Thomas Frank is just like Keir Starmer; not bad men but playing a bad hand badly | OneFootball

Thomas Frank has now been sacked by Tottenham after poor performance and loss of support; will the same thing happen to Keir Starmer?

Send your mails to theeditor@footbal365.com

Frank must go

The first 45 minutes was probably one of the most horrific I’ve ever watched at home and he’s served up quite a few of them. He has to get the most deserved sack ever. Dave, Winchester, Spurs

Is Thomas Frank just like Keir Starmer?

Spurs fan here. Watching us lose to Newcastle, I was struck by the similarities between Thomas Frank and Keir Starmer as PM. Both are clearly on their last legs, having lost support of the supporters. Both, for all their faults (and they are many), are not bad men. Both were dealt bad hands which they proceeded to play badly. Both have given the impression of reacting to events rather than ever being leaders in control. Worse options than both wait in the wings, which is not to say their performance has been satisfactory.

And in both cases, the question lingers. Who, given current circumstances and realities, would do a better job? Sam

Even Newcastle fans not impressed

Good result, but I doubt I’ve ever seen a less satisfying victory. I blame Spurs, who are kinda trash. Chris C, Toon Army DC

No Big Six anymore…

At what point can the footballing media, analysts and those that drive ‘the narrative’ have the serious conversation about what the Big Six is in the top flight of English football?

As Tottenham Hotspur surely cannot be in that equation any more. Ali, Ealing

(Big Six is not the top six; it’s the six clubs with by far the biggest revenue and thus power – Ed)

Grift time

…Seeing we’ve only drawn and hearing the word “haircut” is like hitting November and finding out LadBaby have come up with another sh*t sausage roll pun… Lewis, Busby Way

Man Utd should try shooting hard

I have repeatedly stated that teams like Man United should learn to change tactics and strategies during individual matches. This approach has been missing in United’s efforts for some time now.

Outstanding Managers like Sir Alex, Wenger, Ancelotti etc. do it all the time. Some Managers even go further to change formations when the match is in progress. United continue to play the same way even when they are losing and it appears clearly that whatever they are doing is not working.

A case in point is our match against West Ham. West Ham played with a simple, strategic plan. Five defenders strongly protecting their goal area, sitting a bit deep but ready to launch counter attacks when they were able to do so. United style was to try to dribble and pass the ball in and around the opponent’s box, even though the box was packed. Few shots and occasional attacks from the wings were the order of the evening for United.

Unfortunately, no changes in their attacking approach were initiated. For example, United should have delivered strong, powerful, on target shots in and around West Ham’s packed box. Powerful shots have the potential to result in goals in three ways: first, the ball can sail straight into the net. Secondly, it can take a deflection, catch the keeper off guard and yield a goal; and thirdly the goal keeper can fumble and one of our players can tap it in.

It is becoming increasingly imperative for United to amend their style, approach and tactics during matches to neutralise the antics of the opposition. In particular, they must aim to produce powerful shots when the opposition box is congested, instead of trying to walk the ball into the net. Professor (Dr) David Achanfuo Yeboah

…And just like, all the idiots claiming for Michael Carrick to take charge permanently off the back of a few wins, we’re shut up immediately as his side struggled to break down world beaters West Ham.

We need a manager in the summer who can get this team able to play different teams and not just those who are susceptible on the counter. Ashmundo

Refereeing inconsistency and all that

Watching the highlights from last night’s games, I thought about refereeing decisions that were made and wondered if the rules for modern football are fit for purpose.

First example was the disallowed goal scored by Casemiro which was correctly (as the law stands) disallowed for being offside. That said, only Casemiro’s kneecap was offside, and you really have to ask whether the offside rule is really fit for purpose in an environment where VAR can check offsides with such precision.

I doubt many people will truly feel that being a kneecap in front of the defender is a serious advantage, so what is the offside rule really trying to achieve? If we don’t want to see Wenger’s Daylight rule introduced, maybe some other way could be found to implement the spirit of offside – to stop goal hanging – that balances the spirit of “level is onside” with intersected toes and kneecaps.

And now to referees. In the Chelsea game Gusto very clearly pulled on Gudmundsson’s shorts. This was looked at and deemed not a penalty despite very clearly being a foul. No doubt Harry Maguire will tug someone’s shorts next game and give away a penalty for exactly the same thing, which is maddening.

Inconsistency aside – and really when VAR is being used to look at events this should be picked up on – there is the cliche that outside of the box this would definitely have been given. So is the problem that penalties are too valuable? This is a large reason why a lot of people think some penalties, like those for the pushes on João Pedro, as ‘soft’.

