Almost a season and a half has passed since Ange Postecoglou was appointed Tottenham manager and that means he is entering dangerous territory. He has led Spurs in 65 games. Antonio Conte got 77, André Villas-Boas 80 and José Mourinho 86. Until Thursday’s chaotic Carabao Cup win over Manchester United, he had a lower win percentage than all three, but he has now snuck past Mourinho. Sooner or later simply being not as grumpy as the bloke who came before is not going to be enough.
Since Postecoglou took 26 points from his first 10 Premier League games, that statistical quirk is particularly troublesome. There is little sense of him slowly dragging the club in the right direction, of the trend being to the better. Rather, since those first 10 games, he is averaging 1.43 points per Premier League game – enough to finish ninth or 10th most seasons. Does the fact the football is exciting – something that couldn’t be said under his three permanent predecessors – make up for what, given resources and stadium, would be a significant underachievement?
Given his comments this week about football management being a harder job than prime minister, it’s fair to say Postecoglou is feeling the pressure. Not for him calculations that will materially affect the lives of millions for years to come; no, he has to work out a way to try to get a result at home to Liverpool on Sunday. And yet, counterintuitively, it is Postecoglou who is the one more likely to stick to his principles.
It’s perhaps a result of the messianic qualities still ascribed to managers that so much of the discourse around them is at least quasi-religious. To acknowledge that, within narrow boundaries of possibility, football is governed by structures of economic power is to destroy much of the magic; far more palatable to speak of glory and inspiration, genius and mastery of the hidden mechanics of the game. Half a century ago, it was enough to focus on motivation, to believe what mattered most of all was how a manager generated a burning passion within his players; more recently, attention has shifted to tactics and planning.
What is preferred is a manager with a clearly defined philosophy. Ideally, he will be progressive – although the occasional dark lord, such as Diego Simeone or peak-era Mourinho, adds to the tapestry. Those who adapt to their squad and circumstance are regarded with a degree of suspicion; what do they represent? If they’re not prepared to stand by their high line and man-oriented press, how can they possibly be trusted?
And so, weirdly, there is a feeling that good management is sticking by your principles. Fundamentalism is praised. Does it really make sense for Ruben Amorim to insist on his 3-4-3 even with a United squad unsuited to it, rather than beginning to instil the basic principles behind it and working incrementally towards the implementation of the shape next season? Perhaps it does, but to accept that is essentially to write off the rest of this campaign.
The truth is that given the nature of the squad, whatever Russell Martin had done at Southampton probably would have ended in relegation, but perhaps with a little more flexibility it wouldn’t have seemed quite so inevitable. It was maybe fitting that his last stand came against Postecoglou, the other great refuser of compromise. Spurs have been unreliable enough this season but when two managers determinedly playing open games meet, unmediated by guile or attempts to thwart the opposition, the one with the better squad will almost invariably prevail. As they did, 5-0.
Which took Tottenham to 10th in the table. Their goal difference is now +17, only one fewer than Liverpool’s and Chelsea’s. The win probably boosted morale – certainly it staved off an intensification of the discontent that was apparent after the defeats by Ipswich and Bournemouth. But it did little to answer the doubts that have grown around Postecoglou; when the going is good and the opposition complaisant, his Tottenham are excellent. It’s just that when games get tough, Tottenham struggle.
Their results this season fall very obviously into two categories. They have won seven league games: none by a single goal and only one by two goals. All seven of their league defeats have been by a single goal. There have been only two draws. Essentially, Spurs either win easily, or they don’t win at all. The notion of a hard-fought Tottenham win – at least in the league – doesn’t exist, which might be a definition of Spursiness.
after newsletter promotion
That is a trait that stretches back generations; it is not a specific Postecoglou problem. And yet there are times when it feels that Postecoglou really isn’t helping. It’s not that he doesn’t make changes: he does, as did Martin. It’s just that they tend to be fairly minor tweaks on a theme. His side is capable, having taken the lead, of controlling the game and picking off a wounded opponent chasing an equaliser on the break, as they did in the second half at Manchester City. Yet on other occasions, as when 2-0 up against Chelsea, they are stubbornly determined to ignore the state of the game and not to amend their approach accordingly.
Postecoglou has been keen to point out Spurs’ injuries, which is not unreasonable, but it could be argued that is even more reason to make tactical changes. And given the history of Tottenham over the past 40 years, it makes little sense to offload Postecoglou and go through the same cycle again, hoping that if you buy enough tickets the raffle will eventually turn up the prize of a true visionary.
But equally, hammering sides who suit your style of play and losing to everybody else isn’t sustainable either. Although there has been sporadic booing, as well as the words exchanged between Postecoglou and some of the away support at Bournemouth, there is none of the widespread dissatisfaction that characterised the end of Mourinho or Conte. There is no sense of crisis or a boil that needs lancing. But without greater consistency, a crunch will come soon enough.
At least part of good management is making the best use of the resources available, not just doggedly doing the same thing over and over.
