Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Have Tottenham overachieved?


Recommended Posts

Right Spurs are in the middle of what could be a great season. 5 points off top spot 4 wins on the bounce in the Premier league minus Kane and Ali Son was missing for the Fulham game and Ali went off injured in the 2nd half to. 

If they win at Burnley (tough game it'll be they only just a scraped a last minute 1-0 win at home). But if they win they put more pressure on the top 2 ahead of Liverpool's trip to Manchester United the next day. For me I don't think they will win the league but they have to as it stands be included in the title race. To only 5 points behind City and Liverpool is some effort for me especially with how consistent the top 2 have been. 

They only lost to Chelsea on pens in the Carabao cup semi final and they were minus Son Kane and Ali and Chelsea had a very strong team out. They got through a champions league group which had Barca Inter and PSV in this after only 1 point from their first 3 group games even though they should have had more they should have won at Inter and PSV but they got through despite having to do it the hard way. They beat the current best team in Germany 3-0 despite missing Kane and Ali. 

I think they have overachieved  say they finish comfortably 3rd they have overachieved or if they finish 1st or 2nd they definitely have. A great effort from Poch and his boys despite not spending a penny in the last 2 transfer windows.  The emergence of the likes of Skipp and Walker Peeters is only going to make them stronger. I do though feel despite my opinion being they have overachieved that there squad is better than people give them credit for Lamela Llorente and Lucas Moura are all quality players. 

I'm glad Moussa Sissoko has proved me wrong he's been sensational the last 3 or 4 months but where was this sort of performance previously at Newcastle and Tottenham it was sporadic at best. Do you guys think they are overachieving and what do you think they can or will do between now and the end of the season. 

I think they can win the title but I don't think they will. There tough run in is the main reason I don't think they will win it. Chelsea Liverpool and City all away and Arsenal I would love to see them or Liverpool do it though. In the Champions league it's a cup competition so anything is possible. They have shown over the last 2 seasons they and compete and beat anyone. 

Drew 1-1 with Barca lost 4-2 In a close game the Barca 4th was in the last minute.Drew 1-1 away.  Drew 2-2 at Juventus they were 2 down there narrowly lost 2-1 at home after being 1 up. Beat inter at home 1-0 Beat Real Madrid at home 3-1 Drew 1-1 away and beat Dortmund 3-1 at home last year and 2-1 away last year and 3-0 at home this season so they have shown they can compete and beat anyone anything can happen in the cups.

Do you guys think they have overachieved? and what do you think they will do between now and the rest of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrator

In short, yes.

Teams like Man City & Liverpool have set the standard high with their spending & good play. 

When teams like Spurs don't spend, and still match them in the league and give as good as they can get to challenge, I think it's fair to say they have overachieved, and I wouldn't see that as a bad thing to say about them.

Goes to show how good a manager Pochettino is and how he can galvanise his team in to getting results. The only slant is the lack of trophies but how Spurs play, and their usually entertaining 'brand' of football can't go unnoticed and shouldn't be ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
3 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Why are Liverpool being compared to Manchester City in 'spending'? Manchester City should be well ahead when it comes to resources and funding. Liverpool's 'spending' has largely been self-financed and through transfers, they have overachieved too.

Comparatively to Tottenham, they've both spent much more. How is that so hard to fathom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
4 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

That's not what I said. You bracketed them together 'they have set the standard...with their spending'. Don't blame me if you're questioned on your own stupidity. Their spending is nothing alike.

Have Liverpool spent a lot - yes or no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

Have Liverpool spent a lot - yes or no?

No, not by comparison with Manchester City (which is who you said they were the same as) and they have to sell their best players to spend their money, it's a very key difference. Some dullard lumping them in as one and the same needs to be challenged because it's a demonstrable lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

No, not by comparison with Manchester City and they have to sell their best players to spend their money, it's a very key difference. Some dullard lumping them in as one and the same needs to be challenged because it's a demonstrable lie.

So it's okay to compare with Man City, but not to compare their spending with Spurs?

'Dullard' xD

Whether it's spending by selling their best players is irrelevant when just look at their spending altogether.

Have Man City and Liverpool spent a lot? Yes.

Have Spurs spent a lot? No.

Simple as that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stan said:

So it's okay to compare with Man City, but not to compare their spending with Spurs?

'Dullard' xD

Whether it's spending by selling their best players is irrelevant when just look at their spending altogether.

Have Man City and Liverpool spent a lot? Yes.

Have Spurs spent a lot? No.

Simple as that. 

