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)

-

@lodatz - on your 3 reasons why Tottenham can be considered great:

1. they're the youngest team in the league, and should have come 2nd last year
2. we have the smallest budget of any of the Top 6, so are succeeding on purely footballing merit
3. We've beaten many of the teams that you consider to be great, just as much as they beat us

Only one of those three points is kind of valid (point 2).

Point 1 - Should have come 2nd? Yes you played well, and had a good season, but you came third. End of. No should have been second. You had less points then Leicester and Arsenal, which is why you came third and not second.

Point 2 - Yes ok, I do get that you are performing better than some teams who are just splashing cash everywhere. However, to suggest that teams like Chelsea and Liverpool are only doing so well because they spend lavishly is absurd. This season Chelsea and Liverpool have succeeded by their managers teaching the teams how to play great football and getting the very best out of the players they already have instead. Pochettino is a great manager who does this to some extent, but it is not like if Tottenham suddenly had loads more cash they would suddenly be first in the league.

Point 3 - The league works on a points based system, not by who you beat. To win the league and therefore achieve greatness, you must consistently beat most of the teams in the league, not just by beating say Man City on one day.

@Sunflash In other word, both Tottenham and United are poor team in your opinion? :S

Something people seem to forget, there are hundred of team in the english pyramid of football. Being in the top seven best team in the best divsion of that league should really speak for itself. Can't we just agree that all team in the EPL are great to some extent at least. :( Well, every team but Burnley.

But Burnley beat the great Liverpool 2-0, so are Burnley great? :)
jokes aside - there are many many great teams in English football, so like you say Tottenham must be a very good team to be in the top 7, at the pinnacle of English football. To be truly great though you have to test your metal against the best teams from all over the world - namely in the Champions league.

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.

How many chances do you think they had? And yes, the defense conceding crucial goals was much more of a difference-maker than the missing goals. Those defensive errors turned wins into draws, and draws into losses. Of course Kane and Vardy could have (or should have) done better, but that doesn't detract away from the quality that both of them showed in the league.

Are you going to tell me that Iceland was a sterner test than, say, Manchester City, whom both Leciester and Spurs defeated thanks to Vardy and Kane? If not, then there's nothing really to talk about, as England's performance in Euro 2016 doesn't take away from how great a player Harry Kane is.

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.

Well, not really, no, because Alli is not solely responsible for the lack of chances being created, was he? It was widely documented how badly Hodgson was running the team, expecially when he had Kane taking corners! And yet you think Kane and Alli are to blame for England playing poorly?

Sounds very much like you are desperate to implicate Spurs players, unfairly so.

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.

Oh that's very cute, but you're not going to rattle me. :) I don't hear anyone hearken back to the good ol' Bale days, but then, I'm a Spurs fan instead of someone trying to discredit them as a team, so...

Remember when Bale, during that 'much worse' period whipped United a treat, even when Fergie was still there? Yeah, how crap we must have been.

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).

Actually, I've been waiting for you to post in that thread to admit you were wrong, since you were. :) What YOU said was that, back at the start of November, you could predict the winner. Which was, of course, completely false, and your suggestion that the league was predictable proved to be equally untrue.

Was that just another wind up?

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.

The season isn't over yet, sunshine. ;) Just like with your predictions at the start of the seasons, the way it looks now doesn't indicate how it will look come May. If Spurs do end up Top 3, among a resurgent Chelsea, a new-look City, a rampant Liverpool etc, will you concede that this is progress?

Or is your intention just to be as contrary and anti-Spurs as possible, just to try and get under my skin?

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.

Well, we also sold a bunch to make that up, but isn't that roughly the price that City and United spend on one player...?

Seems there's quite the financial gap after all...

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.

Right, which means that out of 15 matches, they won 4, lost 3, and drew 8.

How is that not competing adequately with the teams around them? Your point makes no sense, if you're trying to show that Spurs are not holding their own.

If you compare minus the City results, Spurs have won once in twelve games. Impressive.

What, you mean take out the results against the best team? OKay. :) That seems fair. I do wonder why you seem to think that this is not an impressive stat, considering we've LOST only 20% of the time, to teams you keep suggesting are much greater than us.

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.

Well, not really, but then, thankfully for me I never said Spurs are ready to be compared with one of the top sides in the world. You seem to be under the impression that I overestimated Spurs, or made a bold claim about them, when in fact I did not. I just said that Spurs have some great players, which YOU found so outrageous a thing to say that you've started this lengthy argument rather than simply admit that, yes, Kane, Alli, Lloris, etc are great players.

Once again, you seem more concerned with demeaning Spurs than discussing in an unbiased fashion. Is there a reason for this?

There's a reason for that, and I presented said case.

No you didn't. You misrepresented the performance of England in Euro 2016, as though that explains the entirely of the media's snub towards Spurs. Once again, this seems rather more pointed than you're letting on.

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.

...at all the stuff which I've shown is either untrue or doesn't make sense?

I have no idea who that is.

He's a really, really sad person who tries to wind other people up with obvious nonsense just to try and get a reaction from them, and is motivated by jealousy.

@legends16 Yeah, but considering how physical the english league is, doesn't playing extra game end up making thing more difficult for English side. I mean, most of the time, its okay when playing agaisnt weaker side or when you got lots of depth but without that, I can't help but feel English side are a bit at disadvantage. Its not like any of the team from PL run trough the group stage without any problem either, City ended drawing against once against Borussia MG and twice against Celtic, if they didn't had that win against Barca, they could have bowed out as well. Arsenal also never managed to beat PSG in the group stage and would have lost against them in knockout phase because of away goal difference (I know its a lot of if, sorry). Leicester did well but ended suffering a very big lose against Porto on the final game of the group phase. I'm just saying, the other English team weren't exactly so much more impressive than Spurs in the CL. I understand that its the results that matter but still.

PS: Don't mind what I said bout Burnley, I just don't like them for some very obscure reason. :D

@legends16:

Point 1 - Should have come 2nd? Yes you played well, and had a good season, but you came third. End of. No should have been second. You had less points then Leicester and Arsenal, which is why you came third and not second.

