{{ searchResult.errors[0] }}
Emobot7
7 years ago
Edited
@KTB Lets just go with better instead of much better and you got yourself a deal. XD (I'm lying, I went for Costa from the start)
@KTB Lets just go with better instead of much better and you got yourself a deal. XD
Abo_Zogom
7 years ago
Edited
Ibra considering his age.
Ibra considering his age.
@Jimbet. When are you going to apologize to me?
tiki_taka
7 years ago
Here again this is what I don't like In only based on stats analysis, while No single word on the impact.
A deciding game goal is not like an injury time goal at 4-0 when the game is already decided, for me the user who would have nailed it is the one to put who's the player to have won most points to his team. Costa and Ibra, Sanchez maybe third.
Some strikers may end up goalless for most of the games, then find a weak defense and score hattricks and still be compared to most consistent strikers of the league. Stats only for stats is pointless, this seriously has to change because the impact is clearly not the same.
A player like Hazard this season doesn't have to score or to assist to pretend being Motm, his impact in some games was impressive, dribbles, passes between lines, keeping possession, launching counters and then a player like Snoddgrass would be better viewed only because people see 2 stats. Ridiculous.
Emobot7
7 years ago
Edited
@tiki_taka Truer word were never spoken. Amen.
@tiki_taka Allelujah.
Dynastian98
7 years ago
Since I don't count Alexis as a striker, the most reliable striker would probably be Harry Kane or Diego Costa at this moment. Aguero has shown his affection for David Luiz once again, and although his talent is immeasurable, we didn't like Costa behaving in the same manner last season. This season, Costa's goals have been absolutely crucial. Kane isn't as scary as Costa, but is still silently effective.
I'm genuinely surprised the English media don't hype up Kane that much considering that he is an Englishman. He's flying under the radar too much for someone with his consistency.
Emobot7
7 years ago
@Dynastian Its because everyone know he is not leaving Spurs anytime yet. The moment there will be serious rumors of him going to Manchester United, Arsenal or Real Madrid, you can bet your hat that he will be compared to Bale, Neymar or even Messi. XP (Hopefully, I'm wrong though)
Lodatz
7 years ago
Edited
Wait a second, did people just take seriously the claim that Harry is one-dimensional, or that he doesn't score any great goals? lolwut
He's one of the most versatile strikers in the league, for heaven's sake!
Look at the variety of his goals and technique. He scores chips, long-rangers, tap-ins, guided headers, power headers, dribbles... he does it all. Hell, did you forget him doing the freaking CRUYFF TURN vs Germany??
Dearie me. Sometimes I do wonder if people are trying to say the most outrageous things they can, just to try and get a rise... ;)
Wait a second, did people just take seriously the claim that Harry is one-dimensional? lolwut
He's one of the most versatile strikers in the league, for heaven's sake!
Look at the variety of his goals. He scores chips, long-rangers, tap-ins, guided headers, power headers, dribbles... he does it all. Hell, did you forget him doing the freaking CRUYFF TURN vs Germany??
Dearie me. Sometimes I do wonder if people are trying to say the most outrageous things they can... ;)
Wait a second, did people just take seriously the claim that Harry is one-dimensional? lolwut
He's one of the most versatile strikers in the league, for heaven's sake!
Look at the variety of his goals. He scores chips, long-rangers, tap-ins, guided headers, power headers, dribbles... he does it all. Hell, did you forget him doing the freaking CRUYFF TURN vs Germany??
Dearie me. Sometimes I do wonder if people are trying to say the most outrageous things they can, just to try and get a rise... ;)
Wait a second, did people just take seriously the claim that Harry is one-dimensional, or that he doesn't score any great goals? lolwut
He's one of the most versatile strikers in the league, for heaven's sake!
Look at the variety of his goals. He scores chips, long-rangers, tap-ins, guided headers, power headers, dribbles... he does it all. Hell, did you forget him doing the freaking CRUYFF TURN vs Germany??
