily agree this is the case. Plenty of managers have difficult spells and I don't actually think PSG are anywhere near as good as they look on paper, certainly they look unbalanced and he has virtually no input on transfer policy which means it's difficult to pin any of the blame in terms of squad-building on him.

 

[Hansi Fick]

I can list loads who flopped because because they couldn't handle it. Same with managers.

Rather than the OPs list of managers who eventually won the league with great squads how about a list of managers with no PL experience who were sacked before winning anything?

A bit of a ridiculous condition since 80% of clubs never "win anything" anyway.
How about we go about it the other way, you list the "PL proven" managers, i.e. managers who took over a big club used to winning after coaching PL before, and who won the title?

In the end, the result will be clear: In order to win the PL, you need to hire the best, be it players or managers, and with football being played and coached everywhere in the world, the best players and managers, in the majority of cases, do not emerge in England but elsewhere, before coming to England because of the financial power of the league.

 

[SuperiorXI]

This is one of those threads where the first post is all that's needed, pretty much sums it up.

 

[JPRouve]

This conveniently ignores the fact there were some absolute mammoth teams during this time. City won the league back-to-back with 100 and then 98 points on the board. Conte's Chelsea were one of the most dominant sides we've seen in the PL era and ended up on 93.

If you look at net spend between 2014-2019, Spurs were the 18th highest spenders in the PL which is absolutely ridiculous. In a league/game where spending money is unequivocally linked to success, they managed league finishes of 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, made a CL final in a season where they didn't spend a single penny and made 4 other cup finals/semi's in 5 years.

I'm not ignoring a thing, they weren't challenging that's a fact, you can't give him credit for challenging and then claim that they weren't actually challenging because there were mammoth teams during that time.

As for net spendings this is probably my favorite argument. They achieved that net spending by selling flops, bench players and castoffs that weren't playing for good money, during Pochettino's tenure the only starter that they sold was Walker. On paper Tottenham had the 3rd to 5th best team in the league every seasons and they didn't lose starters while still spending money on the transfer market(outside of one summer).

Just an example of the players they sold to achieve that net spend, these are the players after Walker in terms of fee. Wimmer, Chadli, Mason, Townsend, Soldado, Bentaleb, Paulinho, Sigurdsson, Pritchard, etc. Tottenham recouped around 230 millions out of these players that were unwanted and then you have 52 more millions for Walker.

In reality Tottenham spent money, found good players, kept them and sold a lot of dross for good money. I would say that it's fair to applaud Pochettino for helping many of these players achieve their potentials but it's not accurate to act as if Tottenham didn't spend money, I made that point in an other thread but Pochettino had more money to spend than Simeone but he did worse and while I already know that some will claim that La Liga is easier, good luck explaining Tottenham's EL performances.

 

[Hansi Fick]

I'm not ignoring a thing, they weren't challenging that's a fact, you can't give him credit for challenging and then claim that they weren't actually challenging because there were mammoth teams during that time.

As for net spendings this is probably my favorite argument. They achieved that net spending by selling flops, bench players and castoffs that weren't playing for good money, during Pochettino's tenure the only starter that they sold was Walker. On paper Tottenham had the 3rd to 5th best team in the league every seasons and they didn't lose starters while still spending money on the transfer market(outside of one summer).

Just an example of the players they sold to achieve that net spend, these are the players after Walker in terms of fee. Wimmer, Chadli, Mason, Townsend, Soldado, Bentaleb, Paulinho, Sigurdsson, Pritchard, etc. Tottenham recouped around 230 millions out of these players that were unwanted and then you have 52 more millions for Walker.

In reality Tottenham spent money, found good players, kept them and sold a lot of dross for good money. I would say that it's fair to applaud Pochettino for helping many of these players achieve their potentials but it's not accurate to act as if Tottenham didn't spend money, I made that point in an other thread but Pochettino had more money to spend than Simeone but he did worse and while I already know that some will claim that La Liga is easier, good luck explaining Tottenham's EL performances.

Good post as always, two things to add:
- obviously, to claim that winning La Liga, twice, with Atletico against the duopoly of Barca and Real is "easier" would be wrong
- however, I'm not sure how much of a slight it is on Pochettino, to say that he hasn't done as good as Simeone, who of course has an absolutely extraordinary record. "Not as good as Simeone" is not something I would consider an insult, or as necessarily prohibitive of hiring someone.

