GlastonSpur

You make a fair point. However, I would say Heskey in the past has been better than he is now - not perhaps surprising considering that he'll soon be 32 years old. I'd also say Heskey wouldn't be in the current England set-up if it weren't for Rooney and the notion that Rooney plays best with Heskey (I don't happen to agree with that notion, but there you go). Whereas the inclusion of Lennon in the WC squad is not dependent on the presence of another particular player in the same way.

I've already said why: try reading the thread. Generally I don't. For example, I don't recall discussing Milner vs. Lennon anywhere else but here. Why are you so interested in what I post on Redcafe, when I couldn't care less whether you post on there or not? Why am I not interested? Perhaps it's because, unlike you it seems, I'm not one of these stalker types who obsesses about particular posters and apparently seeks to target them. Anyhow, good luck with your "hobby".

No, but then again I've not called Lennon world class either, so what's your point?

Yes, and why not? Finishing 5th (twice in a row) is a good achievement in itself, and closer to 4th than Villa have achieved with any of your current players, but the fact that we came even closer than this suggests - 30 minutes away in the final game of the season - is also worthy of note and something far, far closer to 4th than any current Villa players have experienced. Reaching a Wembley final is an achievement in itself is it not? And winning one of the finals is an achievement that goes one better. We've done the former twice and the latter once whilst Lennon has been at Spurs. But don't get hung up on whether you wish to call it overall four times the achievement or six times, because either way it doesn't change the basic point.

I don't recall saying that, but don't let that stop you from inventing things in an effort to change the subject. And what is the current subject? It's the notion that Milner - despite being older than Lennon, and despite the fact that he's been part of nothing much yet at Villa (or anywhere else) compared to what Lennon has been part of at Spurs - is the superior player and more likely to be in the final WC squad than Lennon ..... Now that's what I'd call pure gold.

No, there we have a justified response, every word of it true, to your condescending BS about Lennon being merely "a decent premiership player for a mid table team."

Whilst Lennon has been at Spurs we've finished 5th twice, come within 30 minutes of finishing 4th, won a trophy and made two Wembley final appearances - so that's six times a better accomplishment than anything that MON at Villa - or any current player at Villa - has so far managed. Let me know when Milner or Young or any of other wide-midfield World Cup squad wannabees at Villa can say the same thing.

So you don't rate Lennon. However, Capello rates him, Redknapp rates him, Jol rates him and every manager he's ever played for has rated him. So I'll trust their (and my) judgement over your assessment "abilities", because it seems you wouldn't know obvious class if it bit you on the arse.

He is already at a big club. In any case, what's with the "by now"? He's 3 years younger than Downing, 2 years younger than Ashley Young and 1 year younger than Milner.

Not true. For example, he has eaten Patrice Evra for breakfast on several occasions .... ask any Man. Utd fan if you haven't seen the matches concerned or don't believe me.

Running really, really fast out of play? Lennon offers more than just super-quick pace, and he almost never runs the ball out of play or loses the ball. His close control (even at pace) is excellent, as is his ability to change direction almost instantly - he seems to skip past players almost effortlessly and really is very difficult to stop by legal means. The value of this is obvious: he pulls defenders this way and that, causing them to lose their shape, to panic and yield spaces for other attackers to exploit. I'd also say that his crossing ability and general use of the ball has improved, as you'd expect for a player who is still only 22. For my money Lennon is one of the very best wingers in the Prem and I think you underate him.

Milner's a good player, hard-working and intelligent, rarely loses the ball or gives it away, but "defensive work" is not the prime responsibilty of a wide midfielder and is far from being enough reason by itself to pick someone for that position. Milner's main drawbacks are his relative lack of pace and lack of the extra sparkle and attacking threat as posed by Lennon. He just doesn't have the same ability to cause panic and mayhem in the opposition defence. This is why Lennon IMO will definitely be in Capello's WC squad, whilst Milner, although he stands a good chance of also being in the squad (probably at the expense of Ashley Young), probably still falls into the category of "question mark" in Capello's mind.

An excellent range of passes, for instance. It's strange then, if defenders "can always predict what he's going to do with the ball", how so few of them ever manage to actually stop him - he almost always goes past them, or delivers a cross or pass, or gets a shot off - short of bringing him down for a free-kick. In fact I would say he is one of the least predictable wingers in the game, because he sometimes goes inside and sometimes outside and can change direction on a sixpence, at speed. He can also play left or right side and often swaps side during the game.

What I actually said was the Spurs have a deeper (and better) squad depth, which IMO will be one of the pivotal factors as the season wears on. I didn't make any comments about first XIs, tho' I will say now that your first XI comparisons are mostly wide of the mark.

Lennon definitely yes (he's back in ful training now), Modric no.

Agreed. But IMO it does make for a greater chance of ending up with a fair few draws, even if it that's not the intention.

In fact they won only 10 games 1 - 0. They also scored 68 goals - a total that was only exceeded by Liverpool.

Defence is not THE key for any club at any level in any league. This conclusion is dictated by the logic of 3 points for a win, but only 1 point for a draw. That logic emphasises the importance of attack over defence. The notion of 'building from the back' is just a tired old cliche, dating back to the era when a win gained only 2 points. In the modern era the midfield is the key area to build from, especially the ability of the midfield to support strikers and unlock defences for strikers.

It isn't THE key. The key is winning a big proportion of games, even if you lose a fair few, because winning one game is worth 3 draws. Winning lots of games usually means scoring a good amount of of goals. Thus attacking strength and intent is more important than defensive solidity, and the former is partly gained at the expense of the latter. A team may do well by just setting out to keep things tight and play only on the counter-attack, but it probably won't do well enough in terms of getting all 3 points often enough.

I think Spurs will finish 5th (with a chance for 4th if Liverpool continue to have a nightmare season) because I don't think Man. City will gel together sufficiently quickly (next season is another story, given their spending power) and also because I reckon that: (a) Spur's squad depth is deeper than Villa's and that this will be a crucial factor over the course of the long season; and ... ( Spurs, because they play more attacking football, will win more games than Villa, even if we also lose more often than Villa. In other words I'd question as to whether Villa will be able to convert enough draws into wins, since you don't generally score that many goals. Of course you scored 5 in your last match, but perhaps that will be the exception that proves the general rule. I'd say that Villa are seen as having a very solid defence, a well-organised and hard-working team, with some degree of flair but with a problem in scoring enough goals, especially from open play (to some extent you are seen as a set-piece team). In summary: hard to break down and beat, but not very entertaining or adventurous/risk-taking.

A typically inaccurate post from you. In fact I haven't said that Spurs will finish top 4. My prediction at the start of the season was 5th and since then I've merely said that Spurs are currently in the race for top 4, which clearly they are.

I'm not surprised you give up. I would too if I'd claimed that Redknapp had sold "nearly 106m worth of talent", when in fact only 36m worth of players have been sold since he arrived. Clearly you imagine this has relevance to the current season. I'm tempted to just leave you with this comforting illusion, but if we're talking about something that does have some relevance to the current season, then I'd point out the several players in the Spurs squad that were with us when we finished 5th twice a row - Villa have not managed to finish 5th even once with any of the players in your current squad. Oh how we like to rewrite history. In fact Liverpool were quoted a price (not told 'where to go') and Barry would have been sold if they'd been willing to meet it. Do you imagine that the money spent so far (approaching 100m) on the stadium project has been grown on trees? The fact that Spurs have been able to do this - and fund a new training complex on top - is in small part at least due to the fact that Spurs make a profit more often than not on player dealings.

A selling price had already been set by MON, so don't be a hypocrite and pretend you wouldn't have sold Barry if Liverpool had been willing and able to pay the asking price. The main difference is that Man. Utd could afford (and did pay) what Spurs asked for. Likewise Liverpool for Keane at the time. And in both cases we obtained very good prices - it's not as if they went for a song. The amount of criticism that Spurs get on VT in relation to finances is amazing: If I didn't know better I'd almost start to wonder which club has a new stadium in the pipe-line and which club doesn't.

I notice you didn't acknowledge the huge mistake in the figure you gave for Redknapp's sale of players (36m, not 106m). Still, I don't suppose a mere 70m matters much to a qualified accountant. So Spurs will "not finish top 4"? Who knows ... for the time being we're most definitely in the race. These others? What others? Davenport? I didn't mention Davenport. But for the record he was bought for 1.1m, rising to 3m depending on appearances, and sold in January '07 for 3m: net spend = 0. A few questions for you to ponder .... Did Villa not sell Barry? Is it wise for any club to try and force players to stay if they wish to leave? Are not all clubs outside the top 4 vulnerable to having their best players poached away? You claim that Spurs are just a "selling club". In many previous posts you've banged on about how much Spurs have spent in buying players (usually giving inaccurate figures I might add). It seems to me that you want it all ways at once. Finally, if the latest accounts for you (as a "qualified accountant") only show that Spurs are a selling club, then I might suggest that you consider changing your profession. For example, has the 61m spent during the last 6 years on buying land for the new stadium just disappeared into the ether?

Your facts are wrong. Redknapp has been in charge for 2 windows, during which time he's sold 36m worth of players - not 106m. Secondly, this 'average' squad is currently in 4th place. I sense this figure is reached by saying that Bent was sold for £17m whereas a large percentage of this £17m fee doesn't become Spurs' until he scores the world cup final winning goal (or some such other ridiculous clause) In real life accounting we use the fair value whereby the likelihood of a balance becoming realistic is used, hence the Bent sale figure is probably nearly £10m than £17m In calculating net spend you can either include future potential add-ons for all players transfers - both in and out - or you don't use them for any. If I ignore the add-ons for Bent, then I'd also have to ignore the add-ons for Dos Santos and others. It doesn't really matter which way you do it, because it all eventually evens out in the wash. I use the former method. A reduction of just 1.1% in turnover during a recession is hardly startling news and doesn't exactly put the club on skid row. Most other clubs will fare worse than Spurs. If we're talking about hidden detail, the accounts also reveal that Spurs have spent 61m in the last six years in acquiring land and properties around White Hart Lane, preparing for the new stadium build. We now have all the land needed, and that's 61m that won't need to be spent again. The club has made a profit each year for the last 5 years, with club record profits this year, whilst in recent years investing probably close to £100m (including fees to architects, designers, planning consultants etc on top of the land purchases) to pave the way for securing the club's long-term future in a new state-of-the-art stadium, not to mention work started this September on what will be a wonderful new (replacement) training complex in Essex ... I'll settle for all that.