Dearie me. Sometimes I do wonder if people are trying to say the most outrageous things they can, just to try and get a rise... ;)
Lodatz
7 years ago
I'm genuinely surprised the English media don't hype up Kane that much considering that he is an Englishman. He's flying under the radar too much for someone with his consistency.
The English media (much like FootyRoom!) are always very reluctant to admit that Spurs have great players.
Emobot7
7 years ago
@Lodatz Tottenham is one of the most under-rated team in the world in my opinion, they have one of the best defense in the league, some very solid player in the midfield and their attack is very good as well in my opinion. Its a shame how most people seem to dislike them or ignore them as they are a very nice team to be fair. Its true that they doesn't seem to do well in Europe at the moment but I feel people are a bit unfair, after all, Manchester United got out of CL in the group stage as well last year and not against much stronger side than those that beated Spurs... To be fair Lodatz, I would be tempted to ask you your opinion on Son Heung-min, one of my favorite Spurs player. Would also be fun if you had the time to make a thread where you share some good info about the Tottenham from the past and this Tottenham, their player and other info regarding the team, would love to know more about them and heard how a serious Tottenham fan feel about his team situation. Would definetly be interested to see that. :D
Lodatz
7 years ago
Its true that they doesn't seem to do well in Europe at the moment but I feel people are a bit unfair, after all,
I think it's entirely fair to say that Spurs were pretty poor in Europe this season, for sure. We were outplayed by Leverkeusen, and lazy as hell vs Monaco. Honestly, I wish we'd lost to Moscow so we could have avoided the EL and concentrated on the league. Look how it's helped out Chelsea and Liverpool... ;)
I would be tempted to ask you your opinion on Son Heung-min, one of my favorite Spurs player.
I think he's great. :) I mean, obviously not compared to say, Hazard or de Bruyne, but he's got talent and skill, and a very good attitude. I hope he can keep improving and become a league-beater.
Would also be fun if you had the time to make a thread
I could give it a go, sure.
Emobot7
7 years ago
I think it's entirely fair to say that Spurs were pretty poor in Europe this season, for sure. We were outplayed by Leverkeusen, and lazy as hell vs Monaco. Honestly, I wish we'd lost to Moscow so we could have avoided the EL and concentrated on the league. Look how it's helped out Chelsea and Liverpool... ;)
100% agreed with you there. Especially on the part about being able to focus on the league. Maybe rotating the team for the EL game with some of the younger player could help.
I think he's great. :) I mean, obviously not compared to say, Hazard or de Bruyne, but he's got talent and skill, and a very good attitude. I hope he can keep improving and become a league-beater.
Yeah, he is very talented, I just wish he was a bit more consistent, it will hopefully come to him. :D
SunFlash
7 years ago
England doesn't hype up Harry Kane because he's been shite for England. In every game they played that actually mattered, he wasted chances and can probably be scapegoated for England's poor performance in Euro 2016.
As for the claim that people say Spurs don't have good players, I'd echo that. Really good team, really good players, but not a great team, and not great players. These last two seasons have been Spurs best since Bale left and they finished 3rd last year and are currently in 5th, tied on points with United, who despite being on a healthy winning streak, is still recovering from the cesspool of results that knocked them out of title contention. 3rd and 5th for any of City/United/Chelsea/Arsenal registers as a disappointing season. (I'd take 3rd right now, don't kill me) Give me one reason why I should consider Tottenham as a team to be great. Not based on league finishes. Certainly not based on Europe.
Your team isn't great, and your players aren't great. Fight me Lodatz.
Lodatz
7 years ago
Edited
England doesn't hype up Harry Kane because he's been shite for England. In every game they played that actually mattered, he wasted chances and can probably be scapegoated for England's poor performance in Euro 2016.
Well that's clearly untrue, since we were let down by a shambolic defense which couldn't steady us enough to start supplying the forwards properly. Sheesh, were you watching another team during that tournament?
As for the claim that people say Spurs don't have good players, I'd echo that.
