Premier League 2018-2019 Part II

[Havre]

It's obvious Wolves and Watford have good programs, and Everton seems to be heading in the right direction after wasting so much money in recent memory. Marcel Brands was a clear upgrade as a DoF, and Silva's a good coach. I still don't have a great feel for their new ownership, but only time can provide the answers. As for Leicester, I have faith that Rodgers can build something relatively formidable there as well.

But for me, I still contend Chelsea, Arsenal and United are pretty poor and Spurs just don't have the ammunition at the moment. That has a larger effect on Liverpool and City's dominance rather than anything else. Like I said a few days ago, the Prem may be improving on the whole, but the big six isn't close to what it should be.

None of those 4 have beaten Liverpool, and City have only lost once (Chelsea). One loss between both clubs to Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Spurs... I mean, c'mon. That's 16 games.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the top 2; what they've done is brilliant, but the other giants of the Premier League aren't making it super difficult for them. Let's be honest.

And the counter-argument of "well, it's just because they're so much better" doesn't really fly. It's obviously a combination of brilliance alongside the benefit of weakened foes. Look at how shocking the top 4 race has been in the last few weeks. It's a bunch of clubs limping to the finish line and whoever's the least sh** will be rewarded.

Would agree with most of that.

Spurs have been average almost all season. I think there are some "good" reasons for that. More players than I guess any other team in the PL played late into the WC. Consistent injury problems all through the season. Right now is almost as fit as Spurs have ever been this year. When Kane comes back only Winks might be missing among key players. Also I think Wembley became a negative factor as the season went along. No energy there - even if the biggest "change" has been the away form lately.

Quite disappointing from a Utd and Arsenal point of view that they most likely haven't taken advantage of that. That said they have all had their issues - especially in terms of managerial changes.

City are that good. For me what Liverpool have done in the league is just another version of what Chelsea and Leicester have done before them. A season when basically everything has gone for them. And them being better than Chelsea and Leicester in the first place means they are winning a lot of points. Next season if they lose as many games from key players like van Dijk, Robertson, Salah, Mane etc. as Spurs have from theirs they will be much closer to 70 points than 100.

I don't see a revolution at Spurs, Chelsea, Utd or Arsenal coming, but I expect at least Spurs, Utd and Arsenal to be stronger next year. Chelsea depends on Hazard, transfer ban etc. So even if Liverpool are just as good next year (I'm pretty sure we will see some regression to the mean there) they will not dominate the 3-6th team they way they have done this season.

 

[YNWA14]

Liverpool will only be getting better next season with key additions in the summer, younger players getting better, and their key players all at the beginning of their primes. I expect Arsenal to improve next season as well, but I don't see Spurs or United taking a step forward (especially United, who seem in a really dark place at the moment). I think Chelsea will also be better with more time under Sarri (assuming he stays); they may lose Hazard but they have a number of very talented players on their books to bring in, and a very good manager.

Teams like Leicester, Wolves and Everton will also improve and be more dangerous to that 6th spot, I think. Watford and West Ham at times have also been pretty impressive. I don't want to get @Stray Wasp 's hopes up too much but Newcastle have potential as well...especially if they ever open the chequebook for Rafa.

 

[Live in the Now]

I actually see Spurs taking a big step forward. They should have a very large transfer budget.

 

[Stray Wasp]

I actually see Spurs taking a big step forward. They should have a very large transfer budget.

And if they don't, Daniel Levy should be kicked all the way to John O'Groats.

I think the biggest threat to Spurs right now is that he takes this season as proof he's a genius.

 

[Havre]

I’m not worried about the spend. But you got to find the right kind of players. The kind that will work their socks off and not complain when they are not playing as much as the like to etc.

Always the same story though. Big money spent means you have had a good summer.

Spurs got some obvious holes in their team. So it is easier to improve than for a team like Liverpool. An average RB would be a significant upgrade. Same in midfield. That could be 10m and the team would be better. Slightly less injuries and Spurs could very well take 80 points+ next season. Not to forget Wembley being a thing of the past. I see YNWA disagree, but not sure what analysis that is built on.