 

[JPRouve]

Good post as always, two things to add:
- obviously, to claim that winning La Liga, twice, with Atletico against the duopoly of Barca and Real is "easier" would be ridiculous
- however, I'm not sure how much of a slight it is on Pochettino, to say that he hasn't done as good as Simeone, who of course has an absolutely extraordinary record. "Not as good as Simeone" is not something I would consider an insult, or necessarily prohibitive of hiring someone.

It's not meant as a slight. I believe that at some point we need to scale things though, if Pochettino did an excellent job then what do you say about Simeone? Objectively there is no reason to say that Pochettino did an excellent job, managers with similar records aren't praised as much as he has been, he has done a good job and is a good manager.

 

[ManchesterManchester]

Agreed. I can totally understand the reservations about going for a manager who's seemingly on a downward slope* compared to somebody like Ten Haag who's on an upward trajectory and enjoys a growing reputation, it's more the revisionist history with Pochettino. The whole 'serial loser' thing is built not just on his current spell at PSG but on his career as a whole, when I doubt anybody would have expected him to win a trophy at Espanyol, or Southampton, or even Spurs. He's penalized for losing a CL final and finishing as a runner-up in the PL when nobody expected Spurs to be close to winning either of these competitions.

Yeah great points. I think Poch has done a fantastic job at the clubs he has been and proven he’s an amazing manager. If anything, I think he is guilty of lacking ambition and staying at Tottenham too long.

 

[DannyCAFC]

I'm not ignoring a thing, they weren't challenging that's a fact, you can't give him credit for challenging and then claim that they weren't actually challenging because there were mammoth teams during that time.

As for net spendings this is probably my favorite argument. They achieved that net spending by selling flops, bench players and castoffs that weren't playing for good money, during Pochettino's tenure the only starter that they sold was Walker. On paper Tottenham had the 3rd to 5th best team in the league every seasons and they didn't lose starters while still spending money on the transfer market(outside of one summer).

Just an example of the players they sold to achieve that net spend, these are the players after Walker in terms of fee. Wimmer, Chadli, Mason, Townsend, Soldado, Bentaleb, Paulinho, Sigurdsson, Pritchard, etc. Tottenham recouped around 230 millions out of these players that were unwanted and then you have 52 more millions for Walker.

In reality Tottenham spent money, found good players, kept them and sold a lot of dross for good money. I would say that it's fair to applaud Pochettino for helping many of these players achieve their potentials but it's not accurate to act as if Tottenham didn't spend money, I made that point in an other thread but Pochettino had more money to spend than Simeone but he did worse and while I already know that some will claim that La Liga is easier, good luck explaining Tottenham's EL performances.

We're getting in to semantics here. By 'challenging' I'm referring simply to being a top 2/3 team in the league which they were on several occasions. We can debate the points thing all day, if a team is 3 points off the top spot in March but falls away in the final couple of months and finishes 12 points off, will revisionist history say they were never title challengers? The 86 points and +60 GD Spurs achieved in 2016/17 would have won them the league last year as an another example.

The likes of Chelsea, Liverpool and City have recouped a tonne of money selling sold squad players for excellent fees too during that period, yet their overall net spend is still significantly higher than Spurs. Let's not act like the amount of money these teams were actually spending in the transfer market was at all similar. The only players they spent more than £15m on in Poch's 5 full seasons there were Son, Sissoko, Sanchez, Moura, Aurier, Janssen. That's it.

It's not like the money they recouped he went out and spent on ready made world-class players. I don't think he signed a single player where fans of other top 4 clubs were thinking at the time 'we should have gone for him' (maybe with the exception of Moura, though I don't remember the majority on this forum being all that keen on him when he looked available at PSG). And yet he produced a team that consistently finished in the top 4 and got to the final stages of cup competitions.

 

[JPRouve]

I get the point, and you're right about scaling and putting things in relation, personally I think though there's the possibility to do an 'excellent' job as a manager without doing as good as Simeone.
Obviously, it's down to how everyone qualifies the terms they use and how generously they want to apply them, a bit like the use of "world class".

Would "very good" be ok with you, for Pochettino?

Honestly I can't. I used to be high on Pochettino but I can't justify the fact that with Tottenham he got eliminated by the likes of Crystal Palace, West ham, Gent, Fiorentina and also being mauled by Dortmund. I don't see how you can be seen as very good, excellent or amazing when you can't beat decent teams in cups and also can't win the league.

I don't see what we are evaluating in order to reach that conclusion, especially when we are not talking about a poor or midtable club(From Redknapp to Pochettino first year Tottenham's average position was 5.3, under Pochettino it was 3.4 which is good but not great).

 

[DomesticTadpole]

People really have short-term memories don't they - why are we forgetting Pochettino did an excellent job at both Southampton and Spurs?

Yes he didn't win a trophy at Spurs, but it was a surprise they were challenging in some of these competitions as it was.

The biggest stain on him is not winning the league last year, but even then there's the caveat that they were 3rd when he took over and his PPG was better than Tuchel's over the first half of that campaign.

I'm not saying he's a better appointment than Ten Haag, but the fact people are making him out to be trash now is comical considering the love-in a before this season.

Think with Poch you worry if the stint at PSG has affected him. He will get a shock that is is coming from one team led by spoilt brats to another team led by spoilt brats. If we get the good at Spurs Poch we might get somewhere. He cannot let the players try to run everything.

 

[Abraxas]

Personally I would say it has way more applicability to players than managers. Being a leader is a pretty universal skill, language barriers aside. "Adapting" tactically is not that extraordinary for a manager, in fact it is their job. To evolve a side, to approach each game and indeed league on its merits or to impose a vision across a side that works. That is management.

However with players it's foolhardy to try and claim that demonstrating ability in the league isn't important. It's not a defining factor, it doesn't matter how many Silva's or Maguire's get thrown about, the devil is in the detail with transfers. When you appraise risk on a transfer adaptation is one factor, and if you can reduce the risk exposure on that point it's a nice bonus. It doesn't mean auto success or failure, that's not the idea.

 

[DannyCAFC]

Think with Poch you worry if the stint at PSG has affected him. He will get a shock that is is coming from one team led by spoilt brats to another team led by spoilt brats. If we get the good at Spurs Poch we might get somewhere. He cannot let the players try to run everything.

Yeah this is obviously a concern. Similarly with ETH though there's a concern that he's not managed players with this level of ego before either, so it's new territory for him.

 

[lsd]

Yeah great points. I think Poch has done a fantastic job at the clubs he has been and proven he’s an amazing manager. If anything, I think he is guilty of lacking ambition and staying at Tottenham too long.

I think if it's a choice between the two of them you have to to look at which one had proved themselves at the highest level regardless of if it's in the premiership and that is always going to be Poch.


Poch has managed in tougher league has a lot more experience and shown a lot more. Add in he is the younger manager and it's not really that hard a choice.

Ten Hag is just too much of an unknown quantity

 

[lsd]

Yeah this is obviously a concern. Similarly with ETH though there's a concern that he's not managed players with this level of ego before either, so it's new territory for him.

Plus I would say the fact Poch has had to deal with what is really a toxic environment in PSG not to mention the egos of Neymar and co it gives him a huge advantage over Ten Hag who has never had to deal with anything like that

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Yeah this is obviously a concern. Similarly with ETH though there's a concern that he's not managed players with this level of ego before either, so it's new territory for him.

That is the problem with being a United fan, how our great teams has been forgotten and every season we want the next big shiny toy instead of looking at things sensibly, that signing a lot of big egos lead to big problems. A lot of managers at other big clubs have fallen foul of that. Think that is why a lot of fans want a reset and for us to start again. That we have learnt our lesson. Just can't see it happening. We are a commercial enterprise not a football club. We as a club and fans have got arrogant and are now paying the price. Click Central.

 

[Leftback99]

A bit of a ridiculous condition since 80% of clubs never "win anything" anyway.
How about we go about it the other way, you list the "PL proven" managers, i.e. managers who took over a big club used to winning after coaching PL before, and who won the title?

In the end, the result will be clear: In order to win the PL, you need to hire the best, be it players or managers, and with football being played and coached everywhere in the world, the best players and managers, in the majority of cases, do not emerge in England but elsewhere, before coming to England because of the financial power of the league.

All that will prove is that playing squads are more important than any manager, it's why even SAF didn't win the league every year.

Nothing anyone says in here is going to prove that having experience of the PL isn't a useful attribute.

 

[JPRouve]

We're getting in to semantics here. By 'challenging' I'm referring simply to being a top 2/3 team in the league which they were on several occasions. We can debate the points thing all day, if a team is 3 points off the top spot in March but falls away in the final couple of months and finishes 12 points off, will revisionist history say they were never title challengers? The 86 points and +60 GD Spurs achieved in 2016/17 would have won them the league last year as an another example.

