Jump to content

The Barclays Premier League thread 2015/2016


Lineker

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Social Justice Nerf said:

I mean, yeah, if you want to completely disregard the actual reasoning I gave behind that line, sure. You do you.

Yeah, no.

Your conclusion was 'I don't see how that young a side' will have the staying power. Their only 'experience' is fluffing 4th spot chases. Yeah, you touch on it being a physically demanding style but they are professional athletes with an average squad age of 24.9 years. A lot of these players are in their physical peaks. I'd be more worried about City (27.9) or Leicester (28.5) not being able to physically cope than Tottenham, with a number of players with 10 to 15+ years of wear and tear on their bodies. Don't underestimate the exuberance of youth if managed properly, which so far they appear to be. If Poch was worried about their fitness they wouldn't be playing in Europe.

Also, of the four title contenders, Tottenham actually have the biggest squad at 29 players (compared to 23 (LC), 26 (MC), 28 (A)). So your main contention does appear to be that a young and inexperienced side can't challenge consistently at the end of the season, but yeah its a physically demanding style so that overrides those points, right? Or should we say 'Tottenham can't win anything with kids?'

But yeah, you do you, you twit. 

Edited by Twist
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that was the reasoning behind the 'you don't win anything with kids' line. Which there is a point to be made about how young players are inconsistent and by their nature inexperienced.

Although people act like that Utd team didn't have any experiences pros in it at all. I would like if Leicester won the league more than if Spurs did. It's a far more interesting story. Although I think it's a much harder ask once they get into the run in. That mental obstacle has to be overcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Social Justice Nerf said:

Hardly the most absurd claim that's ever been made on here.

I still fancy one of Arsenal or City to get their shit together and go on a run for the title. I'm not convinced Leicester will win the whole thing, but I think they're nailed on for third. And Spurs are pretty much guaranteed fourth, but I don't think they have it in them to finish above the other three. Their style is VERY demanding, and we're approaching the part of the season where that style starts to take its toll on the players. Spurs have a very small squad. Plus, their only 'run-in' experience is bottling fourth place every year, so yeah. I don't see how that young (though talented) a side will have the staying power.

It's hardly a poor reflection on your club. Poch's done a marvelous job and I am envious, I just don't think Spurs will win the league this year because there are three other sides with better squads. Maybe I'm wrong. And, hell, if I am, congratulations. I don't know why you're so desperate to prove me wrong, though.

Edit: I feel it's also worth mentioning that I'd actually like to see Spurs win it ahead of City or Leicester.

More of this well thought out Nerf, less of taking a joke poorly Nerf pls :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Twist said:

Yeah, no.

Your conclusion was 'I don't see how that young a side' will have the staying power. Their only 'experience' is fluffing 4th spot chases. Yeah, you touch on it being a physically demanding style but they are professional athletes with an average squad age of 24.9 years. A lot of these players are in their physical peaks. I'd be more worried about City (27.9) or Leicester (28.5) not being able to physically cope than Tottenham with a number of players with 10 to 15+ years of wear and tear on their bodies. Don't underestimate the exuberance of youth if managed properly, which so far they appear to be. If Poch was worried about their fitness they wouldn't be playing in Europe. Also, of the four title contenders, Tottenham actually have the biggest squad at 29 players (compared to 23 (LC), 26 (MC), 28 (A)). So your main contention does appear to be that a young and inexperienced side can't challenge consistently at the end of the season, but yeah its a physically demanding style so that overrides those points, right? Or should we say 'Tottenham can't win anything with kids?'

But yeah, you do you, you twit. 

Wait, are you trying to tell me what my own point was? Okay :lol:

Let's start with your first point. It's pretty much established that no team in the league runs as much as Spurs, yes? I don't know the stats for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that their workrate probably tops even Liverpool in 13/14. And guess what happened to Liverpool in 13/14? By around this stage of the season, everybody started to look knackered. And guess what? That was with a squad of similar age to Spurs, and without European competition to boot. Young players, although there are of course exceptions, generally don't have the stamina that players in their mid-to-late 20s do.

And okay, it seems you've totally missed the point about the squad size too. Let's say Harry Kane goes does with a season-ending injury tomorrow, what happens? Clinton N'Jie leads Spurs to title glory? That was my point. Spurs don't really have viable alternatives to their star players. And only eleven players in that huge squad of theirs have made 12 or more league appearances this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TLHobo said:

Well, that was the reasoning behind the 'you don't win anything with kids' line. Which there is a point to be made about how young players are inconsistent and by their nature inexperienced.

