In an era of Galácticos, oil ball, and 300,000-a-week wages, it’s easy to view football as a revolution. When something is wrong, blow it up and start over. Avram Grant not working out? Try Ancelotti. Ancelotti not the ticket? Go for AVB. If Ronaldo and Kaka aren’t enough to be beat Barcelona, maybe Ronaldo, Kaka and The Special One will be. If a group of mostly-academy grads isn’t enough to hold off Madrid, add Alexis Sanchez and academy washout Cesc Fabregas—even though you’re already millions in debt.
In the world of football, it’s easy to think that no one has small problems. No one has a light switch that doesn’t work or a leaky faucet. Everyone has a house that just burned to the ground (probably due to fireworks in the bathroom). But despite the obsession with full-scale revolution, football clubs can still have small problems. Sometimes subtle-but-significant changes can be the difference between Thursday night football in Larnaca and competing for the Premier League title. For proof, look no further than Tottenham Hotspur.
When Spurs supporters—and, I’ll admit it up front, I’m one of them—remember April 14, 2010 they remember it as the “Danny Rose Game,” the match in which emergency-starter and 18-year-old Spurs debutant Danny Rose hit a miracle volley to beat Arsenal keeper Manuel Almunia in the 10th minute. Spurs went on to win the match 2-1 and rode the momentum of their first league victory over Arsenal in 11 years all the way to 4th place in the Premiership and a berth in the Champions League.
But it’s possible that the most significant goal of the day wasn’t Rose’s wonder strike, but the second that came at the beginning of the second half. Rose wasn’t the only new starter at wing for Spurs that day. The other was a young Welshman named Gareth Bale. Early in the second half, Jermain Defoe picked out an uncharacteristically well-placed pass to hit Bale in stride, cutting behind the Gunners defense. Bale slotted home coolly to give Spurs a 2-0 lead which Brazilian keeper Gomes made stand in his finest hour in a Spurs shirt.
Only a few months before this match, Bale had been an afterthought for Spurs. On opening day, he wasn’t even in the squad as Luka Modric started on the left wing while Tom Huddlestone and Wilson Palacios patrolled midfield. He was a 90th minute sub in a 3-0 home victory over Manchester City that December. He didn’t start until January in a disappointing 0-0 home draw with Hull. The conventional wisdom in England at the time was that Bale was too much of a defensive liability to play left back. In most cases, Bale’s story would end there. If he were a Chelsea or Manchester City player, he would’ve been branded a failure, loaned out and straggled along in footballing purgatory for several seasons and perhaps never recovered.
Thankfully for Bale, Harry Redknapp saw more than an over-ambitious left back with defensive weaknesses that made him a liability. He saw a wideman with searing pace and a fantastic left foot. Late in the season, he shifted Bale to left wing. Spurs rode the shift to the aforementioned 2-1 win over Arsenal followed by massive away victories against Chelsea and Manchester City. To the question, “how did Spurs go from perennial-underachievers to Champions League quarter-finalists and now a contender for the Premiership title?” one of the answers must surely be Bale’s move. Spurs had a problem: they lacked pace on the left to complement Aaron Lennon’s on the right. But where other clubs would splash out big money on an expensive transfer, Spurs shifted Gareth Bale forward.
A similar move can be credited for Luka Modrić’s equally meteoric rise. At the beginning of his Spurs career, Modrić was deployed on the left with Huddlestone playing the role of distributor in the middle and Palacios in the destroyer role. But when a drop in form caused Palacios to lose his spot, Redknapp shifted Modrić into the center, which was actually Modrić’s preferred position. He had made his name playing in the center at Dinamo Zagreb. When he moved to the Premier League, he’d been moved out wide in order to avoid the bruising tacklers that filled many Premiership midfields. But as with Bale, the shifting of Modrić proved more effective than the size of the change would suggest. Using his good sense of balance, fantastic body control and deceptive strength, Modric coped effectively with the best destroyers English football could throw at him. And with his ability to play the ball and natural touch, he quickly developed into the best deep-lying playmaker this side of Andrea Pirlo.
The combined price Spurs paid for these two players? 23 million pounds. A fee also known as “what Liverpool paid for Charlie Adam and Jordan Henderson,” 12 million less than what they spent on Andy Carroll, and not even half of what Chelsea paid for an out-of-form Spanish striker.
Subtle but significant changes are the foundation of Spurs’ entire philosophy. Many have commented on the club’s form over the past few months. Yet for all their dominance, the side is extremely similar to the one that struggled for goals last year and dropped four points to West Brom, five to West Ham, five to Blackpool, and five to Wigan.
What changed? Part of it is simply luck and the natural maturation of footballers: Ledley King is healthy and Kyle Walker has taken hold at right back. But the biggest changes came via the transfer market. Anyone who watched Spurs last year knew that the team needed two things for sure and possibly a third: a steady keeper, a target man, and maybe a bit more steel in midfield. If Sheikh Mansour, Abramovich or anyone at Real Madrid or Barca faced those problems you’d know what’s coming: a 30 to 40 million pound striker, a 12 million pound destroyer and a six to eight million pound keeper. And that’s a baseline. Realistically, they’d probably spend more than that. And on top of the transfer fees, you’d have the striker on close to £200k a week and the other new arrivals on something between £80 and £120k a week. That’s the MARIO BALOTELLI!! approach to building a football team and it’s all the rage in today’s game.