Well, I agree. I'm not making an excuse, I'm simply stating that we really should have cruised into 2nd place, even after failing to beat you lot at Stamford Bridge and keep the title dream alive. We threw 2nd place away, which, again when you consider they were the youngest team, is not that surprising. Lack of experience, etc. They have much still to learn, but that doesn't change the position we were in.

Point 2 - Yes ok, I do get that you are performing better than some teams who are just splashing cash everywhere. However, to suggest that teams like Chelsea and Liverpool are only doing so well because they spend lavishly is absurd. This season Chelsea and Liverpool have succeeded by their managers teaching the teams how to play great football and getting the very best out of the players they already have instead. Pochettino is a great manager who does this to some extent, but it is not like if Tottenham suddenly had loads more cash they would suddenly be first in the league.

I don't recall saying that they would be, but certainly if Spurs were able to compete with the type of wages and transfer fees of our rivals we'd be in a better situation. Don't forget how close we were to Hazard and Willian, for instance. Think of Sanchez slotting into our squad, etc.

You can't pretend that we're not at a severe disadvantage compared to you, City, United and Arsenal, for instance. The fact that we are competing so well with those teams does show how great our young team is, and how well Poch is managing them. I didn't deny that Conte and Klopp are doing great work, did I? But Poch has done achieved as great a feat, if not greater considering his resources and the lack of European football that has helped both the Reds and the Blues this season.

Why is that a controversial thing to say?

Point 3 - The league works on a points based system, not by who you beat. To win the league and therefore achieve greatness, you must consistently beat most of the teams in the league, not just by beating say Man City on one day.

So, you guys were utter crap last season, then? Like I said, our youngest team in the league should have come 2nd, last year, if we hadn't thrown that away through lack of experience/dedication. So, we DID beat most of the teams in the league, didn't we?

How is that not great?

This isn't about you or me. To be one hundred percent honest, I don't really care how Spurs finishes unless it directly impacts United, which in recent seasons hasn't been the case. I have no vendetta against Spurs, and certainly not against you as a person. So if you would stop saying things like:

Or is your intention just to be as contrary and anti-Spurs as possible, just to try and get under my skin?

Oh that's very cute, but you're not going to rattle me. :) I don't hear anyone hearken back to the good ol' Bale days, but then, I'm a Spurs fan instead of someone trying to discredit them as a team, so...

Once again, you seem more concerned with demeaning Spurs than discussing in an unbiased fashion. Is there a reason for this?

Let's have a discussion, not an argument. Barbs like that will turn this into an argument. I entered into this because I was bored, and because I think your opinion is funny and probably incorrect. Not looking to be drawn into a pissing contest here.

Now, back on topic.

How many chances do you think they had? And yes, the defense conceding crucial goals was much more of a difference-maker than the missing goals. Those defensive errors turned wins into draws, and draws into losses. Of course Kane and Vardy could have (or should have) done better, but that doesn't detract away from the quality that both of them showed in the league.
Are you going to tell me that Iceland was a sterner test than, say, Manchester City, whom both Leciester and Spurs defeated thanks to Vardy and Kane? If not, then there's nothing really to talk about, as England's performance in Euro 2016 doesn't take away from how great a player Harry Kane is.

I think it's safe to say that we both think England is pretty terrible. I think it's also safe to say that much like most of England, we disagree on the exact reasons why. I'm going to let this point slide, because you're right, Kane and Vardy played very well in the league, and I'm right, they both seriously underwhelmed internationally. Vardy did score, which was nice, but Kane didn't. In four games, as a main striker, he didn't score. Both of our points are pretty solid here, so I think we can agree with each other on this and move on.

Oh that's very cute, but you're not going to rattle me. :) I don't hear anyone hearken back to the good ol' Bale days, but then, I'm a Spurs fan instead of someone trying to discredit them as a team, so...

Sigh, that's not what I meant. I see how you got there, but what I was really getting at was that Spurs were barely a top four team with (at the time) the most expensive player in the world. Once he left, well, I'm not going to attempt to educate you on your own team. What we're seeing out of Spurs now is the best we've seen out of them in a long time. That's what we should be taking out of this more than anything.

Actually, I've been waiting for you to post in that thread to admit you were wrong, since you were. :) What YOU said was that, back at the start of November, you could predict the winner. Which was, of course, completely false, and your suggestion that the league was predictable proved to be equally untrue.

When I posted that, I misread the article, and then acknowledged it when I realized I was wrong. I was using evidence of Christmas for November results. However, it's past Christmas now. That information is perfectly relevant at the moment, so I don't see your point. I was simply stating that whomever is top at Christmas, 6 out of the last 7 years, won the title. That is not an opinion, that is fact. I do not see how this undeniable fact was proved untrue.

The season isn't over yet, sunshine. ;) Just like with your predictions at the start of the seasons, the way it looks now doesn't indicate how it will look come May. If Spurs do end up Top 3, among a resurgent Chelsea, a new-look City, a rampant Liverpool etc, will you concede that this is progress?

I wouldn't call it progress, but I would call it consistency, and progress tends to stem from that. The league was weak last season, and and it has gotten stronger. Falling a few spots this season wouldn't be an example of failure, in this instance. That being said, if Spurs is as good as you they are, top 4 should be a gimmie.

Well, we also sold a bunch to make that up, but isn't that roughly the price that City and United spend on one player...?
Seems there's quite the financial gap after all...

Again, not saying the Manchester clubs have equal money to Spurs. But the prospect of Spurs being poor is utter myth.

Right, which means that out of 15 matches, they won 4, lost 3, and drew 8.
How is that not competing adequately with the teams around them? Your point makes no sense, if you're trying to show that Spurs are not holding their own.

Liverpool and United were pretty terrible last season, as was Chelsea. Fact is though, Spurs do "hold their own" but they don't exactly do well either. However you slice it, 30% win rate against people who you are trying to make a case for is not ideal. When I was looking up their stats, I found Spurs lose to a lot of not-so-good teams. Newcastle twice last season is a good example of that. I suppose there is no point to bringing Europe into this, but Europe.

What, you mean take out the results against the best team? OKay. :) That seems fair. I do wonder why you seem to think that this is not an impressive stat, considering we've LOST only 20% of the time, to teams you keep suggesting are much greater than us.