No team will ever consistently scratch 100 points in the PL. Not happening.

I’m optimistic. But I’m also very patient. Step by step. I’m sure there will be many posts on here saying “now Spurs need to invest”. I have heard that for almost 20 years. And still the team has gone from mid table to the CL final without any investor help. One of the most improved teams in Europe over that period. No need to really change things up too much.

100% there is money to spend on that special player though. Be it N’Dombele, de Ligt etc. but that money doesn’t disappear if it isn’t spent now.

 

[Stray Wasp]

I’m optimistic. But I’m also very patient. Step by step. I’m sure there will be many posts on here saying “now Spurs need to invest”. I have heard that for almost 20 years. And still the team has gone from mid table to the CL final without any investor help. One of the most improved teams in Europe over that period. No need to really change things up too much.

100% there is money to spend on that special player though. Be it N’Dombele, de Ligt etc. but that money doesn’t disappear if it isn’t spent now.

Spurs shouldn't spend money for the sake of it, but it's plain as day they are where they are now in spite of spending nothing last summer. As someone else remarked, this Champions League run is an 'everything coming together' affair - a higher-level equivalent to Leicester in 2015-16 (apologies to whoever wrote that for failing to remember their name - the comparison was splendid). And even with everything coming together in terms of players like Sissoko, Lucas and Llorente performing to their limits at opportune moments (or the old Lloris returning in the crunch), had Spurs not hit the jackpot with Pochettino - a coach whose style is ideally adapted to this era - they'd be nowhere near the Champions League final, and last night's results don't legitimise Levy forcing him to compete with one hand tied behind his back.

During the last 20 years Tottenham have had various periods of stagnation and regression - that's what's taxed your patience, not a measured grand plan (measured grand plans don't lead to Tim Sherwood being your manager. Even as a caretaker. Ever). At times that's been attributable to spending unwisely, I'll confess. Still, let's not forget that impatience ie the constant desire to improve - a five-year plan to reach the Champions League, not settling for Nigel Pearson as manager when pundits were praising him to the skies on account of a nine-game run - took Leicester from the Championship to the Premier League title in two years. We all knew that was impossible. Until it happened.

Another factor has been erratic managerial appointments. Easier to retain a top class manager than replace one. You don't have to believe me. But while saying you didn't you'd have to behold Manchester United and manage to keep a straight face.

The money doesn't disappear if it isn't spent now, but time does. Every player has a peak few years, and those need to be maximised. This squad cannot improve beyond this season (individual players can, no doubt, but I'm talking about the whole - for Spurs' run has been a collective endeavour full of heroes both fleeting and consistent), and you need only look at Barcelona between 2011 and 2014 to see that even the mightiest of teams can lose its edge if they place too much pressure on their core stars in an era of overcrowded fixture lists and financially-supercharged rivals. Manifestly, its better to spend the money from a position of strength than waiting until cracks occur in the edifice.

 

[Havre]

I´m not sure who you are answering? Taxed my patience? I just wrote about how successful Spurs have been being patient. And you assessment of Spurs is just wrong. Periods of stagnation and regression? Of course there are bumps along the way, but slightly more than 20 years ago Spurs were basically Klinsmann away from relegation. So if this "climb" hasn´t been completely linear it has been fairly consistent on an upward trend. Certainly nothing that I would call close to regression and I can´t say I have felt much stagnation either. Just the natural evolution when you are smaller and end up selling stars etc.

I have heard all that so many times before. "Time is now" (of that "time disappears"). I remember when Spurs were useless for not signing Diego Capel. He was the player that would bring Spurs into the CL. What has brought Spurs were the team is now is discipline. Only the winter they spend around 50m on Keane, Defoe and Palacios did you see stressed behaviour.

I´m not against spending and I think Spurs will spend. And I believe, even if Spurs are now among the 10-15 best teams in Europe, that Spurs also got a starting line-up with some obvious holes - meaning rather easy to upgrade on. But I really hope Spurs stay disciplined in terms of which players to sign and don´t just sign a big name or two just because they can.

Obviously Eriksen has to stay. I think Spurs can replace Alderweireld without missing much of a beat, but Eriksen is a lot tougher (even if he has been very average for quite some time now). The philosophy stays though. If Eriksen leaves the last thing I want to see is 100m thrown at Isco or something.

 

[Stray Wasp]

I´m not sure who you are answering? Taxed my patience? I just wrote about how successful Spurs have been being patient. And you assessment of Spurs is just wrong. Periods of stagnation and regression? Of course there are bumps along the way, but slightly more than 20 years ago Spurs were basically Klinsmann away from relegation. So if this "climb" hasn´t been completely linear it has been fairly consistent on an upward trend. Certainly nothing that I would call close to regression and I can´t say I have felt much stagnation either. Just the natural evolution when you are smaller and end up selling stars etc.

I have heard all that so many times before. "Time is now" (of that "time disappears"). I remember when Spurs were useless for not signing Diego Capel. He was the player that would bring Spurs into the CL. What has brought Spurs were the team is now is discipline. Only the winter they spend around 50m on Keane, Defoe and Palacios did you see stressed behaviour.

I´m not against spending and I think Spurs will spend. And I believe, even if Spurs are now among the 10-15 best teams in Europe, that Spurs also got a starting line-up with some obvious holes - meaning rather easy to upgrade on. But I really hope Spurs stay disciplined in terms of which players to sign and don´t just sign a big name or two just because they can.

Obviously Eriksen has to stay. I think Spurs can replace Alderweireld without missing much of a beat, but Eriksen is a lot tougher (even if he has been very average for quite some time now). The philosophy stays though. If Eriksen leaves the last thing I want to see is 100m thrown at Isco or something.

Saying 'slightly more than 20 years ago Spurs were basically Klinsmann away from relegation' to mitigate Levy's strategy is Doctor Pangloss stuff. As one of the ten biggest clubs in the country (at a conservative estimate) they shouldn't have been in danger of relegation in the first place.

In 1999-2000, Spurs attained 53 points and finished 10th. Their points tallies and finishes to 2004-5 were as follows:

49 (12th), 50 (9th), 50 (9th), 45 (14th), 52 (9th)

You may not allow me to call that stagnation, but I see no reason to label it 'progress'.

Then you have the spell 2005-2010, culminating in Harry Redknapp taking them into the Champions League.

65 (5th), 60 (5th), 46 (11th), 51 (8th), 70 (4th)

Let's allow the five point drop between 05-06 and 06-07 was the product of European distractions (Spurs' 05-06 campaign was famously only about 40 games long thanks to early cup exits) and Carrick's sale. But 2007-8 and 2008-9 represented more than a bump in the road - in terms of the league they were two wasted seasons. And if they lost Berbatov in 2008 they acquired Modric - so selling a star can't be blamed. It's a case of two seasons where the stars aligned and in between a muddle.

Admittedly, during that time they won one League Cup.

Again, in 2010-11 you have a Europe-related regression: back to 62 points and fifth place. The next few years go:

69 (4th), 72 (5th), 69 (4th), 64 (5th), 70 (3rd)

In terms of points, from 2010 to 2016 that's going precisely nowhere.

And during that time they won nothing at all. Swansea and Wigan did. Leicester won the league.

The last three seasons we see Spurs reap the rewards of Harry Kane's emergence and the Alli signing - a home-grown superstar and an elite player grabbed from the lower divisions - events that executives can hope for, but not plan, and especially not years in advance:

86 (2nd), 77 (3rd), maximum 79 points (3rd)

Their league form didn't regress from 2016-17 because of selling key players - unless you believe losing Kyle Walker that huge a loss. In the league they've relied too heavily on too few players.

You talk casually about replacing Alderweireld. Maybe that happens. But remember Vertonghen is 32. So after spending nothing last summer, running to stand still is on the cards.

To me, if there has been a grand strategy during Levy's reign the results above conceal it. Spurs may lack the resources of the other members of the Big Five, but they're not shuffling around in penury. Every club should operate with discipline. But when they grow strong they should also be mindful that time isn't frozen.

 

[Havre]

You are aware that points are not a perfect reflection of the performance of a team? There will be some natural variance among individual players and teams. So when a team completely quits on a manager that season it doesn't mean the club as a whole is regressing.

I know how it is to be a Spurs fan. I know how it was for some years in the 90s when Spursfans were afraid that with a bad start you get stuck in a relegation battle. I still vividly remember when Klinsmann scored 4 goals against Wimbledon in the second last round of the season to secure Spurs staying in the division. Not claiming it has been linear development from then, but from around that time the club has patiently built a club that is almost unrivaled among any of the bigger teams in Europe (Lyon, AM etc. are other teams that have been on a similar journey).

If Klinsmann hadn't returned Spurs could have been another Leeds, Aston Villa, Sunderland, Nottingham Forrest etc. To think that Spurs are somewhat destined for "glory" is just not right. Confirmation biased at its best.

Obviously a bit random that Spurs ended up in a CL final this year. Much the same way the Stanley Cup play-offs proves this randomness EVERY SINGLE YEAR. You buy a ticket (qualify) and then the difference between the 10-20 best teams are not bigger than that on a given day (or 2 legged tie) anyone can beat anyone. Proven by the likes of Spurs and from a resources point of view even more so by Ajax. To say it is "in spite" of I really don't get. Spurs can't out-compete the likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid, City, BM etc. buy operating the same way as they do. So what is the suggestion?

Now Liverpool are seen as "a big club", but shouldn't forget that they were not that long ago almost ridiculed for spending that kind of cash on players from teams like Southampton and Sunderland. It was a gambled that also could have failed. Again confirmation bias.

 

[Chimaera]

I actually see Spurs taking a big step forward. They should have a very large transfer budget.

They should, but they might also see Eriksen and Alderweireld leave. That's still a massive gap from 2nd to 3rd.

I think it's logical if they keep most of their top players, don't have to worry about so many making late WC runs (or doing military service), and add some quality, that they could improve significantly.

But adding players is a double edged sword as Liverpool can attest. I don't believe for a second that plugging in players into Poch's system is just as easy as nabbing guys and sticking them in. Look at how long it has taken for Lucas Moura to turn into something. How long for Sissoko to come better. Poch's high press and physical system take time to integrate. They might have some obvious holes, but I don't think it's as easy as saying, lets go get a boss midfielder and a solid right back and they're off.

I would expect them to be better, and I think just actually adding some players will give the manager and the locker room a boost, but it's not as simple as saying, they need X.

The other trouble is, that no matter how much money they do have, and they do have a lot, some of the parts they want are going to be wanted by a number of other top clubs. They really missed the jump this past summer, because I think it could be argued that you had some of the bigger sides spending less, or at least not competing for everything. City might have gotten Mahrez, but did little else. Bayern and Real weren't heavily active (in the top shopping regions), United really only got Fred and Dalot. PSG spent a bit, but honestly, Spurs could've had some upgrades this summer if they had spent. This summer, United needs an overhaul, Chelsea might have to spend for fear of being banned for a few windows, Arsenal needs to continue to improve, Bayern need to spend, Juve will spend, Real have already started to spend a lot.

 

[Havre]

That is not really that specific for Pochettino. Fred? Jorginho? Could add Keita and Fabinho as well.

As for Sissoko Pochettino played him on the wing or as an AM for years. He only started to improve when he was asked to play as a CM. Moura might have played his best game for Spurs early this season against Utd (it is not like he was dominant against Ajax even if he scored 3). That was half a season (8-9 months) after he arrived. Not unusual.

I do agree on that whoever Spurs bring in this summer most likely will not be playing at their best from day 1. That is not necessarily needed for Spurs to improve. Last summer took a great toll on Spurs. Just that and by the looks of it now having everyone fit over the summer means things should improve.

Eriksen is my only "big concern". Alderweireld can be internally replaced - Eriksen can't. Or at least not as easily.

