Quote:
Originally Posted by colin25
Sorry, not attacking you. Just saying that whether a club has had a manager (arsenal), an owner (chelsea) for the longest (or longer) period, doesn't make any club better or worse than others.
It is the players, and ultimately the results that count.
|
The question is how do you get to achieve those results? I can't agree that Southampton are not one of the best run clubs in the country when you look at the amount of talented players they've produced but the results are not spectacular by Premier League standards.
Also I think you either need to spend a lot on great players or give a manager time to build a squad. What Wenger did with his first post Emirates team was an achievement even if he didn't have the trophy to show it.
Spurs want instant success but don't want to pay for it and as such they have a merry-go-round of managers. One season, maybe next season, they'll break into the top 4 again but the mismanagement of the club would leave me to suspect it would be temporary. They had one manager who did break into the top 4, twice, and still they fired him because the second time Levy actually wanted third (as Chelsea won the Champions League). They allowed AVB to spend £100 million on players and then fired him a few months into the season because he had a bad spell, not even an especially serious one, and now have lumbered a subsequent manager with a expense squad he didn't assemble.
Most clubs cannot afford a City or Chelsea style blowout on a team. They need to find other ways to build their squad and slow investment over several seasons (United, Liverpool) or promoting youth (Southampton) are the best ways to go. IMO.
In the end it's only 'the players' if you really outclass everyone. Otherwise it's the manager and the team as a whole. Liverpool almost beat City to the title and they have, overall, far worse players than City.