Although people act like that Utd team didn't have any experiences pros in it at all. I would like if Leicter won the league more than if Spurs did. It's a far more interesting story. Although I think it's a much harder ask once they get into the run in. That mental obstacle has to be overcome.

I totally agree.

I just goofed with my original post. Then I got nerfed with the ol' 'you do you', so I decided to point out he was saying exactly that, despite protests to the contrary. I don't believe there is anything wrong with the opinion, although I think inexperience in a team game where you do have at least some experienced professionals isn't that strong a determining factor. As proved by United, as proved by Spurs this season (so far). I'd be much more obliged to agree with the youth agreement in, say, tennis where the experience of one person wholly determines the decisions made in game.

Edited by Twist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Twist said:

I totally agree.

I just goofed with my original post. Then I got nerfed with the ol' 'you do you', so I decided to point out he was saying exactly that, despite protests to the contrary. I don't believe there is anything wrong with the opinion, although I think inexperience in a team game where you do have at least some experienced professionals isn't that strong a determining factor. As proved by United, as proved by Spurs this season (so far). I'd be much more obliged to agree with the youth agreement in, say, tennis where the experience of one person wholly determines the decisions made in game.

See, that wasn't clear to me. In which case, I apologize for that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Social Justice Nerf said:

And okay, it seems you've totally missed the point about the squad size too. Let's say Harry Kane goes does with a season-ending injury tomorrow, what happens? Clinton N'Jie leads Spurs to title glory? That was my point. Spurs don't really have viable alternatives to their star players. And only eleven players in that huge squad of theirs have made 12 or more league appearances this season.

I agree for the most part with your post, but I always despise this argument. If any team lost their star players they'd struggle to cover them, that's why they're star players, because they're a cut above the rest. It's not something specific to Spurs and it irks me when pundits say stuff like that about any club, though I understand the point you're making about work rate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we stop doing the "you won't win nothing with kids" thing with every team that we perceive as being, as Nerf says, "young and inexperienced"? Not only is this Spurs side not inexperienced (seriously outside of Bentaleb, Onomah, Winks and N'Jie they've all played at least 100 first team matches in their careers thus far - and Betaleb and N'Jie are both fairly experienced internationals), but the side that Alan Hansen famously said wouldn't win anything included 6 players under the age of 20 and had before that season played a combined total of 114 first team games, and most of those were for Gary Neville.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Social Justice Nerf said:

 

Just now, Social Justice Nerf said:

See, that wasn't clear to me. In which case, I apologize for that.

No problem, I obviously used the wrong emoticon. -_-

And yeah, my argument in response was proper weak anyway. I'd rather not have to continue pursuing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Benji said:

I agree for the most part with your post, but I always despise this argument. If any team lost their star players they'd struggle to cover them, that's why they're star players, because they're a cut above the rest. It's not something specific to Spurs and it irks me when pundits say stuff like that about any club, though I understand the point you're making about work rate.

Nah, I didn't mean Spurs would struggle to cover them as much as they'd be lost without them. Depth is my takeaway from Spurs' squad. Of course every team would struggle to cover their star players, but the most successful teams have a not-the-end-of-the-world alternative. Arsenal lose Giroud, they have Welbeck. City lose Aguero, they have Bony. United a few years ago had Welbeck and Chicharito to cover Rooney and RVP. But, like Liverpool with Iago Aspas backing up Suarez and Sturridge, Spurs will surely go to shit if they were forced to rely on Clinton N'Jie as their main source of goals?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Social Justice Nerf said:

So... Spurs really WOULD be fucked if they had to rely on him for goals.

I was about to say they could play Berahino but I'm getting FM mixed up with real life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw something recently that shows that Alli is the most experienced player for his age in Europe's top 5 leagues.

If Kane gets crocked then Spurs will do what they've done when he's not played this season: Rotated Son, Lamela, Alli and Eriksen around during the game with each of them taking the focal point of the attack in turn. It works and those players can all chip in goals as well as play right across central, left and right mid and up front.

 

Anyway, Kane may well last the season without serious injury - star players don't always get crocked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy