Johan Lange - appointed

[cdward]

Pundits nowadays "throw their hat in the ring" as click bait.
They know they won't be given the job, but it generates debate and discussion and airtime on the subject.
Difficult position for Spurs, if they were going to replace Tudor, at the start of the international break would be as good a time as any, but with his personal situation, it would be a PR car crash and put more pressure on them.

[VILLA MOLE]

OI!

sorry love , not you obvs

[Somniloquism]

Until I can see a timeline as to when he said the above (regarding the death of Tudor's father) I'm not going to kick him. It's easy enough without it. I get the feeling he lives in a 1994 bubble.

An immediate family death was known about Sunday night, but maybe not that it was his father. Tim definitely stated those words on Monday morning which I found on an article about the death, however having watched some of the video, I can see he wasn't angling specifically but was led into it by the Sky guy also there.

https://www.facebook.com/SkySportsFootball/videos/tim-sherwood-says-that-he-would-help-tottenham-hotspur-avoid-relegation-if-he-we/2089405594964739/

[brontebilly]

Surely Spurs could push and get one of Silva, Glasner or Iraola in asap. The suggestion is they are waiting for Pochettino in the summer but not sure football is his main priority these days.

[Dave]

Why would any of them want to do that?

[Monty]

Surely Spurs could push and get one of Silva, Glasner or Iraola in asap. The suggestion is they are waiting for Pochettino in the summer but not sure football is his main priority these days.

This post is torching your credibility man.

[Drummond]

I think Lange has done ok with the constraints that club is under. They spend a lot of money, but it's on multiple players rather than really big money on individual signings. They've had a bunch of injuries and changed managers a lot too.

They have enough money to spend big and be really ambitious, but won't. And there's never a project, it's jump from one idea to the next.

Unfortunately I think they'll survive, but at the expense of West Ham, so a half decent consolation.

[Dave]

I think Lange has done ok with the constraints that club is under. They spend a lot of money, but it's on multiple players rather than really big money on individual signings.

They spent £60m each on Kudus and Simons last summer.

How much should they be spending and on whom?

[Drummond]

Sorry, I didn't articulate that at all well. I mean they don't pay big money (mainly wages) on big players. They spend too much on middle of the road, and if you look at their squad, they should be going all out for game changers. Why not spend big on proven replacements for Kane and Son for example, instead they've bought Solanke, Kudus, Tel, Simons, Johnson and Odobert. Those were huge players for Spurs, replaced on the cheap.

You can argue we did the same with Grealish, replacing with Ings, Bailey and Buendia but the difference is that Spurs were replacing from a position of strength, and knew it would be coming.

[brontebilly]

Why would any of them want to do that?

Pretty sure all three of them are out of contract in the summer with their respective clubs. Reckon it's kind of similar when Emery took over from Gerrard. They have a number of decent young but under performing players. But they have pissed around with this interim nonsense and now well and truly in it as a result.

[paul_e]

Sorry, I didn't articulate that at all well. I mean they don't pay big money (mainly wages) on big players. They spend too much on middle of the road, and if you look at their squad, they should be going all out for game changers. Why not spend big on proven replacements for Kane and Son for example, instead they've bought Solanke, Kudus, Tel, Simons, Johnson and Odobert. Those were huge players for Spurs, replaced on the cheap.

You can argue we did the same with Grealish, replacing with Ings, Bailey and Buendia but the difference is that Spurs were replacing from a position of strength, and knew it would be coming.

I get your point but I think you're giving them a bit of an excuse there. The money they've spent and thge squad they have is easily enough to be at least top 8. They have had injuries but even accounting for that they're 10-12 points behind where they should be. The problem is that their a bit all over the place in how they operate, Ange was a poor appointment, Frank was a really strange choice as replacement and Tudor is their Garde and seems completely unsuited to both the squad he has and the position they're in.

Their transfer strategy and wage offers could maybe be better but the real problem is the decision making above that, maybe Lange is a fair target for their angst but the problems started before he joined them so I think that's a bit of an excuse as well, he hasn't helped though.