But sometimes teams have minor problems. That point may be lost on Roman Abramovich, but Daniel Levy gets it. So his Spurs favor more modest moves: A loan deal for an out-of-favor striker at Man City (which includes City paying a fair part of his absurd wage), a free transfer for an aging but sturdy American keeper and, perhaps most importantly, a small, five million pound signing of a footballer whose talent and heart were never in doubt but whose age scared off other suitors. True, changing a quarter of your first XI probably pushes the definition of a “small but subtle changes,” but the point is that in both man-management and the transfer market, Tottenham prefer a more modest approach that complements existing parts. In the West Brom game recently, the transfer-fee costs of the entire Spurs first XI were around 50 million pounds—the same price as one Fernando Torres.
Clearly, revolution garners headlines. And sometimes it creates thrilling football, as we’ve seen with this year’s Man City and the current edition of the Galácticos. But more often than not, a team’s problems are smaller than their supporters or ownership might first expect. Oftentimes, it often turns out that a team is only one or two small moves away from glory. It’s a refreshing truth to keep in mind when so many believe that trophies can be bought and sold at the price of a barrel of oil.
Jake Meador is a writer and editor who lives in Lincoln NE where he often feels like the lone soccer fan drowning in a sea of football-obsessed red. He blogs on sports, culture, politics, economics and theology at Notes from a Small Place.
Read More: Tottenham
by Jake Meador · December 15, 2011
[contact-form 5 'Email form']
Wonderful article. As a supporter of one of those oil-rich clubs, I’m often left shaking my head at transfers and transfer rumors. These not-so-simple but cost-effective solutions are going to be necessary in the new era of Uefa financial controls.
Chelsea could have bought Parker, but didn’t. I wanted it soooo badly. Sigh.
hi long time reader, first time errr caller.
do we know if they applied moneyball principles to make these moves?
great article. sums up what i always believe in soccer/football — it’s the little things that count.
HA! Tottenham are 5th in net spend in the transfer market since 1992. Yeah, it was the subtle shift that paid off with Bale but let’s not forget that Harry’s wheeling and dealing in the transfer market over the last five years. His approach is to buy any and every player he can get his hands on and sell every player that anyone will buy.
And the West Brom figure is hilarious. The reason your starting XI “only” cost £50m is because Bassong (£9m), van der Vaart (£8m), Gomes (£10m), Pav (£15m), and Modric (£16m) were all left out. Which you could argue means that Spurs fielded their second team, which cost them £50m.
Congrats on not using any “oil money” to build a team that managed a top four finish for the first time in their Premier League history. Viva la revolution!
Beautifully and insight- fully put.
Indeed, it is ridiculously crazy to what extents some clubs dig into the pockets for silverware (or goldware in this case) when only what is needed in some cases is a few logical alterations in player playing positions.
Btw, ever thought of Gerald Pique playing as a striker! I bet he is capable of being a real danger in defences.
@Tim – All fair points. I’d offer a few counters, though:
a) Yes, Spurs are fifth on transfer spending since the Prem began, but the lion’s share of that spending came during a three or four year period of insanity when Commoli (he of the 20 million pound deal for Henderson) was handling our transfers. Clearly, that period left a bad taste in Levy’s mouth and we’ve been FAR more prudent since then. Commoli did hit a few home runs for us – Huddlestone, Bale and Modric most significantly – but there were so many dumb signings – bringing Keane back, Bentley, GDS, etc. – that we ended up spending stupid money for an inferior squad.
b) Yes, the West Brom figure is artificially low because it doesn’t include Modric or Van der Vaart. But even so, we put together a squad for 50 million pounds that comfortably beat a Roy Hodgson side on the road. Hodgson excels with clubs of West Brom’s size and the Hawthorns is a tricky place to play. And we handled them convincingly.
My point here isn’t to say the Spurs are some kind of Oakland Athletics club that manages to win on a barebones budget. Spurs have money. Not in the amounts that the other big 6 do, but we’re considerably ahead of the other 13 – save Newcastle, perhaps. But for the last several years, it’s been the North London sides that are the most financially stable in the Prem.
@Dago – Yep, I couldn’t believe that Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea all passed on Parker this summer. I suppose they thought they were set at holding midfield with Song, Lucas and Essien respectively, but esp. after Essien went down I would’ve thought Chelsea would jump at the chance to add Parker. He’s the sort of glue guy who makes a team tick even when he doesn’t generate gaudy numbers. But then again, that’s just the problem with Abramovich’s approach, isn’t it?