It's not irrelevant though is it, Liverpool have to make their money whereas Manchester City do not. Manchester City can reinforce an already magnificent squad, Liverpool had to weaken to strengthen. It's not comparable and it's dishonest and lazy to suggest it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
1 minute ago, The Artful Dodger said:

It's not irrelevant though is it, Liverpool have to make their money whereas Manchester City do not. Manchester City can reinforce an already magnificent squad, Liverpool had to weaken to strengthen. It's not comparable and it's dishonest and lazy to suggest it is.

But regardless, they're spending more than Spurs. Yes or no? 

Really simple to answer just with one answer here....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stan said:

But regardless, they're spending more than Spurs. Yes or no? 

Really simple to answer just with one answer here....

Have I ever said they weren't? Trying to distort what I'm saying into something else won't work. You implied Manchester City and Liverpool were one and the same in terms of spending, I've told you are completely wrong and now you're blithering on about some complete non-sequitur. Just admit your mistake and learn from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

I think Spurs have proved that they are not a one-man team, no Kane or Ali and they are still up there challenging for the EPL with City & Liverpool and maybe the players have that thought on the back of their minds that Poch might be away at the end of the season with all the media speculation he might be going to United.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

Have I ever said they weren't? Trying to distort what I'm saying into something else won't work. You implied Manchester City and Liverpool were one and the same in terms of spending, I've told you are completely wrong and now you're blithering on about some complete non-sequitur. Just admit your mistake and learn from it.

Or admit that Spurs don't spend as much as Liverpool and Man City. That really is the crux of the matter here. 

We both agree Spurs have overachieved anyway. Can't be arsed to argue any more. And no not cos you think I'm wrong or made a mistake. Just can't be arsed saying the same shit to you over and over again xD

Trying to make it in to something that it doesn't need to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, they've just made excellent purchases for very little money and have a very good starting XI in what is a short squad. Doing a Leicester is overachieving, not finishing 1 or 2 spots higher than what you expect, which in reality means absolutely nothing besides qualification for the UCL if you have nothing to show for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
16 minutes ago, Azeem said:

How can you achieve anything without winning silverware let alone overachieving !

Silverware isn't always indicative of over-achieving.

Huddersfield avoiding relegation, especially on their budget last season, would be classed as overachieving.

Same as teams like Reading finishing in top half when they got promoted in mid-00s, can't remember specific year. Or Wigan in same time  (?) finishing top half when they were heavily tipped to be relegated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Stan said:

Silverware isn't always indicative of over-achieving.

Huddersfield avoiding relegation, especially on their budget last season, would be classed as overachieving.

Same as teams like Reading finishing in top half when they got promoted in mid-00s, can't remember specific year. Or Wigan in same time  (?) finishing top half when they were heavily tipped to be relegated.

Spurs are not in the league of Reading and Huddersfield.

They are a top six club and anything below that is a disappointment and finishing 4th-2nd isn't an achievement as Berserker said why, they are meant to finish somewhere there. For their standards winning silverware should be their true assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say Spurs are doing as well as they should be doing but that is because I rate them very highly and rate their manager and players very highly too. I'd also argue that maybe they should have challenged for the title realistically before now with the players/manager they have too. 

They definitely don't get the credit they deserve though and it's hilarious how they're disregarded despite being a handful of points behind 'unstoppable' Citeh after spending nowt and missing their best two players for the last few weeks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Salford Kel said:

I'd say Spurs are doing as well as they should be doing but that is because I rate them very highly and rate their manager and players very highly too. I'd also argue that maybe they should have challenged for the title realistically before now with the players/manager they have too. 

They definitely don't get the credit they deserve though and it's hilarious how they're disregarded despite being a handful of points behind 'unstoppable' Citeh after spending nowt and missing their best two players for the last few weeks

Totally agree... 

Spurs are where they deserve to be.. it's been a slow steady build over a few seasons but nobody can really say they are over achieving given their spend in comparison to those around them... Keeping hold of Poch in the long term is going to be vital for them because if he does go and they don't get the next appointment right they could take a step backward... As always people will tend to look at what they have won rather than what they have achieved so far as the measuring stick.. As Kel pointed out during a period where they had some influential players missing they still kept their heads and have kept pace when some may have thought they might drop off... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

They have but I do think that this reputation they have of being bottlers is largely through being victims of their own over-achievement. The thing that's bad with Tottenham is that they frequently throw it away from positions that they simply shouldn't, although they did well to get into those positions in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of the quality of the squad, they are about where they should be.

In terms of their financial resources, they are massively overperforming. 

To me Poch's biggest strength is squad-building and developing players, not necessarily the game-by-game tactical aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...