It's not impressive, it sucks. Try winning a title over any of these teams with stats like that. There's a reason United have been crap the last few years, and it's not because we're losing to teams like Newcastle. We can't beat the teams we are in direct competition with, and while Spurs does appear to get a point often, clearly when looking at the end of season table, it's not enough to top teams like Arsenal last season, and barely enough to top historically weak teams like United and City.

I guess what I'm asking you is if you have title aspirations, and feel you should be challenging. If so, that's not even close to enough. If not - then it's fine.

Well, not really, but then, thankfully for me I never said Spurs are ready to be compared with one of the top sides in the world. You seem to be under the impression that I overestimated Spurs, or made a bold claim about them, when in fact I did not. I just said that Spurs have some great players, which YOU found so outrageous a thing to say that you've started this lengthy argument rather than simply admit that, yes, Kane, Alli, Lloris, etc are great players.

Lloris is pretty good. Alli has potential. Kane scores lots of goals. Are they among the best players in the world? Really? Highly debatable. And I don't find it outrageous. Why would I find it odd that someone thinks highly of their own team? I'd be more surprised if you didn't.

Once again, you seem more concerned with demeaning Spurs than discussing in an unbiased fashion. Is there a reason for this?

I have often repeated my reasons for entertaining this discussion. Boredom is a powerful motivator. Since the point that I am arguing is quite literally involves discussing how Spurs are not as strong as you think - yes, I guess I am demeaning them.

No you didn't. You misrepresented the performance of England in Euro 2016, as though that explains the entirely of the media's snub towards Spurs. Once again, this seems rather more pointed than you're letting on.

I have nothing against Spurs. I think of them so little that I occasionally forget they exist. Not trying to be derogatory, but when I think of top 4, I sometimes just clean forget to add Spurs to the conversation. Nothing malicious about it, and I'm sorry.

...at all the stuff which I've shown is either untrue or doesn't make sense?

It's all true. So is mine. We are simply drawing different conclusions from our evidence. Facts are like that.

@Sunflash
I'm not gonna get into the Spurs argument, but about what you said here -

There's a reason United have been crap the last few years, and it's not because we're losing to teams like Newcastle. We can't beat the teams we are in direct competition with

That is just not true. We have generally been able to beat the big teams these past 2-3 years. Looking at the results under LVG for two seasons :-

Man City : 2 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss
Arsenal : 2 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss
Liverpool : 4 wins
Chelsea : 3 draws, 1 loss
Tottenham : 2 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss

Don't know about you, but losing just 4 out of 20 is very good, and winning 10 out of 20 is respectable. Even last year we drew both our games with Leicester.

We didn't win anything these past few years precisely because we lost to teams like Sunderland, Bournemouth, West Brom, Swansea, etc.

If you're talking about the Moyes season, there your statement seems stronger, as we lost to City, Liverpool, Tottenham at home and didn't fare much better away.

But LVG had a pretty strong record against top teams, as I just proved.

Ha, that's actually funny. Knew we did ok, didn't think we did that well. I was thinking more of this season were we've lost to City and Chelsea, drawn Liverpool, and beaten Spurs.

Yes, I 100% agree that stats aren't everything but these are quite interesting.

Let's have a discussion, not an argument.

Then let's also pay attention to reality, not nonsense such as: "Kane and Alli are the reasons England sucked", and: "Tottenham don't have any great players".

See, when you make irrational claims, which I keep showing you are irrational, the resulting picture is that you are trying, quite deliberately, to discredit a team simply because you are 'discussing' with someone who supports them. If you don't want me to draw this conclusion, then maybe work on not making it seem to very much like that conclusion is true? :)

Besides, you said to 'fight you'. I'm a heavyweight, bud. If you call me into the ring I'm going to test your jaw, not hold your hand.

I think it's safe to say that we both think England is pretty terrible. I think it's also safe to say that much like most of England, we disagree on the exact reasons why. I'm going to let this point slide, because you're right, Kane and Vardy played very well in the league, and I'm right, they both seriously underwhelmed internationally. Vardy did score, which was nice, but Kane didn't. In four games, as a main striker, he didn't score. Both of our points are pretty solid here, so I think we can agree with each other on this and move on.

Well, not really, no. Kane had precious little service from a midfield that spent most of its time trying to fix the defense's mistakes. There really is no reason to blame Kane for Engand's poor performances at all, unless one is trying to discredit Kane -- which is what you've done you first posted here in this thread.

Sigh, that's not what I meant. I see how you got there, but what I was really getting at was that Spurs were barely a top four team with (at the time) the most expensive player in the world. Once he left, well, I'm not going to attempt to educate you on your own team...

Why not? You've been trying to do exactly that; I've just been correcting you.

If you don't want us to get bogged down in silly distractions like this, then why is it that you keep making those distractions? We didn't have to talk about Bale at all, but you seem determined to expand the topic just to throw a few digs in. Did you think you were being subtle?

When I posted that, I misread the article, and then acknowledged it when I realized I was wrong.

No, you didn't. That was point, in fact. :) You just ignored it.

However, it's past Christmas now. That information is perfectly relevant at the moment, so I don't see your point.

Well, because for one thing the team at the top has changed, which contradicts the point you were making in the first place, so my point is quite simple and quite solid: you can't easily (or credibly) predict the winner by the time you were claiming to do so. If you were confused about the article, are you also confused about when it was that you made the claim???

I wouldn't call it progress, but I would call it consistency, and progress tends to stem from that. The league was weak last season, and and it has gotten stronger.

The league wasn't weak last season at all; it just had some sea changes at the top. That argument is really just a poor excuse for the teams who didn't do so well, like United, who added Ibra, Pogba (the world's most expensive player) and Mourinho... and are currently one place behind where they ended up. The fact that they seemed so 'weak' is precisely because so many other teams were strong enough to take points from them.

Look at City, too, 6 months later... and it's 4th place still. We've swapped Leicester for Chelsea, and Liverpool have come back hard (with no superstar signings in the summer, I might add), but other than that the 'strength' of the league seems identical.