What we mean when we say soft is that technically it’s a penalty but we think the punishment is too harsh. I suspect there is tacit admission amongst referees in decisions they don’t give where they fail to give penalties for clear fouls because a penalty is nearly a guaranteed goal and the foul was marginal. Like for pulling shorts. In which case, do penalties need to be re-evaluated and the rules changed to make them feel less disproportionate? Just an idea. Daniel, Cambridge

Slot out

First of all, playing your best midfielder as a defender, shows you do not care about results. There is a lot of defenders on the club’s books, but he keeps on doing it.

Secondly, his excuses or press releases are the same every time and do not provide answers or solutions, only highlighting the issues we are having.

Thirdly, he does not have an idea how to correct what is wrong now and will never have. Kenneth, YNWA

…The downfall of Liverpool is simple. You don’t need to be a Jamie Carragher or a rocket scientist to figure it out. The whole plan was to move away from what actually made Liverpool champions. Stop using Salah as the main point of all Liverpool attacks, and using Ekitike and Wirtz. Simply watch every single game and, if you have a football brain, you’ll see and notice how blatantly clear it is.

Unfortunately, for that very reason, it is why they won’t sack him. He has sold that bullshit to the hierarchy, and they have bought it hook, line, and sinker. A world-class player like Salah doesn’t become crap overnight, but he too knows his Liverpool days are numbered and has basically thrown in the towel.

Haaland is going through the same crap at City, simply check his numbers for the season but the difference is with the manager. Do you here any rubbish noice about him at city or in the papers?

Unlike Pep, who is taking a methodological approach, Liverpool’s bold piece of crap, whose claim to fame of winning the league basically off the back of Klopp’s team, thinks he has all the answers.

What will save this idiot’s job will not be in the boardroom, but egos and saving face of people in the boardroom. It’s the fans that need to stop acting like fools and start behaving like real fans, and start acting and voicing their displeasure at Anfield. Even if it means revolt.

If you want, I can also tighten it stylistically or make it read more like an article or rant column—but I’ve left it untouched beyond corrections. Brit Fan

You have to smile when ardent fans of whoever finally, and inevitably, admit what others have been telling them for months is actually broadly right. This isn’t an “I told you so” smugagram either – I get plenty wrong too, just a gentle suggestion that a few of you probably shouldn’t be quite so blindly invested in/defensive about anything and everything your club does.

It is possible to hold more than one thought/view at the same time. I do find it endlessly fascinating that there is a certain section of support, pretty much exclusively attracted by some, not all, but some, of the bigger clubs, who just will not accept that there are things their club/players/manager do which are dumb/wrong/entirely their fault. Until, if course, it becomes impossible not to do so.

I’m sure some properly qualified people have studied this before, but my guess is it boils down to extreme escapism and the mistaken belief that they are actually part of their club of choice (identity fusion, apparently, along with a large dose of cognitive dissonance). Maybe I have an unhealthy slice of nihilism, but I can’t imagine a world where the fortunes of my club matter enough to get animated about, certainly not to the extent that many of you do here.

Your owners do not give a single shiny shite about you other than as cash dispensers, some of your players are gash, some are ace, refs are pretty much all shite, but bar the exceptions that prove the rule, but they are not plotting against you, etc, and so on. Oh, and calling players by their first names, or worse, nicknames you have assigned them, like they’re your mate from the boozer, is deeply, deeply, weird. RHT/TS x

Pundit fatigue via Gogglebox

The mail from Tim McKane struck a chord with me. His comment about Gary Neville’s initial presenting style compared to now, 10 years later, reminded me of recently watching an episode of Gogglebox.

I was a fan of the show, but I have not watched it for about 4 years now. What struck me was that it was still more or less the same cast of characters, watching the same shows and making the same jokes. Obviously, it’s not their fault; what they watch on TV is fairly limited, and Channel 4 picked them because they want people who are authentic in their reactions, and you can only react authentically to the same thing so many times without repeating yourself. It’s the same with pundits. Once you’ve been in the job long enough to create your own ass-groove on the sofa, you’re going to start to become repetitive and start reaching for grander hyperbole to elevate your analysis. I don’t include commentators in this; good ones are hard to find, and the best get better with age.

The solution? 2 to 4-year contracts starting after, and culminating in either World Cup or Euro coverage, followed by a 2-year fallow period on the radio/podcast, ‘an evening with…’ or after-dinner speaking circuit to shake out the cobwebs (although some would be more suited to the rear end of a panto horse). This creates opportunities for new pundits with fresh angles and should prevent the same tired discourse season after season. The best should walk straight back into new contracts and the others will end up on other projects, while the level of punditry should stay reasonably high. John K