Well of course you would. You're trying to wind me up. For example:
These last two seasons have been Spurs best since Bale left and they finished 3rd last year
Yes, which is better than when Bale WAS here, too, so, doesn't that work against your argument?
and are currently in 5th, tied on points with United,
Yes, and only 2 points behind Arsenal, and 3 points behind City. You do realize that if (and it's a big if) we beat Chelsea tomorrow, that we'll be 3rd again, with City and Arsenal beneath us? So, what is your point? Are you saying that City and Arsenal do not have great players, or are not great teams, since we could potentially leapfrog them? Oh, and of course we did BEAT City the last 3 times we played them, but that's a minor consideration, eh..? ;)
3rd and 5th for any of City/United/Chelsea/Arsenal registers as a disappointing season.
So? That means Arsenal, Liverpool, United and Chelsea have had hardly anything BUT disappointing seasons over the last few years, with City rolling in 4th last year to boot. If United have not made the Top 3 in 4 seasons, Arsenal have come 2nd only once, and Chelsea came 10th last year, Liverpool finishing once in the Top 4 in 7 years, and City could well get edged OUT of the Top 3 for a second season in a row, the way things are going, then why are they all somehow 'great teams', but Spurs are not?
That doesn't seem very fair, or unbiased.
Give me one reason why I should consider Tottenham as a team to be great.
I'll give you 3:
Kane is one of the best young strikers in the world, Dele Alli is one of the best young players period in the world, Lloris is a world-class goalkeeper, Alderweireld and Vertonghen had the meanest defense in Europe behind Atletico Madrid, and our full-back pairing are probably the best in the country.
Do you deny this? If so, I'd love to hear exactly why. ;)
Your team isn't great, and your players aren't great. Fight me Lodatz.
Why do you want a fight with me? Why are you taking us off topic and trying to turn this into an attack upon my whole team, when all I did was mention a reason why Kane doesn't get hyped? Are you just upset because I pointed out that your criticisms of Kane were not very accurate, and provided evidence to back myself up? I saw from another thread that you like facts, apparently. Why don't you like the facts when I'm the one providing them? Why no counter-facts, or evidence?
Should I call in my buddy Edmund Rigo Jnr?
England doesn't hype up Harry Kane because he's been shite for England. In every game they played that actually mattered, he wasted chances and can probably be scapegoated for England's poor performance in Euro 2016.
Well that's clearly untrue, since we were let down by a shambolic defense which couldn't steady us enough to start supplying the forwards properly. Sheesh, were you watching another team during that tournament?
As for the claim that people say Spurs don't have good players, I'd echo that.
Well of course you would. You're trying to wind me up. For example:
These last two seasons have been Spurs best since Bale left and they finished 3rd last year
Yes, which is better than when Bale WAS here, too, so, doesn't that work against your argument?
and are currently in 5th, tied on points with United,
Yes, and only 2 points behind Arsenal, and 3 points behind City. You do realize that if (and it's a big if) we beat Chelsea tomorrow, that we'll be 3rd again, with City and Arsenal beneath us? So, what is your point? Are you saying that City and Arsenal do not have great players, or are not great teams, since we could potentially leapfrog them? Oh, and of course we did BEAT City the last 3 times we played them, but that's a minor consideration, eh..? ;)
3rd and 5th for any of City/United/Chelsea/Arsenal registers as a disappointing season.
So? That means Arsenal, Liverpool, United and Chelsea have had hardly anything BUT disappointing seasons over the last few years, with City rolling in 4th last year to boot. If United have not made the Top 3 in 4 seasons, Arsenal have come 2nd only once, and Chelsea came 10th last year, and City could well get edged OUT of the Top 4 the way things are going, then why are they all somehow 'great teams', but Spurs are not?
That doesn't seem very fair, or unbiased.
Give me one reason why I should consider Tottenham as a team to be great.
I'll give you 3:
Kane is one of the best young strikers in the world, Dele Alli is one of the best young players period in the world, Lloris is a world-class goalkeeper, Alderweireld and Vertonghen had the meanest defense in Europe behind Atletico Madrid, and our left-back pairing are probably the best in the country.
Do you deny this? If so, I'd love to hear exactly why. ;)
Your team isn't great, and your players aren't great. Fight me Lodatz.