Maybe it's time to simply drop the myth that the PL is weak. ;)

Again, not saying the Manchester clubs have equal money to Spurs. But the prospect of Spurs being poor is utter myth.

Not really, when you compare it to the 5 teams above us in the the financial stakes. When our record signing is still (and sadly, I guess) 30m for Sissoko, which is what you spent on one defender, then you literally have no argument here. Just concede the point, instead.

Liverpool and United were pretty terrible last season, as was Chelsea.

How exactly were Liverpool and United 'terrible', when they were the teams performing the best against other Top 6 teams? I think what you mean is: they were not successful, which is besides the point anyhow. YOU are the one who is saying that they are all great teams, but Spurs are not, so it's YOU who has to stop making excuses for them, not me.

Fact is though, Spurs do "hold their own" but they don't exactly do well either. However you slice it, 30% win rate against people who you are trying to make a case for is not ideal.

Actually, it's pretty good! Do you understand that 30% is a HIGH percentage, under the circumstances? Need I draw out a diagram to explain the statistical relevance of winning 1/3 matches, when there are precisely 3 possible outcomes? That's exactly on par, if we're talking about competition. It's a FACT that this is the case, and it's also a FACT that our loss percentage is lower than our win percentage, which means we are doing better than most can say.

So, yeah. :)

It's not impressive, it sucks. Try winning a title over any of these teams with stats like that.

What, you mean like most teams have won their titles with stats like that? Find me the same stats for when Chelsea won the title under Mou, or City under Pellegrini. I bet they're not much different.

Remember, facts over perception. It's only your perception that this is bad, when in FACT it's not.

I guess what I'm asking you is if you have title aspirations, and feel you should be challenging. If so, that's not even close to enough. If not - then it's fine.

LOL. How does one become a title challenger, other than trying to improve our performance, which is precisely what we have been doing? Your entire argument rests upon the premise of: "you're not amazing yet, so therefore you're crap!"

It's been well documented by now just how poor an argument that actually is.

Lloris is pretty good. Alli has potential. Kane scores lots of goals. Are they among the best players in the world? Really? Highly debatable.

Lloris is possibly better than de Gea, certainly no worse, and yes is one of the best goalkeepers in the world. You can find a hundred pundits who agree with that at least. Kane scores lots of goals indeed, in a large variety of ways. That's why he's one of the best young strikers in the world, and one of the best strikers period in the league, and you can find lots of pundits who (grudgingly) agree. Alli has far more than 'potential'; he's fantastic, and you can find lots of pundits who agree.

Again, you seem to think these statements are controversial, just because YOU DON'T WATCH TOTTENHAM YOURSELF enough to find out, and I don't mean to be rude, but seeing as you've only been watching this game for a handful of years anyway, likely on (Fox or ESPN and reading about it in Bleacher Report) I'm not convinced you're that well-qualified to make the assessment in the first place.

Sorry. :(

You could prove me wrong with some facts, and stats, of course, but first you'd have to produce some. Thus far you have failed to, only voicing all the same old myths, despite how much you like to say that you prefer facts to perception.

It's all true. So is mine. We are simply drawing different conclusions from our evidence. Facts are like that.

No, you're wrong. OPINIONS are like that. Facts are facts.

For instance, it is a fact that Kane has made 98 PL appearances, and scored 59 goals. It's a fact that Kane has scored 20+ goals in both of his two full seasons in the PL, won the Golden Boot last year with 25, and has 10 goals in 15 appearances in his 3rd season. That means it is a fact that Kane, at 23 years old, is probably the of the best young striker in Europe, and one of the best-performing, period.

Just because you forget to include him in the conversation doesn't change this. Reality keeps trucking along, and opinions do not trump facts.

Besides, you said to 'fight you'. I'm a heavyweight, bud. If you call me into the ring I'm going to test your jaw, not hold your hand.

Fair. Whatever niceness I possessed is out the window now.

Well, not really, no. Kane had precious little service from a midfield that spent most of its time trying to fix the defense's mistakes. There really is no reason to blame Kane for Engand's poor performances at all, unless one is trying to discredit Kane -- which is what you've done you first posted here in this thread.

This point is beyond stupid. Let me illustrate why, in a way you cannot bullshit your way out of.

First off, the England midfield in the tournament was 50% Spurs (Dier, Alli). I'm going to give you a MASSIVE letoff and ignore this. The real interesting tidbit I found on my five entire seconds of research into just how shit England is was illustrated this amazing fact:
England's shot-to-goal conversion rate was 6.98%. They had more shots than anyone else in the tournament when they were knocked out. If we look at the only Spurs players to take shots, Dier, Alli, and Kane, they managed to hit the target 3 times out of 23 shots through the group stage, and weren't any better in the knockout round. Tell me again it was the defense that was the problem. Please. I would love to see a counter argument to this. "Wow our defense was the problem, we only took the most shots of any other team and couldn't hit the net let alone score to save our miserable lives"

If you don't want us to get bogged down in silly distractions like this, then why is it that you keep making those distractions? We didn't have to talk about Bale at all, but you seem determined to expand the topic just to throw a few digs in. Did you think you were being subtle?

If you're too stupid to see what I was attempting to illustrate the first time, I'm not sure why I'm saying it again. I brought up Bale to show that it had been awhile since Spurs had been good. You very correctly pointed out that Spurs back then were actually really crap in terms of the other teams even with Bale, which I thanked you for because it showed just how long it had been since Spurs actually challenged for anything. I know you said no more holding hands, but I think I had to hold your hand through that one, because clearly you couldn't comprehend it the first time.

No, you didn't. That was point, in fact. :) You just ignored it.

This is simply false. Go, dig up the thread. It's all in there.

Well, because for one thing the team at the top has changed, which contradicts the point you were making in the first place, so my point is quite simple and quite solid: you CANNOT predict the winner by the time you were claiming to do so. If you were confused about the article, are you also confused about when it was that you made the claim???

Chelsea was top of the league when I made the point. They are the top of the league now. Nothing has changed. What are you attempting to say? It's like talking to a retarded child.