The likes of Chelsea, Liverpool and City have recouped a tonne of money selling sold squad players for excellent fees too during that period, yet their overall net spend is still significantly higher than Spurs. Let's not act like the amount of money these teams were actually spending in the transfer market was at all similar. The only players they spent more than £15m on in Poch's 5 full seasons there were Son, Sissoko, Sanchez, Moura, Aurier, Janssen. That's it.

It's not like the money they recouped he went out and spent on ready made world-class players. I don't think he signed a single player where fans of other top 4 clubs were thinking at the time 'we should have gone for him'. And yet he produced a team that consistently finished in the top 4 and got to the final stages of cup competitions.

Yes we are talking about things having a meaning. They weren't challenging that's a fact, the only revisionism is to try to squeeze a challenge by going with things like up until March or the last couple of months as if these aren't part of the season. Also using different seasons and make the point that they would have won the league makes no sense, during different seasons you play different teams, you have yourself a different team and dynamic, nothing tells you that the 16/17 teams get 86 points in 20/21.

And no one said that they spent the same amount as Chelsea, Liverpool or City. Who exactly said that? Now let me ask you this on paper was Tottenham's starting eleven far from Liverpool's or Chelsea's starting eleven because that's what matters, football isn't played with running and tacking bags of money. When it comes to having the ability to keep a team together I'm totally behind analysing clubs's accounting books but in this case it's disingenuous we both know that Tottenham didn't lose players and that the base of their team was made on the back of signing very good players for relatively cheap.

Just to highlight that point Kane has objectively been the best striker in the PL since 2014 but he counts for zero in the net spendings, Alderweireld and Vertonghen combined cost less than Mangala but they were far better than Mangala. The same applies to Eriksen, Son, Davies, Trippier, Dembélé or Alli. At some point football fans and in particular PL fans need to take a step back from accounting and look at what is actually on the field. You don't need to spend like City to have a very good team, during the 2010s Real Madrid had a negative net spendings, simply because they spend well and then sold their surplus that's what Tottenham did.

So there is no point talking about net spend, we both know that Tottenham had excellent players and kept those excellent players. And yes they got many of them at a better fee than many other PL clubs would have but that's irrelevant when it comes to evaluate the manager and the team performances. Kane wouldn't be a better player if Tottenham spent 150m to get him.

 

[ManchesterManchester]

I think if it's a choice between the two of them you have to to look at which one had proved themselves at the highest level regardless of if it's in the premiership and that is always going to be Poch.

Poch has managed in tougher league has a lot more experience and shown a lot more. Add in he is the younger manager and it's not really that hard a choice.

Ten Hag is just too much of an unknown quantity

Good points. Except, I would debate with you that I think Poch being proven actually goes against him. All he has proved is he can’t win trophies. I understand he worked with no financial backing yet still managed to play attractive football and finish well and I give him huge recognition for that.

As for age, that’s just a number surely. Mourinho was burnt out at a young age as he started being successful so young, Poch could be similar. Just because ETH has started his rise untraditionally late in life, it’s clear his trajectory is on the up.

 

[DannyCAFC]

Yes we are talking about things having a meaning. They weren't challenging that's a fact, the only revisionism is to try to squeeze a challenge by going with things like up until March or the last couple of months as if these aren't part of the season. Also using different seasons and make the point that they would have won the league makes no sense, during different seasons you play different teams, you have yourself a different team and dynamic, nothing tells you that the 16/17 teams get 86 points in 20/21.

And no one said that they spent the same amount as Chelsea, Liverpool or City. Who exactly said that? Now let me ask you this on paper was Tottenham's starting eleven far from Liverpool's or Chelsea's starting eleven because that's what matters, football isn't played with running and tacking bags of money. When it comes to having the ability to keep a team together I'm totally behind analysing clubs's accounting books but in this case it's disingenuous we both know that Tottenham didn't lose players and that the base of their team was made on the back of signing very good players for relatively cheap.

Just to highlight that point Kane has objectively been the best striker in the PL since 2014 but he counts for zero in the net spendings, Alderweireld and Vertonghen combined cost less than Mangala but they were far better than Mangala. The same applies to Eriksen, Son, Davies, Trippier, Dembélé or Alli. At some point football fans and in particular PL fans need to take a step back from accounting and look at what is actually on the field. You don't need to spend like City to have a very good team, during the 2010s Real Madrid had a negative net spendings, simply because they spend well and then sold their surplus that's what Tottenham did.

So there is no point talking about net spend, we both know that Tottenham had excellent players and kept those excellent players. And yes they got many of them at a better fee than many other PL clubs would have but that's irrelevant when it comes to evaluate the manager and the team performances. Kane wouldn't be a better player if Tottenham spent 150m to get him.