[Dave]

Sorry, I didn't articulate that at all well. I mean they don't pay big money (mainly wages) on big players. They spend too much on middle of the road, and if you look at their squad, they should be going all out for game changers. Why not spend big on proven replacements for Kane and Son for example, instead they've bought Solanke, Kudus, Tel, Simons, Johnson and Odobert. Those were huge players for Spurs, replaced on the cheap.

I would say that replacing Kane and Son with that bunch of players isn't replacing them "on the cheap", it's "replacing them poorly". That lot cost the thick end of £300m.

Even then, Kane and Son have been two of the best players in the world for the last ten years, and Spurs aren't in a position to replace them with two more "best players in the world", because anyone who is the equal of those two isn't going to Spurs.

They can't chuck £120m and £300k per week at Newcastle for Isak, or the same at Leverkusen for Wirtz, because they're already off somewhere higher up the food chain.

So there's only so much they can do.

[Dave]

Why would any of them want to do that?

Pretty sure all three of them are out of contract in the summer with their respective clubs. Reckon it's kind of similar when Emery took over from Gerrard. They have a number of decent young but under performing players. But they have pissed around with this interim nonsense and now well and truly in it as a result.

They are all out of contract, but why nail their flag to a sinking Spurs ship now? Clubs who will be appointing a new permanent manager in the summer - definitely Spurs, Man Utd, Real Madrid, Bilbao, probably Liverpool and Chelsea, and possibly Newcastle, PSG, Man City, and Atletico.

There are much shinier prizes potentially on offer than the chaos of a Spurs rebuild, even if they stay in the league.

[LeeB]

Sorry, I didn't articulate that at all well. I mean they don't pay big money (mainly wages) on big players. They spend too much on middle of the road, and if you look at their squad, they should be going all out for game changers. Why not spend big on proven replacements for Kane and Son for example, instead they've bought Solanke, Kudus, Tel, Simons, Johnson and Odobert. Those were huge players for Spurs, replaced on the cheap.

I would say that replacing Kane and Son with that bunch of players isn't replacing them "on the cheap", it's "replacing them poorly". That lot cost the thick end of £300m.

Even then, Kane and Son have been two of the best players in the world for the last ten years, and Spurs aren't in a position to replace them with two more "best players in the world", because anyone who is the equal of those two isn't going to Spurs.

They can't chuck £120m and £300k per week at Newcastle for Isak, or the same at Leverkusen for Wirtz, because they're already off somewhere higher up the food chain.

So there's only so much they can do.

Kane was halfway out the door for what seemed like about three years, you'd have thought they'd have worked a bity harder on his replacement during that period. Solanke, decent player that he is doesn't feel like a 'we've got our man, finally' signing, more a 'shit, we need a new centre forward, who's available?" sort.

[Dave]

Sorry, I didn't articulate that at all well. I mean they don't pay big money (mainly wages) on big players. They spend too much on middle of the road, and if you look at their squad, they should be going all out for game changers. Why not spend big on proven replacements for Kane and Son for example, instead they've bought Solanke, Kudus, Tel, Simons, Johnson and Odobert. Those were huge players for Spurs, replaced on the cheap.

I would say that replacing Kane and Son with that bunch of players isn't replacing them "on the cheap", it's "replacing them poorly". That lot cost the thick end of £300m.

Even then, Kane and Son have been two of the best players in the world for the last ten years, and Spurs aren't in a position to replace them with two more "best players in the world", because anyone who is the equal of those two isn't going to Spurs.

They can't chuck £120m and £300k per week at Newcastle for Isak, or the same at Leverkusen for Wirtz, because they're already off somewhere higher up the food chain.

So there's only so much they can do.

Kane was halfway out the door for what seemed like about three years, you'd have thought they'd have worked a bity harder on his replacement during that period. Solanke, decent player that he is doesn't feel like a 'we've got our man, finally' signing, more a 'shit, we need a new centre forward, who's available?" sort.

Point still stands though. We're in a world where there are about half a dozen game-changing, world-class centre fowards. And they're not going to Spurs. They're not even going to bigger sides than Spurs.

So Spurs need to either punt on someone with potential ("replacing on the cheap") or accepting that they need to find 20 goals from somewhere else in the side.