The league wasn't weak last season at all; it just had some sea changes at the top. That argument is really just a poor excuse for the teams who didn't do so well, like United, who added Ibra, Pogba (the world's most expensive player) and Mourinho... and are currently one place behind where they ended up. The fact that they seemed so 'weak' is precisely because so many other teams were strong enough to take points from them.
Look at City, too, 6 months later... and it's 4th place still. We've swapped Leicester for Chelsea, and Liverpool have come back hard (with no superstar signings in the summer, I might add), but other than that the 'strength' of the league seems identical.
Maybe it's time to simply drop the myth that the PL is weak. ;)

The EPL is weak until they prove it otherwise in Europe. I'm still waiting.

Not really, when you compare it to the 5 teams above us in the the financial stakes. When our record signing is still (and sadly, I guess) 30m for Sissoko, which is what you spent on one defender, then you literally have no argument here. Just concede the point, instead.

I already did. Go take a literacy test.

How exactly were Liverpool and United 'terrible', when they were the teams performing the best against other Top 6 teams? I think what you mean is: they were not successful, which is besides the point anyhow. YOU are the one who is saying that they are all great teams, but Spurs are not, so it's YOU who has to stop making excuses for them, not me.

How in the flying fuck has ANYTHING I have said on this thread EVER implied United was a great team? Forget this thread, how has anything I have ever said on this FORUM implied United is a great team in their current state? I'm not make excuses for shit here. I'm coming in and telling you your team isn't awesome, and you're the one who has been providing the excuses. The definition of excuse, for your convince - an attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

Actually, it's pretty good! Do you understand that 30% is a HIGH percentage, under the circumstances? Need I draw out a diagram to explain the statistical relevance of winning 1/3 matches, when there are precisely 3 possible outcomes? That's exactly on par, if we're talking about competition. It's a FACT that this is the case, and it's also a FACT that our loss percentage is lower than our win percentage, which means we are doing better than most can say.

For those of us who can actually do math, we find that it is 33% is average when comparing 3 potential outcomes. Spurs are below average. Average shouldn't be enough to win the league anyhow. And yes, you are doing better than most can say. But we're not comparing you with most. We're comparing you with the top of the league, and as a default, the best teams on the continent. If you want to compare yourself to the big boys, compare yourself to the big boys.

What, you mean like most teams have won their titles with stats like that? Find me the same stats for when Chelsea won the title under Mou, or City under Pellegrini. I bet they're not much different.

Oh man, you done messed up here. When Chelsea won the title with Mou, they didn't lose a single game to the top 4. Not once. They did lose a single game to Spurs, who were in fifth, but that was it. They went 3-4-1 vs top 4 and Spurs in fifth, with all the draws coming on the road save one vs City.

As for City in 13-14, they lost twice to Chelsea, drew once vs Arsenal, and swept United, Spurs, and Everton (who came in 5th that year). That's a record of 6-1-2.

LOL. How does one become a title challenger, other than trying to improve our performance, which is precisely what we have been doing? Your entire argument rests upon the premise of: "you're not amazing yet, so therefore you're crap!"

Well, I mean in terms of titles, trophies, and prestige...kinda is. It's not like Spurs have taken a step forward this season either. Although I did like that defeat of Chelsea.

Lloris is probably better than de Gea, and yes is one of the best goalkeepers in the world. You can find a hundred pundits who agree.

I can find millions who think De Gea is better. It took me awhile to find a stat where Lloris is better than De Gea, but I did actually find one, his save percentage was 0.8% higher than De Gea's last season. Of course, Mannone, the Sunderland keeper led the league in save percentage, so maybe it's not the most accurate metric for determining who the superior player is. Look, I think that Lloris is an excellent keeper, certainly top 10, maybe top 5. But there is no way that he's better than De Gea, from where I'm sitting.

Kane scores lots of goals indeed, in a large variety of ways. That's why he's one of the best young strikers in the world, and one of the best strikers period in the league, and you can find lots of pundits who agree.

I don't disagree.

Alli has far more than 'potential'; he's fantastic, and you can find lots of pundits who agree.

Yeah, he's quite good. But that's he's a good player is a given. We're comparing him to the best now. And is he? Could be.

Again, you seem to think these statements are controversial, just because YOU DON'T WATCH TOTTENHAM YOURSELF to find out, and I don't mean to be rude, but seeing as you've only been watching this game for a handful of years anyway, I don't think you're very well-qualified to make the assessment.

What makes you any more qualified? I think that we can both think of people who have watched this game for decades and who have opinions that are beyond reason. Experience can be a factor, but judge on merit. Isn't that what you're asking me to do with Spurs? Or should I just dismiss them because they're young and haven't been doing this for long? As far as I'm concerned, if you think that I'm not well qualified to make assessments based on my decade of watching this sport, then logically Dele Alli isn't worth shit and neither is Harry Kane, because they haven't been playing at the top level as long as Rickie freaking Lambert and therefore he's the better player. Just fuck off with your retarded logic.

You could prove me wrong with some facts, and stats, of course, but first you'd have to produce some. Thus far you have failed to, despite how much you like to say that you prefer facts to perception.

I can give you facts all day, and have. You're choosing to ignore them because you think they're wrong. That's not my problem, it's yours.

No, you're wrong. OPINIONS are like that. Facts are facts.

Facts are not opinions. Spurs are a great team with great players. That is an opinion. Spurs are a good team with good players. Also an opinion. If you can't understand your own point, how the hell am I supposed to debate it.

For instance, it is a fact that Kane has made 98 PL appearances, and scored 59 goals. It's a fact that Kane has scored 20+ goals in both of his two full seasons in the PL, won the Golden Boot last year with 25, and has 10 goals in 15 appearances in his 3rd season. That means it is a fact that Kane, at 23 years old, is one of the best strikers in Europe.

Excellent opinion, supported by facts. See the distinction? It is not a fact that Kane, at 23 years old, is one of the best strikers in Europe. That is an opinion. Everything you listed before that, was fact.

I'm going to concede some ground here. Harry Kane is a great player. That doesn't mean Spurs are a great team capable of winning, or even getting close to, any victory in any tournament, nor do they appear to be on an upwards trajectory to do so. Do you think they'll finish higher than last year? Do you think they will, in this season or the near future, make any significant gains in Europe, or even make Europe at all? Do you think that the influx of Spurs players in the England national team with make it do better than Euro 2016, when the team was more Spurs than anything else?