@rapunzel – Here’s a laugh: Damion Comolli and Billy Beane – the pioneer of sabermetrics and moneyball – are good friends. So the most explicit connections between the Prem and moneyball are quite puzzling: The friend of the biggest moneyball proponent in sports signed Jordan Henderson for 20 million, Andy Carroll for 35, Darren Bentley for 16, Gomes for 10, and Pavlyuchenko for 15. Totally bewildering.
A couple thoughts connected to that: First, I think sabermetric works far better in more rigid sports like American football and baseball. In more fluid, free-flowing games like basketball, soccer and hockey I think it’s much less reliable. Second, I think moneyball can sometimes become the tail that wags the dog. Klosterman hinted at this in his recent piece on Tebow. Evaluating Tebow objectively, any sabermetrics person will scream. But that’s the sort of simplified, reductionistic analysis that plagues sabermetrics. We can become so obsessed with all our complicated, compound word statistics that we can forget obvious things like winning the game and ignore basic intuitive feelings we get about a player. I think sabermetrics have their place, of course, but they have to be supplemented with years of experience scouting talent on an individual basis. Otherwise the Tebows, Robert Horrys, and Paul O’Neills of the world will be missed completely.
Spurs are 3rd in net spent for the last decade: http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/08/12/arsenals-net-spending-of-48m-in-a-decade-puts-them-9th-in-premier-league-120802/
@Jake Meador
Great article! That said, I (partially) disagree with you assertion that “… sabermetric works far better in more rigid sports like American football and baseball. In more fluid, free-flowing games like basketball, soccer and hockey I think it’s much less reliable.”
Baseball, of course, provides the best opportunity for statistical analysis and stastistics-driven decision making in American sports, but I definitely would not put (American) football second. For me, that position would fall to basketball.
At bottom, sports in which the largest number of actions during the game are quantifiable lend themselves to statistical analysis. This is true of baseball (hits, walks, runs batted in, chances, put-outs, etc.) and basketball (shots, makes, free throws, rebounds, assists, etc.). While certain aspects of (American) football are quantifiable, there are many more aspects of the game (best example = blocking) that are much harder to put into numbers.
In the end, it’s fairly easy to statistically evaluate every player on a baseball team or a basketball team, but while some football positions lend themselves to quantitative analysis (QB, WR), others definitely do not (how do you put numbers on a left guard?)
@ Jake Meador. “we dont have the money of the other 6 top clubs” Yet you are still the team that spent 5th most since the PL started? Who are the “other” 6?
“Yep, I couldn’t believe that Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea all passed on Parker this summer. I suppose they thought they were set at holding midfield with Song, Lucas and Essien respectively, but esp. after Essien went down I would’ve thought Chelsea would jump at the chance to add Parker. He’s the sort of glue guy who makes a team tick even when he doesn’t generate gaudy numbers. But then again, that’s just the problem with Abramovich’s approach, isn’t it?”
Actually the Abramovitch approach used to be to buy Scott Parker, which Chelsea once did when he was much younger. But the club instead dipped into Barca’s academy and bought a young midfielder Romeu who looked pretty damn impressive against Manchester City.
Isn’t buying a 31-year-old midfielder with a reported 70k weekly wage packet and a history of injuries sort of arguing against the point you are trying to make here, Jake?
@Jake Meador You beat a side with a £50m squad. A WBA side that spent less than £50m in the last decade.
@Will Haha, wow, I let that one pass.
This article keeps getting more and more odd, the more i read it and its comments. I’m trying to grab a hold of something – like “how did Spurs go from perennial-underachievers to Champions League quarter-finalists and now a contender for the Premiership title?” But there is nothing special here. They just bought the right players, while not up there with Chelsea and City – Tottenham still edge out Man Utd and Liverpool the past 10 years.
Not exactly a mircle on ice is it.
@Dave One thing left unmentioned by this piece about Spurs’ relative success is one of the key components of this year’s side — Emmanuel Adebayor — is only there because City are massively underwriting his wages (reportedly paying 100k of his 170k/week earnings).
@Will Left unmentioned, except when he mentioned it: “A loan deal for an out-of-favor striker at Man City (which includes City paying a fair part of his absurd wage), …”
I quite enjoyed this article and love the site, but I don’t think I agree with the point you are trying to make (if I am understanding correctly). My problem is that you have RETROSPECTIVELY chosen two examples of “little tweaks” that happened to work out very well for Spurs, and then seem to argue that these types of small moves are often better than big money buys. Its a little like saying, “You should invest in small internet start-ups instead of S&P500 stocks – I mean, if you put some capital into facebook and Groupon a few years back, and shorted your stocks in ’09, you’d be rich!”. Of course you can pick these things out in hind sight, the problem is doing it in real time. So, these two moves happen to work out for Spurs, but what about all of the 100s of other “little tweaks” that teams try that go nowhere? And sure, sometimes big money buys don’t work out. But if you are looking to fill a hole in the winger role, a $15 million buy might work out 70% of the time, while converting a failed left-back might work out 10% of the time (all numbers completely fabricated, obviously, but you get the point).