 

[robertmac43]

Beckham banned for using phone in Bentley

Off topic but still worth the look at. Beckham banned from driving for being on his phone; denies the situation but pleads guilty.

 

[Burner Account]

And if they don't, Daniel Levy should be kicked all the way to John O'Groats.

I think the biggest threat to Spurs right now is that he takes this season as proof he's a genius.

So you're saying the biggest threat to Spurs is Spurs?

 

[Havre]

Levy is a genius.

 

[Chimaera]

That is not really that specific for Pochettino. Fred? Jorginho? Could add Keita and Fabinho as well.

As for Sissoko Pochettino played him on the wing or as an AM for years. He only started to improve when he was asked to play as a CM. Moura might have played his best game for Spurs early this season against Utd (it is not like he was dominant against Ajax even if he scored 3). That was half a season (8-9 months) after he arrived. Not unusual.

I do agree on that whoever Spurs bring in this summer most likely will not be playing at their best from day 1. That is not necessarily needed for Spurs to improve. Last summer took a great toll on Spurs. Just that and by the looks of it now having everyone fit over the summer means things should improve.

Eriksen is my only "big concern". Alderweireld can be internally replaced - Eriksen can't. Or at least not as easily.

Correct. It takes a while to integrate players into what Klopp and Pochettino are trying to do. But fitting players in sometimes leads to a bit of struggle. Keita not performing well early on led to some struggles with attack breaking down. They might have dropped points in a match or two where a player making a difference could have helped them get the full points.

Fitness and not playing matches over the summer should help, but there's a lot to happen for all of the clubs between now and August.

 

[Stray Wasp]

So you're saying the biggest threat to Spurs is Spurs?

Only if Daniel Levy is Spurs.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Levy is a genius.

Only if the value of that word has plunged.

 

[Stray Wasp]

You are aware that points are not a perfect reflection of the performance of a team?

I'm aware that the purpose of a team playing a league game is to gain points. So, imperfections notwithstanding, it's the best reflection of performance.

Obviously, I'm taking into account you don't expect Burnley to achieve the same number of points as Manchester City. Or Spurs to achieve the same number of points as, say, West Ham (as happened in the 2008-9 season that did for Ramos).

 

[YNWA14]

Only if the value of that word has plunged.

If we're looking at the value of the word in a relative sense that would not surprise me.

 

[Stray Wasp]

I know how it is to be a Spurs fan. I know how it was for some years in the 90s when Spursfans were afraid that with a bad start you get stuck in a relegation battle. I still vividly remember when Klinsmann scored 4 goals against Wimbledon in the second last round of the season to secure Spurs staying in the division. Not claiming it has been linear development from then, but from around that time the club has patiently built a club that is almost unrivaled among any of the bigger teams in Europe (Lyon, AM etc. are other teams that have been on a similar journey).

If Klinsmann hadn't returned Spurs could have been another Leeds, Aston Villa, Sunderland, Nottingham Forrest etc. To think that Spurs are somewhat destined for "glory" is just not right. Confirmation biased at its best.

I remember those times too - albeit not from a sympathetic point of view (mind, I never liked Alan Sugar).

I simply don't see the evidence to back up the bolded part.

Talking of the past, when I was a kid there wasn't a Premier League at all. You had Arsenal, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham setting themselves up as the 'Big Five' and demanding more TV money. Since then, I've seen all of them fall from the summit of English football because they stopped making the right decisions - with the exception of Spurs, because while I've seen them lift several cups they've not won the league since well before my birth. So if I ever post that they are 'destined' for glory, you have my permission to call the men wearing white coats. But I don't rule out seeing Spurs win the league - if they play their cards right. Yes, they're at a financial disadvantage, but you know what I'm going to say - they have far bigger resources than Leicester. And a far better starting point.

As you remark, there's an element of randomness about every cup competition. All the more important, then, to be smart about as much as you can reasonably control - like attempting to strengthen both your team and squad whenever possible, and by backing a top class coach when you land one.