And going waaaaay back to the initial point, is Harry Kane better than Costa, Zlatan, or even Aguero? After all this, I still would say no. Opinion? Yes. Facts to support it? Falling off the trees at this point. Look around, and take a breath of air that hasn't been covered in Spurs perfume.

Try to entertain, for once, the concept that you might actually be wrong. Not about everything, but some things. I think you may gain some desperately needed humility and/or perspective.

Fair. Whatever niceness I possessed is out the window now.

Oh please. This is what you've been going for from the start.

First off, the England midfield in the tournament was 50% Spurs (Dier, Alli). I'm going to give you a MASSIVE letoff and ignore this. The real interesting tidbit I found on my five entire seconds of research into just how shit England is was illustrated this amazing fact:

Before we get into it, I'm glad to see you're finally illustrating what you've really been wanting to say: England are shit. Thanks for unveiling the very bias I've been targeting. Now, onto your 'demolition':

England's shot-to-goal conversion rate was 6.98%. They had more shots than anyone else in the tournament when they were knocked out. If we look at the only Spurs players to take shots, Dier, Alli, and Kane, they managed to hit the target 3 times out of 23 shots through the group stage, and weren't any better in the knockout round.

Show me your sources. :) You did say you spent a whole 5 seconds looking into it...

Tell me again it was the defense that was the problem. Please. I would love to see a counter argument to this. "Wow our defense was the problem, we only took the most shots of any other team and couldn't hit the net let alone score to save our miserable lives"

Well see, it's actually much more simple than you think. When your defense lets in stupid goals at the start of the game, or to let a team back into the game, it means that team can 'park the bus' -- as your manager once said -- and prevent you from creating ood goalscoring chances.

Yes, we had a lot of shots. Yes, most of them were off-target. That's largely because it's hard to shoot through massed ranks of defending players. You'll notice this same phenomenon when looking at top teams in the league who have let a silly goal slip; they go all-out attack, flinging shots in left and right, taking chances, but failing to get much on target. The very good teams manage to find a way through.

England, managed by Roy Hodgson, had no idea how to break down a parked bus. So we failed to.

See how simple it is when you recall the actual games and how they went, instead of just looking up numbers having not watched the games?

If you're too stupid to see what I was attempting to illustrate the first time, I'm not sure why I'm saying it again. I brought up Bale to show that it had been awhile since Spurs had been good.

Yes, which is in itself a cheap-shot. I saw it precisely because I'm not stupid. Is it clear now?

This is simply false. Go, dig up the thread. It's all in there.

http://footyroom.com/forum/discussions/what-is-your-prediction-for-the-epl-top-4-85277?page=2

Chelsea was top of the league when I made the point. They are the top of the league now. Nothing has changed. What are you attempting to say? It's like talking to a retarded child.

Ooops, you're right. I made a mistake. :) See how easy that is for me to admit, despite you calling me names?

The EPL is weak until they prove it otherwise in Europe. I'm still waiting.

No you're not: I've explained it multiple times. You should go check out the other thread where you are losing there too. ;)

I already did. Go take a literacy test.

No you didn't; you simply shifted the goal-posts and still claimed that it was a 'myth'. Maybe YOU should take a literacy test.

How in the flying **** has ANYTHING I have said on this thread EVER implied United was a great team?

Where did I say anything that warranted your challenges in the first place? I didn't, but you decided to be a dick about, because you were bored, and started this fight. So piss off with your excuses. If Spurs are beating their rivals, whom are great teams, then that means they are pretty great too.

This all began because YOU couldn't let the statement that Spurs might have some great players stand, despite it being perfectly true.

Don't then whine and moan about it when I just do the same back to you, and get under your skin. Them's were fightin' words, after all, pardner....

For those of us who can actually do math, we find that it is 33% is average when comparing 3 potential outcomes. Spurs are below average.

For those of us who are better at math than you are, 33% is impossible to perfectly achieve from that sample size, PLUS the losing percentage was even lower, which means that Spurs have been winning more than losing, and hitting even the rest of the time.

So, no, that's not below average at all. Oh what fun it is to math. :)

Oh man, you done messed up here. When Chelsea won the title with Mou, they didn't lose a single game to the top 4. Not once. They did lose a single game to Spurs, who were in fifth, but that was it. They went 3-4-1 vs top 4 and Spurs in fifth, with all the draws coming on the road save one vs City.

Okay, so 3-4-1 is... drastically different than 5-8-3?

I think you'll find, since you're so good at math and everything, that proportionally it's pretty close. :) So, yay! I was right!

As for City in 13-14, they lost twice to Chelsea, drew once vs Arsenal, and swept United, Spurs, and Everton (who came in 5th that year). That's a record of 6-1-2.

Including Liverpool, they actually got 7-1-3, but yes, lookie there: you're right! Yay, we're both right. :)

Well, I mean in terms of titles, trophies, and prestige...kinda is. It's not like Spurs have taken a step forward this season either. Although I did like that defeat of Chelsea.

Really? Because I look at the table, and I see that of every team who was in the Top 5 last season, Spurs are above ALL of them. So, since the only teams above us are teams not distracted by Europe, and one of them on a record-matching winning run (which we ended), we're doing rather well.

7 points off Chelsea, but only 2 off 2nd place. And yet you don't think we're challenging for the title?

You have strange definitions, my friends.

I can find millions who think De Gea is better. [...] Look, I think that Lloris is an excellent keeper, certainly top 10, maybe top 5. But there is no way that he's better than De Gea, from where I'm sitting.

Sounds like a fair disagreement of opinions to me. But if you're saying that they are both world-class keepers, then you're admitting that Tottenham have a great player, no?

What makes you any more qualified? I think that we can both think of people who have watched this game for decades and who have opinions that are beyond reason. Experience can be a factor, but judge on merit. Isn't that what you're asking me to do with Spurs? Or should I just dismiss them because they're young and haven't been doing this for long? As far as I'm concerned, if you think that I'm not well qualified to make assessments based on my decade of watching this sport, then logically Dele Alli isn't worth and neither is Harry Kane, because they haven't been playing at the top level as long as Rickie freaking Lambert and therefore he's the better player. Just off with your retarded logic.

Quite the twist you've performed there, but no, that's not an applicable analogy.

I base the superiority of my perspective upon 3 decades of watching the game (as opposed to 1), from a country which obsesses over the game (instead of treating it as a sport for girls), because I have been immersed in journalistic analysis far more accurate and informed than yours, and because I sift through the facts, seeking the most relevant ones in an unbiased fashion. I could speculate upon your motives, but hey, not that your gloves are off I wanna see how hard you can hit. ;)

I can give you facts all day, and have. You're choosing to ignore them because you think they're wrong. That's not my problem, it's yours.

Correction: I demonstrate that they are wrong, and then you ignore the fact that I did so.

Facts are not opinions. Spurs are a great team with great players. That is an opinion.

That they have great players is a fact. I have shown you this.

Excellent opinion, supported by facts. See the distinction?

Between your facts and my facts? Well sure, I've been pointing that distinction out to you. For myself? All my opinions have been supported by facts already.

Harry Kane is a great player. That doesn't mean Spurs are a great team capable of winning, or even getting close to, any victory in any tournament, nor do they appear to be on an upwards trajectory to do so.

RIght, because out-playing all the rivals you had last season is not a sign of upwards trajectory. Understood. ;)

See, this is another example of why I just can't take your opinion seriously, and am forced to conclude that all you are doing is trying to belittle another team just because you wish to get under someone's skin. I would love to take you at face value, but you keep on behaving exactly like someone who is trying to troll would behave.

And going waaaaay back to the initial point, is Harry Kane better than Costa, Zlatan, or even Aguero? After all this, I still would say no. Opinion? Yes. Facts to support it? Falling off the trees at this point. Look around, and take a breath of air that hasn't been covered in Spurs perfume.

Or, I could look at the facts of their stats, instead, and see once again that in terms of goals-per-minute Kane is 3rd-best in the league, and the same is true if we include assists.

Oh, and you might have forgotten that I actually said that Costa has been the best in the league, but I can see why you missed it when you were so set on insisting that Spurs had no great players, and (quite literally) starting this fight.

Seems like the facts are still on the branches, and you've still, even after ALL this distraction, still not managed to actually look at, discuss or analyze any of the facts pertinent to the matter.

Instead, you got what you wanted: a fight, which you've lost, but you did manage to distract us all away from the topic.

Congrats. :)

U guys really need a girlfriend!

Actually, my wife is rather pleased with me at the moment. :) I've been doing chores around the house in between waiting for the next salvo. I do love laundry day!

I made a mistake in that last post, I let you get me riled up. If I could take that all back I would, and I'm not proud of a lot of what I said.

Before we get into it, I'm glad to see you're finally illustrating what you've really been wanting to say: England are ****. Thanks for unveiling the very bias I've been targeting. Now, onto your 'demolition':

This is not some secret of mine, I'm not sure why you're pretending it is. England haven't won anything in more combined years than we've been alive, haven't gotten close either, and in their last two big tournaments didn't get out of the group stage and then got knocked out by Iceland. Fact. England are shit is simply an opinion that stems from that.

Show me your sources. :) You did say you spent a whole 5 seconds looking into it...

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/12016/10320462/englands-euro-2016-shooting-struggles-are-proving-costly

That article was written after the 3 group stage games, which is why I differentiated the knockout round in my post. I did look up the game vs Iceland though, and found little difference, espeically when considering England's only goal was a PK.
http://footyroom.com/matches/79870086/england-vs-iceland/review

Yes, we had a lot of shots. Yes, most of them were off-target. That's largely because it's hard to shoot through massed ranks of defending players. You'll notice this same phenomenon when looking at top teams in the league who have let a silly goal slip; they go all-out attack, flinging shots in left and right, taking chances, but failing to get much on target. The very good teams manage to find a way through.

And England failed. Versus Slovakia, Iceland, and Russia they failed. That's 3 out of 4 games. In addition, Slovakia and Russia didn't score first, the only games where England conceded first were Iceland and Wales, one of which they actually won. You make the connection that I didn't watch the games and don't remember what happened. I watched all of England's games at the Euros with a British friend of mine, and I do remember that the mantra was, if we create chances, goals will come. England created chances, they didn't score. Usually, that is on the strikers.

Ooops, you're right. I made a mistake. :) See how easy that is for me to admit, despite you calling me names?

It's not like I haven't admitted when I was wrong in this thread. And like I said at the top, I regret the names. Emotion ruins objectivity, and I was pretty hot when I wrote the last one.

No you're not: I've explained it multiple times. You should go check out the other thread where you are losing there too. ;)

When an English teams wins something, or even makes a final in the CL, then we can include them in a discussion with leagues who get consistently every season. Since United spiraled into whatever it is we are now, Chelsea made a final once, and in that same time frame, La Liga has seen around a dozen finalists, and Germany has had three. Even Juventus made one.

Where did I say anything that warranted your challenges in the first place? I didn't, but you decided to be a dick about, because you were bored, and started this fight. So piss off with your excuses. If Spurs are beating their rivals, whom are great teams, then that means they are pretty great too.
This all began because YOU couldn't let the statement that Spurs might have some great players stand, despite it being perfectly true.
Don't then whine and moan about it when I just do the same back to you, and get under your skin. Them's were fightin' words, after all, pardner....

If you recall, you said this:

The English media (much like FootyRoom!) are always very reluctant to admit that Spurs have great players.

I agreed with said English media. That warranted this discussion. I disagreed with you in a pretty small post and you expanded the argument. I followed.

No you didn't; you simply shifted the goal-posts and still claimed that it was a 'myth'. Maybe YOU should take a literacy test.

If you can spend 70mil on players, and 30mil on Sissoko, you're not poor. There's no way around that. You don't have the fiscal coffers of United or City, but the victim card of "we don't have enough money" is simply false.

For those of us who are better at math than you are, 33% is impossible to perfectly achieve from that sample size, PLUS the losing percentage was even lower, which means that Spurs have been winning more than losing, and hitting even the rest of the time.