Why do you want a fight with me? Are you just upset because I pointed out that Kane is better than you said he is?
England doesn't hype up Harry Kane because he's been shite for England. In every game they played that actually mattered, he wasted chances and can probably be scapegoated for England's poor performance in Euro 2016.
Well that's clearly untrue, since we were let down by a shambolic defense which couldn't steady us enough to start supplying the forwards properly. Sheesh, were you watching another team during that tournament?
As for the claim that people say Spurs don't have good players, I'd echo that.
Well of course you would. You're trying to wind me up. For example:
These last two seasons have been Spurs best since Bale left and they finished 3rd last year
Yes, which is better than when Bale WAS here, too, so, doesn't that work against your argument?
and are currently in 5th, tied on points with United,
Yes, and only 2 points behind Arsenal, and 3 points behind City. You do realize that if (and it's a big if) we beat Chelsea tomorrow, that we'll be 3rd again, with City and Arsenal beneath us? So, what is your point? Are you saying that City and Arsenal do not have great players, or are not great teams, since we could potentially leapfrog them? Oh, and of course we did BEAT City the last 3 times we played them, but that's a minor consideration, eh..? ;)
3rd and 5th for any of City/United/Chelsea/Arsenal registers as a disappointing season.
So? That means Arsenal, Liverpool, United and Chelsea have had hardly anything BUT disappointing seasons over the last few years, with City rolling in 4th last year to boot. If United have not made the Top 3 in 4 seasons, Arsenal have come 2nd only once, and Chelsea came 10th last year, and City could well get edged OUT of the Top 4 the way things are going, then why are they all somehow 'great teams', but Spurs are not?
That doesn't seem very fair, or unbiased.
Give me one reason why I should consider Tottenham as a team to be great.
I'll give you 3:
Kane is one of the best young strikers in the world, Dele Alli is one of the best young players period in the world, Lloris is a world-class goalkeeper, Alderweireld and Vertonghen had the meanest defense in Europe behind Atletico Madrid, and our left-back pairing are probably the best in the country.
Do you deny this? If so, I'd love to hear exactly why. ;)
Your team isn't great, and your players aren't great. Fight me Lodatz.
Why do you want a fight with me? Are you just upset because I pointed out that Kane is better than you said he is?
Should I call in my buddy Edmund Rigo Jnr?
England doesn't hype up Harry Kane because he's been shite for England. In every game they played that actually mattered, he wasted chances and can probably be scapegoated for England's poor performance in Euro 2016.
Well that's clearly untrue, since we were let down by a shambolic defense which couldn't steady us enough to start supplying the forwards properly. Sheesh, were you watching another team during that tournament?
As for the claim that people say Spurs don't have good players, I'd echo that.
Well of course you would. You're trying to wind me up. For example:
These last two seasons have been Spurs best since Bale left and they finished 3rd last year
Yes, which is better than when Bale WAS here, too, so, doesn't that work against your argument?
and are currently in 5th, tied on points with United,
Yes, and only 2 points behind Arsenal, and 3 points behind City. You do realize that if (and it's a big if) we beat Chelsea tomorrow, that we'll be 3rd again, with City and Arsenal beneath us? So, what is your point? Are you saying that City and Arsenal do not have great players, or are not great teams, since we could potentially leapfrog them? Oh, and of course we did BEAT City the last 3 times we played them, but that's a minor consideration, eh..? ;)
3rd and 5th for any of City/United/Chelsea/Arsenal registers as a disappointing season.
So? That means Arsenal, Liverpool, United and Chelsea have had hardly anything BUT disappointing seasons over the last few years, with City rolling in 4th last year to boot. If United have not made the Top 3 in 4 seasons, Arsenal have come 2nd only once, and Chelsea came 10th last year, Liverpool finishing once in the Top 4 in 7 years, and City could well get edged OUT of the Top 4 for a second season in a row, the way things are going, then why are they all somehow 'great teams', but Spurs are not?
That doesn't seem very fair, or unbiased.
Give me one reason why I should consider Tottenham as a team to be great.