So, Spurs are currently punching above their financial weight, and kudos to them, but I don’t think it is due to any foundational philosophy of “significant but subtle changes”. I think they got somewhat lucky and if you average their results out over a 5 yr window, they will correlate very well with their relative spending, as I expect would be the case for every other team.
Great conversation here, really enjoying it. I may add more later, but for now I just thought I’d post some numbers to help contextualize the discussion a bit.
Transfer numbers since 2008. You’ll see a significant drop in Spurs spending from the end of the Comolli era in 2008 to the present.
2008 (stats off each team’s 2008/2009 wiki page, each transfer cost listed is than sourced to at least one site)
Arsenal: 32
Chelsea: 24
Liverpool: 38
Man City: 122
Man Utd: 30
Spurs: 102
2009 (stats from wiki)
Arsenal: 10
Chelsea: 25
Liverpool: 41
Man City: 118
Utd: Three undisclosed fees for Valencia, Obertan and Mame Biram Diouf
Spurs: 28 million
2010 (stats from wiki)
Arsenal: 12
Chelsea: 100
Liverpool: 82
Man City: 143
Man Utd: Five undisclosed transfer fees for Vermijil, Smalling, Hernandez, Bebe and Lindegaard
Spurs: 18.5
2011 (stats from http://www.betinf.com/england_transfer.htm)
Arsenal: 60.7
Chelsea: 78.7
Liverpool: 69.1
Manchester City: 82
Manchester Utd: 57.7
Spurs: 5.6
Cumulative spending for each club since 2008:
Arsenal: 114.7
Chelsea: 227.7
Liverpool: 230.1
Manchester City: 465 (!)
Manchester United: 87.7 (equally !)
Spurs: 154.1
Ha , ha, comparing City’s transfers strategy with Barca’s, epic fail. The catalans buy players for very big fees only when they don’t have a very good player on that position coming up from the youth teams. Which I think it’s very logical, especially when you have a 400+ budget.
I can see the point you are trying to make but just because it worked at one club, it doesn’t mean it will have the same succes at other clubs. Not everybody has a player such as Bale in their squad. And to be honest, without big spending, what Tottenham achieved last season, I think it will remain their best performance for the years to come. Real Madrid trashed them in the CL and this year they couldn’t qualify out of a group with Shamrock, Paok and Rubin Kazan. I don’t really see them finishing higher than 5th this season but that’s just my opinion.
Football is always eleven against eleven. Money is useless if there isn’t intelligent thought behind its spending.
@Jake Meador Wow. I hate being all annoying… but wow.
You’ve just made all your hints and remarks about Chelsea and City obsolete. So what if they recieve oil/gas money, they might be selling for as much?
A lot of the points I intended to make have already been made quite intelligently – especially the one about Spurs having spent so much in the transfer market during Comolli’s era with mixed results, that Levy was always going to be more cautious now. So let me focus on one pet peeve – the supposed apotheosis of the Right Hon. Harry Redknapp. I’m sure he’s a delightful chap and his little tidbits are great at keeping the press on his side – thereby proving he’s actually quite shrewd – but let’s not get carried away. Switching Bale to left wing was pretty much the only option available, other than writing him off completely. As a young player he was inevitably compared to Giggs and if I’m not mistaken the only reason he came to Spurs as a ‘left back’ was because of his stated preference to play there. Kudos for sticking with a young, promising player, but it’s not quite John Toshack’s bringing Xabi Alonso back from Eibar and making him first team captain at 19, is it? What I’m getting at is, I can’t shake the impression of Redknapp as stumbling and bumbling through a managerial career and somehow being hailed as a messiah, due in great part to his nationality.
I also enjoyed the point Nick made about retrospective praise. Surely the transfer traffic at Spurs sufficiently displays the topsy-turvy nature of managerial and chairman-erial (?) decisions anyway? Granted, they’ve been far more stable since Comolli left but with a more settled squad and possibly a need to clamp down, that should be expected anyway.
OK, I have time for a few more substantive responses, so here goes:
1) Let’s all just agree from the outset that Damion Comolli is what happens when an NBA general manager makes all the personnel decisions for a Premiership side. If you take away his spending at Spurs and Liverpool, the transfer fees spent by all six clubs becomes much more what you’d expect: City in a stratosphere all their own, Chelsea lagging behind City but still well ahead of everyone else, and the remaining four all adopting their own approaches premised on more limited fees.
2) I think Nick’s point is important. After all, Arsenal tends to operate on a similar philosophy but hasn’t looked nearly so shrewd since their young stars and risky buys haven’t panned out nearly so well. That said, there’s always a mixture of luck and brilliance in these sorts of clubs. Have Redknapp and Levy been very lucky at times? Of course. But at the same time, they have made good decisions that have served the club well and allowed it to achieve far more than many have expected.