Fair. Has that translated into success for you?

Really? Because I look at the table, and I see that of every team who was in the Top 5 last season, Spurs are above ALL of them. So, since the only teams above us are teams not distracted by Europe, and one of them on a record-matching winning run (which we ended), we're doing rather well.
7 points off Chelsea, but only 2 off 2nd place. And yet you don't think we're challenging for the title?

United is 10 points off Chelsea, and 5 off 2nd place. Do you think they're challenging for the title?

Sounds like a fair disagreement of opinions to me. But if you're saying that they are both world-class keepers, then you're admitting that Tottenham have a great player, no?

If this whole discussion has stemmed from a misunderstanding of one another's definitions of a world-class player, I'm actually going to be a little ticked. In our thread about what World-Class meant a few months ago, I said that I defined it as the top 3 players at a position in the world (aka, 3 sets of starting XI). No Spurs player (imo) is top 3 at their position in the world, which is why I said that Spurs don't have great players in a world-class connotation. If you perceive that the term world-class, or even the term great, applies to players outside this definition, than this has been a complete misunderstanding from the start.

Fuck my life.

I base the superiority of my perspective upon 3 decades of watching the game (as opposed to 1), from a country which obsesses over the game (instead of treating it as a sport for girls), because I have been immersed in journalistic analysis far more accurate and informed than yours, and because I sift through the facts, seeking the most relevant ones in an unbiased fashion. I could speculate upon your motives, but hey, not that your gloves are off I wanna see how hard you can hit. ;)

So, because I am American, I don't get to have an opinion on soccer. Remind me which men's national team has done better in the World Cups since 2000, the USA or England? I think you may be surprised with what you find.

So you're an elitist prick. Awesome.

As for your "unbiasesness" it's hard to take that seriously when you're arguing for your own team. I try quite hard to be objective, but nevertheless anything I say about United is bias in some way due to the feelings I have for the club. Somehow I doubt you're any different.

Correction: I demonstrate that they are wrong, and then you ignore the fact that I did so.

I can't argue with this because you're giving me nothing argue. You've been right about a bunch of things here, and so have I, we've both conceded a fair amount of ground. No one is ignoring shit.

That they have great players is a fact. I have shown you this.

Oh my god. Here's a general rule for you from logic 101, if something has an adjective, it's not a fact. Per political scientists (I have the misfortune of knowing one) the more adjectives in a statement, the less objective it is, and if any are present in a sentence, said sentence is an opinion.

Ripped from some dictionary website:

Opinion adjectives:
Some adjectives give a general opinion. We can use these adjectives to describe almost any noun:
good bad lovely strange
beautiful nice brilliant excellent
awful important wonderful nasty

Harry Kane scored 20 goals. Fact. Harry Kane scored 20 good/bad/lovely/strange/beautiful/wonderful/nasty goals. Opinion. Harry Kane is a great players because of said goals. Opinion.

This is not a tough distinction, and I think that's the crux of where we disagree.

Between your facts and my facts? Well sure, I've been pointing that distinction out to you. For myself? All my opinions have been supported by facts already.

As have mine. Why do you choose to ignore this? We're disagreeing with each other's opinions, and by definition interpreting the facts differently.

See, this is another example of why I just can't take your opinion seriously, and am forced to conclude that all you are doing is trying to belittle another team just because you wish to get under someone's skin. I would love to take you at face value, but you keep on behaving exactly like someone who is trying to troll would behave.

My entire argument is that Spurs are not a great team. It exists to belittle them. If we were having an argument about literally anything, but you were occupying the negative side of the debate, I can't dismiss you're argument simply because you're belittling mine. Doesn't work that way.

Or, I could look at the facts of their stats, instead, and see once again that in terms of goals-per-minute Kane is 3rd-best in the league, and the same is true if we include assists.

Again, I think we're disagreeing on what a great player is. I believe my threshold is far higher than yours (see world-class point) and that's why we're disagreeing.

Seems like the facts are still on the branches, and you've still, even after ALL this distraction, still not managed to actually look at, discuss or analyze any of the facts pertinent to the matter.

You keep saying you can't take me seriously. I'm going to flip this on you, because if after all this you think I'm not looking, discussing, or analyzing any of the facts here, I don't know what I'm doing here, because you're just ignoring everything I do.

Instead, you got what you wanted: a fight, which you've lost, but you did manage to distract us all away from the topic.

What on Earth makes you think you've won? If it turns out that this was simply a misunderstanding of what the term "great" is, then we're both right, and if you end up using my definition (the one I've been working with this whole time and probably incorrectly assumed was shared) then there's no way in hell you've won.

If you aren't going to take anything I say, even when I back it up, and simply disagree as a matter of principal, why am I debating with you?

Hey Sun, so, gotta tell ya, it's been kind of a long day, and I'm kind of bored of this now. So, while appreciate you probably put a lot of time and thought and effort into your reply, I have to tell you I'm just not going to bother reading it.

But I'll tell you what: why don't we just say that you're right, since it means a lot to you. :)

If you aren't going to take anything I say, even when I back it up, and simply disagree as a matter of principal, why am I debating with you?

To be fair, if you expect to convince someone on the internet... Well, lets just say that most people already have their own opinion over here. XD

But joking aside, I thought it was nice debate from an exterior viewpoint at the very least. ;)

It's not about winning, it never is. I know significantly more about Spurs, top 4 records, England's performance at the Euros, and many other avenues of curiosity than I ever would have otherwise. That's all I want out of arguments, to enhance my own perspective.

Like I said in the post you didn't read, I think we had a misunderstanding on what "great" means, especially when using it to sub out for the term "world-class." I don't think you're wrong - under the definition you presumably were using for "great" you're right. I just happened to be using a different definition, and neither of us realized.

As I have said here in other threads, the goal of argumentation is not to win, but to achieve a higher level of understanding from when you started. I know I have, and I hope that you have as well.

As I have said here in other threads, the goal of argumentation is not to win, but to achieve a higher level of understanding from when you started. I know I have, and I hope that you have as well.

Cant agree more, deserve to be quoted.