I'll give you 3:
Kane is one of the best young strikers in the world, Dele Alli is one of the best young players period in the world, Lloris is a world-class goalkeeper, Alderweireld and Vertonghen had the meanest defense in Europe behind Atletico Madrid, and our left-back pairing are probably the best in the country.
Do you deny this? If so, I'd love to hear exactly why. ;)
Your team isn't great, and your players aren't great. Fight me Lodatz.
Why do you want a fight with me? Are you just upset because I pointed out that Kane is better than you said he is?
Should I call in my buddy Edmund Rigo Jnr?
England doesn't hype up Harry Kane because he's been shite for England. In every game they played that actually mattered, he wasted chances and can probably be scapegoated for England's poor performance in Euro 2016.
Well that's clearly untrue, since we were let down by a shambolic defense which couldn't steady us enough to start supplying the forwards properly. Sheesh, were you watching another team during that tournament?
As for the claim that people say Spurs don't have good players, I'd echo that.
Well of course you would. You're trying to wind me up. For example:
These last two seasons have been Spurs best since Bale left and they finished 3rd last year
Yes, which is better than when Bale WAS here, too, so, doesn't that work against your argument?
and are currently in 5th, tied on points with United,
Yes, and only 2 points behind Arsenal, and 3 points behind City. You do realize that if (and it's a big if) we beat Chelsea tomorrow, that we'll be 3rd again, with City and Arsenal beneath us? So, what is your point? Are you saying that City and Arsenal do not have great players, or are not great teams, since we could potentially leapfrog them? Oh, and of course we did BEAT City the last 3 times we played them, but that's a minor consideration, eh..? ;)
3rd and 5th for any of City/United/Chelsea/Arsenal registers as a disappointing season.
So? That means Arsenal, Liverpool, United and Chelsea have had hardly anything BUT disappointing seasons over the last few years, with City rolling in 4th last year to boot. If United have not made the Top 3 in 4 seasons, Arsenal have come 2nd only once, and Chelsea came 10th last year, Liverpool finishing once in the Top 4 in 7 years, and City could well get edged OUT of the Top 4 for a second season in a row, the way things are going, then why are they all somehow 'great teams', but Spurs are not?
That doesn't seem very fair, or unbiased.
Give me one reason why I should consider Tottenham as a team to be great.
I'll give you 3:
Kane is one of the best young strikers in the world, Dele Alli is one of the best young players period in the world, Lloris is a world-class goalkeeper, Alderweireld and Vertonghen had the meanest defense in Europe behind Atletico Madrid, and our left-back pairing are probably the best in the country.
Do you deny this? If so, I'd love to hear exactly why. ;)
Your team isn't great, and your players aren't great. Fight me Lodatz.
Why do you want a fight with me? Are you just upset because I pointed out that your criticisms of Kane were not very accurate, and provided evidence to back myself up? I saw from another thread that you like facts, apparently. Why don't you like the facts when I'm the one providing them? Why no counter-facts?
Should I call in my buddy Edmund Rigo Jnr?
chelsea8
7 years ago
Triggered!
Emobot7
7 years ago
Edited
This actually pretty epic. Don't mind me though, I'm just passing the pop-corn:
This actually pretty epic. Don't mind though, I'm just passing the poc-corn:
This actually pretty epic. Don't mind me though, I'm just passing the poc-corn:
Lodatz
7 years ago
...and the whole world has to answer right now, just to tell you once again...
Emobot7
7 years ago
@Lodatz All hail MJ, he was a great man and will forever be missed. Definitly really was one smooth criminal. ;)
Lodatz
7 years ago
Hey, like he said, some folks have always "got to be startin' somethin'..." ;)
Himself? He was the one to look at the Man in the Mirror, and be the one to make a change. :)
.
.
.
.
.
We could go on for days.
Emobot7
7 years ago
@Lodatz Indeed we could, but no matter how "thrilling" it would be, we should stop for it could be "dangerous". We'd be better off "beating it". ;)
SunFlash
7 years ago
Edited
Well that's clearly untrue, since we were let down by a shambolic defense which couldn't steady us enough to start supplying the forwards properly. Sheesh, were you watching another team during that tournament?