3) Evan – The point isn’t to say Barca have the same transfer policy as City. Clearly, they don’t. But do they still splash out huge sums of money even when they don’t really need to? Yeah, they do. 46 million plus Eto’o for Ibra? 40 million for Villa? Around 65 million for Cesc and Sanchez? I just don’t get it. When they bought Ibra, they had Eto’o (and I rate Eto’o higher than Ibra anyway… especially for Barca’s style). When they bought Villa, they had Ibra (an unhappy, Ibra, admittedly, but still Ibra). When they bought Cesc, they had Thiago Alcantara. When they bought Sanchez, they had Pedro. I love watching Barca play (and am quite excited for what they’ll try with Villa being out for the next 4-5 months) but, fiscally, they’re not that different from any other club.
Dave – Not following your last comment. How does posting those numbers make the observation that they spend more and exist in a state of perpetual revolution obsolete? If anything, I think those numbers prove what a huge gulf in finances exist between those two and the other four. Yeah, Spurs and Liverpool have had a couple binges where they spent more than they should (and left with precious little to show for it). Not trying to be dense, just trying to understand. How do those numbers refute the larger argument?
I went overboard (knowingly, but perhaps unnecessary) trying to prove that without looking at money earned from players sold, these figures are kind of useless. Would we be looking at Chelsea/City the way we are if they had huge youth departments making the club as much money as they spend on players?
No.
Lets say Arsenal sold their whole 2003/2004 invincible squad the year after. Or, lets say United sold their entire double winning team of 1999. Looking at the teams the year after – they would probably spend huge amounts to get the team back on track. Well, you get the point now.
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/1992-to-2011.html
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2003-2011.html
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html
and the link someone already posted in the comments above;
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/08/12/arsenals-net-spending-of-48m-in-a-decade-puts-them-9th-in-premier-league-120802/
The Spurs really are a shining light in the Premiership. Examples for clubs like Liverpool and Arsenal to follow.
@Jake Meador The reason that sabermetrics works better in the more “rigid sports” is because people have created valid constructs for winning in those sports (WAR, etc). Of course in soccer, the data sets are not as rich and don’t tend to attract the same level of attention from those wishing to use ecnometric modeling, but that does not mean that it can’t be done or that those methods are somehow insufficient. Its just not going to be as “clean”.
As to the point about Tebow, there is something similar going on when people point to the metrics to prove that he’s not any good. What is happening is that they misunderstand what constructs like QBR are supposed to demonstrate. The problem of “simplified, reductionistic analysis” is not a problem for the method. Its a problem for those applying the method.
In the end, sabermetrics (or econometrics) can be extremely useful in any situation where valid concepts can be created (most situations) and taken for what they are meant to demonstrate.
@Gareth Not going to disagree with you, but what is it they are supposed to take from Tottenham that they didnt already do? And why name two of the most succesful clubs? Surely you meant Leeds, Portsmouth, Blackburn or similar?
@Varun Deshpande: Yup yup. Spot on.
@Jake Meador: As a kinda-sorta Spurs fan, I have to disagree with just about everything in this article. It ascribes vision and purpose to what really amounts to random luck and old fashioned spending. THFC had an uncharacteristically good season. One. And they spent a lot to get it, too.
There goes the thesis.
The criticisms of Commoli’s transfer dealings miss the mark in many respects, because they assume that ‘Arry knows what he’s doing. That’s a mighty big assumption, unless you’re English. Dos Santos and Pavlyuchenko are world class players, not the stinkers you (and he) portray them as. So much for patient player selection, eh?
If GDS or Kranjcar or Pavlyuchenko (all players capable of phenomenal performances, when given half a chance) hadn’t fallen to the far side of ‘Arry’s Ouija board, you’d probably be praising him for their on-field brilliance, too.
This isn’t sour grapes. I actually built a spreadsheet last season to check and see if I was crazy. Pav had the highest strike rate of any forward on Tottenham’s squad… REGARDLESS OF METRIC. Last I checked, he had a little over a goal every 110 minutes. And he gets the worst kinds of minutes, too.
Where’s the subtle intelligence in benching him?
So we wait for the international break to see Kranjcar and GDS go on scoring sprees, single-handedly lifting their (highly ranked, mind you) national teams to victory in major competitions. We see Pletikosa (who might have sniffed the pitch once) as Croatia’s starting keeper make save after spectacular save. We see Pavlyuchenko bag 4 goals in 5 appearances.
But ‘Arry’s having none of it. He’s too wily to be fooled by good form. He’ll start Lennon for the millionth time, thankyouverymuch.
This post has run on too long already, so I’ll leave aside some of the other annoying bits (Levy breaking his verbal agreement with Modric, then trashing him in the press; ‘Arry playing Modric deep instead of at AM, where he’s a genius for club and country; Hutton being allowed to take the pitch) and say only this:
Nope.
I like the passion and verve, but the premise misses the mark. I want Tottenham to do well. But every once in awhile I look at the wreckage of Redknapp’s recent past and, well…
@Dave Spurs play a much better brand of football than these two teams. Teams like Leeds are not even in Spurs’ league. We are the true giants of London.