Chimaera's point about the systems of Klopp and Pochettino being demanding for new signings is an excellent one. Still, in truth every transfer is a gamble, because no two clubs are identical in every circumstance, so a new signing is always leaving their element to one degree or another. Then there's the matter of luck. Alan Shearer at Newcastle is a perfect example - the league's best striker, a Geordie going home, what could go wrong? Well, one year in he suffered an injury that left his foot hanging off his ankle, pointing in the precisely opposite direction to normal. Afterwards he was still very good, but not the great player Newcastle had bought. Ultimately, though, the players you don't sign rarely win you games.

Another point of Chimaera's I agree with was that last summer's failure to sign a player was a missed trick. As you say, last summer took its toll on Spurs. Which raises questions - hadn't Daniel Levy noticed the World Cup was going on? Hadn't he noticed how much football Dele Alli was being required to play at such a young age, or considered the inherent risks? I'd expect a genius to be aware of such details. Frankly, I'd expect a mediocrity to be conscious of these points.

Football can be a perverse game. Clearly, the roads are littered with teams that aimed big and failed. Spurs are in a European Cup final with a magnificent new stadium. In that there are echoes of Arsenal 2006. The moment passed and has never yet returned. But there are also examples of teams that see an opening and barge through it. They need conviction, not to seek excuses for standing pat.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Now Liverpool are seen as "a big club", but shouldn't forget that they were not that long ago almost ridiculed for spending that kind of cash on players from teams like Southampton and Sunderland. It was a gambled that also could have failed. Again confirmation bias.

Who ridiculed Liverpool? Were they people renowned for the good sense of their judgement, or just people?

You know as well as I do, it's not about fees paid or the clubs you sign players from, it's about signing the right mixture of talent, temperament and suitability for a role within the team.

 

[Havre]

If you don’t see that Spurs have developed in a ridiculous way I don’t know what to say? It is the only team that have been able to compete with the old top 4 without a rich owner as an example. While spending more money than any other team upgrading their infrastructure. You will argue that was always going to be Spurs then maybe? Even if Newcastle, Leeds, Aston Villa, Everton etc have all been closer to the top than Spurs since the rise started.

Chimera’s point is not backed up by any data. If anything Fabinho and Keita have now settled quicker than Fred, Jorginho, Kovacic etc. It looks to me you want “evidence” for arguments you disagree with and find points made you agree with excellent without any evidence. Not saying Chinera is wrong. I wouldn’t know. His examples with Lucas and Sissoko are not good examples though. As explained earlier. As I guess I’m more familiar with Spurs than him/her.

 

[Havre]

Who ridiculed Liverpool? Were they people renowned for the good sense of their judgement, or just people?

You know as well as I do, it's not about fees paid or the clubs you sign players from, it's about signing the right mixture of talent, temperament and suitability for a role within the team.

Selective memory? Not a message board anywhere not making fun of Liverpool paying the fees they did for the likes of Henderson, Ox etc.

 

[Stray Wasp]

It is the only team that have been able to compete with the old top 4 without a rich owner as an example. While spending more money than any other team upgrading their infrastructure. You will argue that was always going to be Spurs then maybe?

As I say, Spurs lobbied for the creation of the EPL. They did so precisely because they were confident they had the resources to be one of its main powers. The pull of London is a big advantage on top.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Chimera’s point is not backed up by any data. If anything Fabinho and Keita have now settled quicker than Fred, Jorginho, Kovacic etc. It looks to me you want “evidence” for arguments you disagree with and find points made you agree with excellent without any evidence. Not saying Chinera is wrong. I wouldn’t know. His examples with Lucas and Sissoko are not good examples though. As explained earlier. As I guess I’m more familiar with Spurs than him/her.

Sissoko gave successful performances for Newcastle from both the wing and central attacking midfield. (Just as he sometimes gave dismal performances in central midfield). The wing is where he's mainly played for France. However, Pochettino's Spurs, Pardew / Carver / Benitez's NUFC and Deschamps' France are not all the same. This is evidence I take into account.

If I requested evidence for things I agreed with, that would raise the question why I agreed with them in the first place. Meanwhile, asking for evidence regarding things I disagree with is giving the other chap the chance to change my mind.