I guess. England averaged one goal a game. Giving up 4 goals in 3 games isn't a huge deal, especially when 1 of those goals was a Hart clanger. Scoring 3 in 3 games is a massive problem. As for supplying the forwards properly, I'd agree with that - nevertheless, players such as Kane and Vardy did have chances. They didn't score them, and that ended up being the difference. I'm a defensive guy, so I always think the problem is the attack, but still I'd have a hard time seeing how the defense is at fault for England in that tournament. In return to Spurs however, wasn't Dele Ali one of the vocal points of England's midfield in that tournament? Are you suggesting that the problem was not Kane, and therefore the suppliers, such as Ali? Seems like an odd point to make, for what I think you're attempting to prove.
These last two seasons have been Spurs best since Bale left and they finished 3rd last year
Yes, which is better than when Bale WAS here, too, so, doesn't that work against your argument?
Actually, it helps it. People always harken back to the Bale days for Spurs, but now that I checked, you're right, Spurs were far worse than I thought they were a few years ago. My bad, you're right.
Yes, and only 2 points behind Arsenal, and 3 points behind City. You do realize that if (and it's a big if) we beat Chelsea tomorrow, that we'll be 3rd again, with City and Arsenal beneath us? So, what is your point? Are you saying that City and Arsenal do not have great players, or are not great teams, since we could potentially leapfrog them? Oh, and of course we did BEAT City the last 3 times we played them, but that's a minor consideration, eh..? ;)
All of this is very true. As a United fan sitting in sixth, I would consider getting to fourth enough for this season after our awful start. Wouldn't be happy with the season as a whole, but still. That tells you that despite how close this table is, I and many other people doubt we're going to see a massive shakeup. We rarely do. As I pointed out in a thread earlier, after Christmas, the table barely changes (1st at christmas has been 1st at the end of the season 6 out of the last 7 years - and top 4 isn't much different).
So? That means Arsenal, Liverpool, United and Chelsea have had hardly anything BUT disappointing seasons over the last few years, with City rolling in 4th last year to boot. If United have not made the Top 3 in 4 seasons, Arsenal have come 2nd only once, and Chelsea came 10th last year, Liverpool finishing once in the Top 4 in 7 years, and City could well get edged OUT of the Top 3 for a second season in a row, the way things are going, then why are they all somehow 'great teams', but Spurs are not?
I'm not certain that United or Arsenal fans would fight you on that. Chelsea has done fine with the massive exception of last season, and Liverpool didn't have top 4 realistic aspirations aside from the one season they finished second. Even now, I wouldn't bet on them to finish top 4 by the end of the season. As for City, they underperformed in the league last year - and also got within a goal of the CL final. Potato fucking potato. City are pretty consistent in terms of league finishes.
Give me one reason why I should consider Tottenham as a team to be great.
I'll give you 3:
they're the youngest team in the league, and should have come 2nd last year
we have the smallest budget of any of the Top 6, so are succeeding on purely footballing merit
We've beaten many of the teams that you consider to be great, just as much as they beat us
The youngest team in the league is a great title, and implies you will improve as the seasons go by. From should have come in 2nd to 5th is clearly an improvement, plus whatever you want to call your European campaign.
You do indeed have a small budget of 200M or whatever the hell EPL teams make now. Just because your manager and board made the decision to stick with the eleven you have doesn't mean that Spurs doesn't have financial muscle. Spurs spent 70m in the summer on back-ups. Clearly money is an issue.
As for playing other teams I think are "great" I am of the opinion that the EPL lacks such teams at the moment due to the league's fantastic performances in Europe, but assuming we go off of your definition, Spurs has beaten City, drawn Liverpool, drawn Arsenal, and lost to Chelsea and United this season. Last season, they split United, drew Arsenal twice, drew Chelsea twice, drew Liverpool twice, and beat City twice. While I respect that you have City's number, those three wins are the only thing keeping your winning percentage even close to 30%. If you compare minus the City results, Spurs have won once in twelve games. Impressive.