@Gareth Arsenal, who are regulars in the Champions League, should follow Spurs example? lol
@Will Yes, we play with flair and style in Europe. We have laid down the template of beating teams like AC Milan (the new and improved one) last year. Let’s see if Arsenal can come up with even half the performance that Spurs did. And yes – we absolutely battered Shamrock Rovers.
@Gareth Thanks, now we know that we can just ignore you.
@Brian Agree with many parts, especially the “It ascribes vision and purpose to what really amounts to random luck and old fashioned spending. THFC had an uncharacteristically good season. One. And they spent a lot to get it, too.” However. While I agree with you, I’d like to point out some things that is postives.
1. Tottenham’s style of play will win you games. That is something brought to the team by Harry. Sure, it is down to good players, but these players strive to play good football. It is not only a positive for the fans, but also for the club and… for points. City, Man U, Tottenham and Arsenal all have their own style of playing the game and… look at the table (Chelsea… well, I cant define them at least. Nowadays, they are basically relying on tonnes of experience and sporadic genius from Drogba and Juan Mata.)
2. I wouldnt call it random luck. I’d call it calculated risk, and it’s something that usually works. Downside is that you could (if things go bad) become another Liverpool, meaning you’ll hit some highs and then settle in at 5-7.
I basically disagree with the “players that should’ve been given a chance” part. I dont agree with it, since Tottenham are playing well, and I cant actually see where you are going with it. What would they have accomplished that the current team havent? Maybe I’m just misinterpreting you.
@Brian – Just wanted to say something briefly about your three players who you think need more minutes at Spurs.
First, you’d be hard-pressed to find a Spurs fan who doesn’t completely agree that Niko deserved more minutes last year. Every Spurs fan I know sympathized when Niko was talking about wanting out and, honestly, we all expected to see him go in January and again over the summer. We’re glad he’s there, but we understand his desire to leave. That being said, when Niko plays it dramatically changes our style. He’s much slower on the ball than any of our other players, which is probably why Harry didn’t play him as much last season. Last year we were a one trick pony: counter-attack. Niko isn’t a great fit in a counter-attacking side. The other difficulty with Niko is that we have better players available in all three of his positions: Out wide, Lennon and Bale are better (Lennon may not be better overall, I suppose, but he’s better for our style), in the hole Rafa is better and in the center Luka is better. His best spot for us is wide, but playing Niko wide functionally gives us an off-balance formation because we have tons of pace on one side and none on the other. Plus when Rafa is in the team, it’s hard to play Niko as well because that’s two slow players who don’t play defense at all. The best side for Niko to play in would be with him on the left, Lennon on the right (at least they both have a tendency to cut in toward the middle) with Defoe and Adebayor up front. Really, that’s a side I wouldn’t mind seeing HR trot out 3-4 times this season in the Prem, esp. over the hectic month to come.
Second, on GDS: Nearly everyone I know who supports Spurs agrees that a) he is a class player and b) he’s a horrific fit in Spurs and probably in the Premiership. He needs to be in a wide role in a 4-3-3. He cannot play wide in the role that Lennon plays because he’s not a true wing and he’d receive the ball too deep to be able to do much with it. The best spot he could have at Spurs is in the hole behind Adebayor, but I think VDV and Niko are both better choices to occupy that place (or even Modric, really), and I’d also put Defoe and a two man strike force ahead of an Ade/GDS pairing. That’s obviously a preference issue, but GDS just hasn’t shown enough in the Prem to justify playing him ahead of any of those guys. All that being said, he is an undeniable talent, but I don’t think he’ll ever find a place in the Prem. I think he’ll end up somewhere in Italy or, if he had his choice, Sevilla, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him excel there. I just think it’s a classic example of wrong player, wrong club.
Third, on Pav: We owe our spot in the CL to him, to be sure. He went on a goal-scoring tear and carried us to 4th at the end of the 09/10 campaign. That said, I think he’s one of those strikers where the stat line can be deceiving. The biggest strength Adebayor has brought us this year isn’t in his goals scored, but in all the little things he does well. He holds up play, he passes surprisingly well, and he’ll even drop deep to get the ball if that’s what he has to do (he’s set up several goals doing that this year). With Pav the trouble is that if he isn’t scoring, he isn’t doing anything. His passing is suspect, his work-rate abysmal, his link-up play with another striker or Rafa non-existent and it doesn’t take much to get into his head and knock him out of the game. With last year’s team, our problem was all we could do was counter-attack. So against sides that would attack us, we did very well, but against teams that parked the bus we struggled enormously. So Harry tried to cover that fatal flaw by playing the closest thing we had to a target man: Crouch. Pav is a sniper who drifts in and out of games so you can’t have him ahead of the bunch we had last year. He needs to play alongside a feisty striker with a high work-rate, someone like Robbie Keane, circa 2005, really. The trouble was Keane was past it last year and with Rafa we needed a striker who could play alone up top anyway. I think Pav still has a bright future in football, but I think he needs to go back to Russia to rediscover his game or he needs to find a spot at a club with a hard-working striker who will cover up his shortcomings. Of all the rumors I’ve heard, I think QPR would be the best fit for him, but we’ll see what happens in January.