OK, we just won't talk about the fact that the likes of City and Chelsea can go and pluck world class players from other teams and Spurs were signing the likes of Trippier, Davies, Dier and Alli for a pittance and turning them in to cornerstones of a side that routinely finished near the top of the league.

The fact that Pochettino gets zero credit from you for helping turning these signings in to the players they became, and similarly with Kane who'd only cracked the first team squad a couple of months before Poch arrived at the club, shows exactly the type of agenda I'm talking about.

 

[JPRouve]

OK, we just won't talk about the fact that the likes of City and Chelsea can go and pluck world class players from other teams and Spurs were signing the likes of Trippier, Davies, Dier and Alli for a pittance and turning them in to cornerstones of a team that routinely finished near the top of the league.

So Trippier, Davies, Dier and Alli were subpar players? Because that's the important point, I would totally understand you if we were talking about subpar players but it's not the case.

It really seems that you equate more expensive with better which is mainly not true.

 

[DannyCAFC]

So Trippier, Davies, Dier and Alli were subpar players? Because that's the important point, I would totally understand you if we were talking about subpar players but it's not the case.

It really seems that you equate more expensive with better which is mainly not true.

Tell me honestly any of those players would have been looked at as first team players by the likes of Chelsea, City, Utd.

Define 'subpar' - what I'm saying is none of these players were the level you would expect teams challenging for the top 4 to bring in to improve their first team. Trippier was playing in the Championship, Alli was in League One. Dier was hardly seen as a top prospect and Davies was decent at mid-table Swansea but not exactly pulling up trees.

 

[MUFC OK]

It's becoming cult like the delusional logic these Ten Hag supporters come up with and like a cult 99% of them know nothing about him but yet don't want any other way

So because they strongly favour him over a man who was sacked by spurs, it's a cult?

There's clearly only two realistic options so why is it delusional logic to want one?

 

[JPRouve]

Tell me honestly any of those players would have been looked at as first team players by the likes of Chelsea, City, Utd.

Define 'subpar' - what I'm saying is none of these players were the level you would expect teams challenging for the top 4 to bring in to improve their first team. Trippier was playing in the Championship, Alli was in League One. Dier was hardly seen as a top prospect and Davies was decent at mid-table Swansea but not exactly pulling up trees.

The likes of Chelsea, City and United looked at Mangala, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Aké, Schneiderlin, Darmian and I don't know what else as first team players. So not only I will tell you that they have looked at similar players almost every seasons, they have also looked at worse and been willing to spend more on them. These clubs aren't references when it comes to the transfer market, they may have more money but they don't have more sense or expertise.

Look I will stop there because you keep moving the goalpost and not simply judging the players for what they were. If you want to act as if they were poor players go ahead.

 

[DannyCAFC]

The likes of Chelsea, City and United looked at Mangala, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Aké, Schneiderlin, Darmian and I don't know what else as first team players. So not only I will tell you that they have looked at similar players almost every seasons, they have also looked at worse and be willing to spend more on them. These clubs aren't references when it comes to the transfer market, they may have more money but they don't have more sense or expertise.

Look I will stop there because you keep moving the goalpost and not simply judging the players for what they were. If you want to act as if they were poor players go ahead.

Look at the money they had to spend for the likes of Mangala and Bakayoko and the clubs they were linked with at the time and you will see the difference. Mangala was seen as one of the better CB prospects in world football for example, and Bakayoko was a key performer in a Monaco side that pipped PSG to the league title and made a strong run in the CL. This is aside from the fact those teams spent way more than those sums on other top-level players.

The amounts paid for the players we were talking about previously:

Davies - £10m
Trippier - £4.5m
Dier - £4m
Alli - £5m

Spurs must have had legendary levels of scouting/negotiators in place to sign all these guys you clearly perceive as ready-made, top class players, completely under the radar for next to nothing. Clearly they were all just waiting to be snatched up by any top 4 club and would have instantly improved those sides, as evidently Pochettino had nothing to do with their progression. Spurs just magically managed to find all these hugely undervalued players before any of the other sides it seems.

 

[Tom Cato]

You haven't proven it's not a useful thing.

He has submitted statistical data that suggests being PL proven is not important, but rather being great your job.

Not directed at you, but I often wonder about the "He isnt PL proven" comment and how it could harbor any relevance in the larger picture. English teams go into Europe every season and every year they get absolutely spanked by teams from "inferior" leagues.