Kane is one of the best young strikers in the world, Dele Alli is one of the best young players period in the world, Lloris is a world-class goalkeeper, Alderweireld and Vertonghen had the meanest defense in Europe behind Atletico Madrid, and our full-back pairing are probably the best in the country.
Do you deny this? If so, I'd love to hear exactly why. ;)
Ibra is one of the best strikers in the world period. Martial and Rashford are two of the best young players in the world. De Gea is one of, if not one of the best goalkeepers in the world. United's defense last season was better statistically than Spurs, and therefore apparently worthy of mention along with Atletico Madrid. Our fullbacks are shite.
That is not all that different from the assessment you just gave Spurs. And reading that, you can almost convince yourself that United are of an elite level, ready to be compared with the top sides in the world.
But they're not. And neither is Spurs.
Why do you want a fight with me? Why are you taking us off topic and trying to turn this into an attack upon my whole team, when all I did was mention a reason why Kane doesn't get hyped? Are you just upset because I pointed out that your criticisms of Kane were not very accurate, and provided evidence to back myself up?
I wanted to fight because I'm bored, and because Emo called me a nice person the other day. I wasn't taking us off-topic, I stated that Harry Kane was underrated, and then presented the reasons for that. You provided some very nice videos, and then made a comment regarding Spurs as a whole:
The English media (much like FootyRoom!) are always very reluctant to admit that Spurs have great players.
There's a reason for that, and I presented said case. What I wrote above in this post is the in-depth version that I didn't think we were going to get into in this thread, but I mean now that we're here...
I saw from another thread that you like facts, apparently. Why don't you like the facts when I'm the one providing them? Why no counter-facts, or evidence?
I love facts. I like it when the facts make informed opinions, instead of homer ones. As for the counter evidence...I mean...look above.
Should I call in my buddy Edmund Rigo Jnr?
I have no idea who that is.
Well that's clearly untrue, since we were let down by a shambolic defense which couldn't steady us enough to start supplying the forwards properly. Sheesh, were you watching another team during that tournament?
I guess. England averaged one goal a game. Giving up 4 goals in 3 games isn't a huge deal, especially when 1 of those goals was a Hart clanger. Scoring 3 in 3 games is a massive problem. As for supplying the forwards properly, I'd agree with that - nevertheless, players such as Kane and Vardy did have chances. They didn't score them, and that ended up being the difference. I'm a defensive guy, so I always think the problem is the attack, but still I'd have a hard time seeing how the defense is at fault for England in that tournament. In return to Spurs however, wasn't Dele Ali one of the vocal points of England's midfield in that tournament? Are you suggesting that the problem was not Kane, and therefore the suppliers, such as Ali? Seems like an odd point to make, for what I think you're attempting to prove.
These last two seasons have been Spurs best since Bale left and they finished 3rd last year
Yes, which is better than when Bale WAS here, too, so, doesn't that work against your argument?
Actually, it helps it. People always harken back to the Bale days for Spurs, but now that I checked, you're right, Spurs were far worse than I thought they were a few years ago. My bad, you're right.
Yes, and only 2 points behind Arsenal, and 3 points behind City. You do realize that if (and it's a big if) we beat Chelsea tomorrow, that we'll be 3rd again, with City and Arsenal beneath us? So, what is your point? Are you saying that City and Arsenal do not have great players, or are not great teams, since we could potentially leapfrog them? Oh, and of course we did BEAT City the last 3 times we played them, but that's a minor consideration, eh..? ;)
All of this is very true. As a United fan sitting in sixth, I would consider getting to fourth enough for this season after our awful start. Wouldn't be happy with the season as a whole, but still. That tells you that despite how close this table is, I and many other people doubt we're going to see a massive shakeup. We rarely do. As I pointed out in a thread earlier, after Christmas, the table barely changes (1st at christmas has been 1st at the end of the season 6 out of the last 7 years - and top 4 isn't much different).