@Dave Sure, you can ignore me. But you can’t ignore the mighty Spurs
@Dave
“Tottenham’s style of play will win you games. That is something brought to the team by Harry. Sure, it is down to good players, but these players strive to play good football.”
I absolutely agree that Tottenham’s style is attractive AND effective. And, to an extent, I agree that it’s due to Harry’s presence as coach. BUT, I think your point deserve reiteration: I don’t think it’s as intentional as Sky would like us to believe. Harry’s managerial approach is:
Step 1) Buy lots of decent players.
Step 2) Let the lads sort it out on the pitch.
If you’ve got decent players, it’s a great way to get entertaining, creative football. Unfortunately, it leaves you wide open for exploitation by more tactically aware teams.
“I basically disagree with the “players that should’ve been given a chance” part. I dont agree with it, since Tottenham are playing well, and I cant actually see where you are going with it. What would they have accomplished that the current team havent? Maybe I’m just misinterpreting you.”
Fair enough. It’s just my opinion. I was responding to one of the central points of the article, which attributed a subtle genius to Redknapp’s player selection.
And, according to that same humble opinion, Tottenham has more quality on the bench in many positions than on the pitch. Enough quality, in fact, to have gotten them into the UCL this year, had it been used appropriately. Harry’s lack of tactical and managerial depth was revealed by his poor player selection last season.
Sure, we can argue that the results justify the process. But for the money they’ve spent and the talent they’ve got, THFC had better be doing well.
@Brian “And, according to that same humble opinion, Tottenham has more quality on the bench in many positions than on the pitch. Enough quality, in fact, to have gotten them into the UCL this year, had it been used appropriately. Harry’s lack of tactical and managerial depth was revealed by his poor player selection last season.
Sure, we can argue that the results justify the process. But for the money they’ve spent and the talent got, THFC had better be doing well.”
Agreed. Tottenham should be a top 4 team, with the amount of money spent on players. If you look at recent years (remember, those of you reading this, that much of Arsenal’s and United’s money was spent well before the current squads, squads that has been rebuilt a few times since then) and not only since the Premier League started – Tottenham has been up there.
A few will now say that Liverpool has been doing the same, yes – you are right. Would you then say that Liverpool has been succesful at building squads season after season? No, you probably wouldnt. Good squads, yes. Premier League winners? No.
And the same surely has to apply to Tottenham.
@Jake Meador
I really enjoy the discussion and apologize for jumping down your throat upthread. I’ll try to keep a more respectful tone here, as I continue to disagree. 😉
1) If, as you say, Kranjcar and Van der Vaart fill similar roles and if, as your article states, THFC are adept at developing the talent they have, then why did they splash out £8m for VDV? That seems like a lot of money for a redundant player who tends to run out of steam by the second half.
To be clear, my point is not that Kranjcar is necessarily worlds better or should be playing ahead of VDV. My point is that the transfer seems to run counter to your thesis. The subsequent purchase of Pienaar really rams this point home, too.
2) The case of Dos Santos seems to be one of self-fulfilling prophecy. The usual chorus of “too delicate for the EPL” left him sidelined. His nationality probably didn’t help, either. Unable to get decent minutes, he’s now branded a washout. Catch-22.
Here again, THFC seems to be playing oil moneyball. They bought a talented kid for €11m, couldn’t figure out how to use him, then sent him into the wilderness for three years.
(As an aside, I think your assertion that Lennon is more capable with the ball at his feet is laughable. Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Roc2lf6Zek)
3) Sky Sports would love for us to believe that Pavlyuchenko is a lazy goal poacher. A closer look reveals one of the most astute positional forwards in the league. Watch his Euro 08 performances. Sure, he doesn’t run around a bunch. But if he’s guilty of being a poor passer and defender, then how can Adebayor be starting ahead of him?
By the way, Pav added yet another goal to that deceptive stat line of his today after yet another substitute appearance. He sure does score a lot for a third-choice striker!
“now a contender for the Premiership title”
LOL
@Brian “Here again, THFC seems to be playing oil moneyball. They bought a talented kid for €11m, couldn’t figure out how to use him, then sent him into the wilderness for three years.”
I think this account exonerates Dos Santos when he deserves at least part of the blame for his situation. By all accounts, he is very talented and has put together some impressive displays in CONCACAF competitions, but has not gotten very many minutes at Spurs. He has also been injured for long periods, consistenly said to lack commitment to training, and possess an all around terrible attitude. To put it all down to the club’s inability to figure out how to use him seems a bit of an oversimplification. Gio is culpable for not making much of an effort either.
@Robert Excellent point. I stand corrected. I let my enthusiasm get the better of me.