So? That means Arsenal, Liverpool, United and Chelsea have had hardly anything BUT disappointing seasons over the last few years, with City rolling in 4th last year to boot. If United have not made the Top 3 in 4 seasons, Arsenal have come 2nd only once, and Chelsea came 10th last year, Liverpool finishing once in the Top 4 in 7 years, and City could well get edged OUT of the Top 3 for a second season in a row, the way things are going, then why are they all somehow 'great teams', but Spurs are not?
I'm not certain that United or Arsenal fans would fight you on that. Chelsea has done fine with the massive exception of last season, and Liverpool didn't have top 4 realistic aspirations aside from the one season they finished second. Even now, I wouldn't bet on them to finish top 4 by the end of the season. As for City, they underperformed in the league last year - and also got within a goal of the CL final. Potato fucking potato. City are pretty consistent in terms of league finishes.
Give me one reason why I should consider Tottenham as a team to be great.
I'll give you 3:
they're the youngest team in the league, and should have come 2nd last year
we have the smallest budget of any of the Top 6, so are succeeding on purely footballing merit
We've beaten many of the teams that you consider to be great, just as much as they beat us
The youngest team in the league is a great title, and implies you will improve as the seasons go by. From should have come in 2nd to 5th is clearly an improvement, plus whatever you want to call your European campaign.
You do indeed have a small budget of 200M or whatever the hell EPL teams make now. Just because your manager and board made the decision to stick with the eleven you have doesn't mean that Spurs doesn't have financial muscle. Spurs spent 70m in the summer on back-ups. Clearly money is an issue.
As for playing other teams I think are "great" I am of the opinion that the EPL lacks such teams at the moment due to the league's fantastic performances in Europe, but assuming we go off of your definition, Spurs has beaten City, drawn Liverpool, drawn Arsenal, and lost to Chelsea and United this season. Last season, they split United, drew Arsenal twice, drew Chelsea twice, drew Liverpool twice, and beat City twice. While I respect that you have City's number, those three wins are the only thing keeping your winning percentage even close to 30%. If you compare minus the City results, Spurs have won once in twelve games. Impressive.
Kane is one of the best young strikers in the world, Dele Alli is one of the best young players period in the world, Lloris is a world-class goalkeeper, Alderweireld and Vertonghen had the meanest defense in Europe behind Atletico Madrid, and our full-back pairing are probably the best in the country.
Do you deny this? If so, I'd love to hear exactly why. ;)
Ibra is one of the best strikers in the world period. Martial and Rashford are two of the best young players in the world. De Gea is one of, if not one of the best goalkeepers in the world. United's defense last season was better statistically than Spurs, and therefore apparently worthy of mention along with Atletico Madrid. Our fullbacks are shite.
That is not all that different from the assessment you just gave Spurs. And reading that, you can almost convince yourself that United are of an elite level, ready to be compared with the top sides in the world.
But they're not. And neither is Spurs.
Why do you want a fight with me? Why are you taking us off topic and trying to turn this into an attack upon my whole team, when all I did was mention a reason why Kane doesn't get hyped? Are you just upset because I pointed out that your criticisms of Kane were not very accurate, and provided evidence to back myself up?
I wanted to fight because I'm bored, and because Emo called me a nice person the other day. I wasn't taking us off-topic, I stated that Harry Kane was underrated, and then presented the reasons for that. You provided some very nice videos, and then made a comment regarding Spurs as a whole:
The English media (much like FootyRoom!) are always very reluctant to admit that Spurs have great players.
There's a reason for that, and I presented said case. What I wrote above in this post is the in-depth version that I didn't think we were going to get into in this thread, but I mean now that we're here...
I saw from another thread that you like facts, apparently. Why don't you like the facts when I'm the one providing them? Why no counter-facts, or evidence?
I love facts. I like it when the facts make informed opinions, instead of homer ones. As for the counter evidence...I mean...look above.
Should I call in my buddy Edmund Rigo Jnr?
I have no idea who that is.
Ok, so the pundits have always been quick to say that Aguero is the best striker in the league.
However, Ibra has arrived and Costa has channelled his aggression in a way that has transformed him as a player and helped him play on a whole new level. And then there's Sanchez, who has the second highest whoscored.com rating in the league (7.92)
-