Nice blog, even if it’s a little Spur biased. I really enjoy watching Tottenham play. They have pace, precision, & intelluct. Their up there w/Man C.(this year, bc I hated watching them play for draws last year), Man U, Arsenal, & QPR on my PL watchlist. Don’t kid yourself by thinking that the Spurs aren’t one of the biggest teams in the PL. I saw a report on PL teams net worth and they were top 5. The money is there to spend, Levy just doesn’t do it. Which I admire and respect.
As a Blaugrana fan I take exception to your comment about piling on the debt. Almost every club operates in red except maybe Arsenal. We inked a deal worth millions w/the Qatar Foundation and have generated as much in the CL the last 3 seasons, so we were able to spend the money this summer w/out taking the total of the loans on as debt. Cesc was bought at rock bottom rate for his talent and ability, especially since he’s only 24!!! Alexis cost a bit more then I thought we should pay for him, but he’s proving a real difference maker. He has the pace to get by anybody(see 1st goal vs Madrid) and the supply(don’t even need to mention) will be there for him to finish. With Villa’s form dipping before his injury and Pedro out most of the season so far, you could say he’s been our most important player this season. We rely heavily on La Masia to provide most of our squad. Look no further than our 1st team and go back and watch the last CL game & CDR game to see the talent coming through. Rosell has talked of being financially responsible and fiscally conserative. Let’s see if he stands by his word.
Ok. Not sure if this has been responded to, but We(Barca of course) spent $ on Ibra b/c Eto’o was a cancer in the locker room & constantly complaining about wages. He was constantly threatening to leave and had friction w/Pep the whole Treble season. Ibra started the campaign brilliantly but was also an enigmatic figure. Very cold & distant personality. Pep made the mistake of wanting size up front for set pieces b/c that’s what our critics said our weakness was the Treble season. It didn’t work out so we bagged Villa & shipped Ibra. As far as I’m concerned, Villa gave his transfer fee back in 1 year. 20 + goals and created space for Messiah & Pedro. However, Villa’s getting up there in age and Pep bought Alexis b/c he’s probably going to cash in on Villa at the end of the season. I don’t know what we’d get for Villa since his dip in form b/4 his injury and now he’ll be out the rest of the season. Anyway. There’s a method not just madness
@Gareth : ur kidding me mate..examples for arsenal to follow…lol
Bale shifted to left winger out of neccessity and because he has pace, not because ‘Arry thought he was a left-winger. In fact, for ages, ‘Arry told anyone who would listen that Bale’s best position would one day be at left back.
Modric also went to the center of midfield because Hudd went down, iirc.
By the way, Rose didn’t debut at wing, he debuted at left-back. To call him a wing-back would be inaccurate as Spurs only played with four at the back that day.
Sorry but comparing Spurs to Barca is laughable. Barca are one of the giants in world football. Spurs are, at best, Newcastle (big fanbase, mediocre results) except they had a great year last year and finished in the top 4 (…like Newcastle may do this year).
All the spending during the Commolli era brought in world class players like Modric, Bale, etc. to Spurs and built the team that qualified for CL last year and that’s on the current run of form. Possible back to back top 4 finishes would equal the most glorious run of success for Spurs in their PL history.
Lastly, the idea that Redknapp practices some sort of savvy “value-investing” tranfer policy is laughable, as the last two teams he managed went into bankruptcy due to his mismanagement.
I really, really enjoyed reading this in May. Hilarious.
Damn but I wish I could write like Jake Meador!
Agree!
The sport truly has a built in beauty, with all the details beeing or not beeing in place, to succeed or fail. But in the long run, money talks. We will see the richest teams compete for the greatest titles, and we will see them getting even richer.
Hmm. Nice article. Yes, It is very easy to view football as a revolution.
Arsenal tends to operate on a similar philosophy but hasn’t looked nearly so shrewd since their young stars and risky buys haven’t panned out nearly so well. That said, there’s always a mixture of luck and brilliance in these sorts of clubs. Have Redknapp and Levy been very lucky at times? Of course. But at the same time, they have made good decisions that have served the club well and allowed it to achieve far more than many have expected.
Kudos for sticking with a young, promising player, but it’s not quite John Toshack’s bringing Xabi Alonso back from Eibar and making him first team captain at 19, is it? What I’m getting at is, I can’t shake the impression of Redknapp as stumbling and bumbling through a managerial career and somehow being hailed as a messiah, due in great part to his nationality.
Great article, but fans would like to see a bit being spent to make progress now as we are clearly getting left behind.
It’s a shame that Spurs couldn’t spend their money wisely once they sold Bale and Modric. Similar to the Liverpool situation this year. Also, me and my mate are doing a blog sort of like this only less formal so if you’re interested, copy and paste this: http://football-paradise.weebly.com/
Great article! Spurs are proof that you don’t need a wealthy Saudi Prince to back you to be successful in the Premier League.
It does help though.
Microsoft Office 2018 Crack ISO Windows Latest Free Download
Nice article. It was very informative.This was a great and interesting article to read.Thanks for Sharing.
Great conversation. Really enjoying it. I may add later, but for now, I just thought I’d post some numbers to help contextualize the discussion a bit.
wonderful work. thanks