GlastonSpur

He's been playing wide right (not centrally). His performances in most of his games since the New Year have improved compared to previously, but that's still not saying a great deal since you'd expect an improvement from almost any player given a more regular run of games (which he's gained due to Lennnon's absence). In a couple of games he's been pretty good, but fairly average in the rest.

I'm so confident that you're wrong that I'd be willing to bet money on it - with the bet voided if either Spurs don't get 4th place or if it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Man. Utd placed a bid for Modric this summer. Any takers?

It's all about opinions, and IF Spurs finish 4th then mine would differ from yours. Modric would only be one-third of the way into his contract and he would not kick up a fuss about staying at Spurs to compete in CL campaign opportunity that he would have played a big part in creating.

Fergie is an admirer and has been since before he joined Spurs. Now that he is settled in the Prem I think the only barrier to the move would be the fact that United have no money. Which is quite a big barrier. If Spurs finish 4th - IF - then that will be an additional barrier: Spurs would hardly be willing to to prepare for a CL campaign by selling one of their best players ... and I doubt that Modric would wish to leave anyhow if Spurs finish 4th.

I can't say Spurs deserved to win that, despite two bad decisions by the ref to disallow the Crouch goal and then award a pen, plus Dawson slipping over on the greasy pitch at the crucial moment for their goal. We lacked a cutting edge, Pompey defended well, showed great character and we under-estimated them. Bollocks! Good luck to Pompey in the final.

Success compared to Spurs can only be fairly measured from the point when Spurs were eligible to compete with Villa for the same league trophies (otherwise you might just as well blame a horse for not winning the Grand National when they weren't even in the starting line-up). The facts show that from that point onwards Spurs have won 16 trophies compared to 11 for Villa. They also show that Spurs have won double the amount of trophies compared to Villa in the last 50 years. Yes, that Villa trophy haul includes a European Cup Winners trophy, but that falls way short of outweighing three European trophies for Spurs and four additional FA Cups compared to Villa since the start of head-to-head competition between the two clubs. In summary: Villa won a lot of trophies when there was not much competition, but after that competition had expanded considerably - including Spurs entering the fray - the Villa trophy haul has been far less compared to Spurs. So by all means bask in the glory of Victorian era success (after all, gaining this is obviously better than not gaining this), but it doesn't change the fact that after Spurs arrived in the league structure our trophy success has been better than Villa's. I actually regard the two clubs as being of similar status, with various plus and minus points for both clubs on both sides of this equation - and I don't claim that Spurs are a bigger or more successful club all things considered. But by the same token I do dispute the silly notion that Villa are the bigger and more successful club ... especially from the point (1908) when any comparison becomes fair and meaningful.

Excuse me? "Spurs fans have a very exaggerated sense of their club's size and importance" ???? This forum (and his thread in particular) is full of claims by a few Villa fans that Villa is the superior and more successful club. And in pursuit of this silly notion it was Villa fans who introduced the topic of trophies won. Of course the very same Villa fans don't like it when, in response to these inflated claims, the facts show that since Spurs joined the league structure the trophy count is 16 to 11 in Spurs favour. Not only this, but also the trend of greater Spurs success has generally accelerated as the decades have gone by: in the last 50 years the trophy count stands at 14 to 7 in Spurs favour: double. Yes, you can point to Victoria era trophies when the league structure was tiny, but that hardly indicates greater success over Spurs when the latter were not able to even compete for league titles etc. You might just as well claim that Mr. Rich earnt more money than Mr. Poor in a given period, when during that period the latter was barred from employment: it's a true claim, but as a point of comparison it collapses into meaningless dust. In short, it's a few Villa fans who've generally harped on about their club's alleged "superiority" over Spurs - and it's these same Villa fans who get antsy when their self-inflated balloon is soundly popped. Surprise surprise.

Yep, and Heskey bears the name "striker", but then again names don't count for much I guess.

Whoever that is, it's not me. I don't have a Twitter account.

Since Spurs joined the league: League Champions: Spurs 2, Villa 2 FA Cups: Spurs 7, Villa 3 European trophies: Spurs 3, Villa 1 League Cups: Spurs 4, Villa 5 Sure, I'd accept that your single European Cup Winners trophy is worth a lot, but not more than 3 other European trophies and far less than four additional FA Cups for Spurs. Since 1908 when both clubs have been competing the trophy count is 16 to 11. Come back when Villa overtake this Spurs trophy haul

This is a good indicator of the generally empty nature of your comments: where some intelligence could be hoped for there is instead usually a complete vacuum.

On the contrary, it always has been (and remains) a very valid point. All the more so in the context of the ludricrous claim that Villa have "been the superior club for 86 out of your 128 years" ... a claim that itself rules out many of your Victorian era (big-fish-in-a-tiny pond) trophies. Since Spurs joined the football league (1908) our trophy count stands up very well in comparison to Villa's ... and even that ignores the FA Cup we won prior to even joining the league.

As has been pointed out several times before, a large proportion of Villa's trophies were won in the Victorian era, when the league structure was tiny and most of today's clubs, including Spurs, were not even in it. In the majority of each of the decades since then Villa have won fewer trophies than Spurs - thus your claim that Villa have "been the superior club for 86 out of your 128 years" is partisan nonsense.

Spurs would be a seeded team (based on coefficient rankings), which as things stand right now would mean we'd most likely face one of the following in the CL playoff round that precedes entrance into the CL proper: Basel Bayer Leverkusen Palermo Auxerre Mallorca Of course this is getting way ahead of things, obviously because Spurs might not finish in 4th, but over two legs I don't see any team there that Spurs wouldn't be favourites to beat.

Very, very true. At best we are currently very marginal favourites, but that position can (and probably will) change almost game by game. Personally I think the next match for Spurs (Sunderland away) is the most key game out of all Spurs' remaining fixtures. Win that, and the psychological pressure on the other 3 contenders will become massive: they will all then be thinking that all of their remaining games become absolute "must wins" ... and playing under that sort of pressure tends not to produce good performances. Not only this, but a win against Sunderland will considerably ease the pressure on Spurs going into our "3 tough fixtures" against Arsenal, Chelsea and Man. Utd. It won't be easy to beat Sunderland, and we could lose. But Huddlestone is now back, Defoe will also be back for that game and Palacios will also be available (tho' 1 more yellow card in the next 2 games and he'll be banned for 2 games).

I'm thinking more of Bale at LB and Lennon in RW, with Modric playing ahead of Bale in a nominal LM position ... Modric comes infield a lot anyhow, which suits Bale coming from deep to overlap ahead of him down the left flank. I think it will work better than it does with Young and Downing, partly because Bale (I'd say) is a fair bit quicker than Downing (even if the latter has reasonable pace), and partly because Bale would be coming from deeper (than Downing) at LB, with thus more chance to get into his stride. Bale also seems keener than Downing to take on his man and get past him ... at least from what I've seen. Defensively Bale has been pretty good this season - much improved. I can't really recall the last defensive mistake he's made. This is really the first time he's had a long run of regular games for Spurs, and he's taken his chance well.

Without checking I'd guess he's played 50% of the time at LB and 50% in LW. The majority of Spurs fans (I'd say) think he's better at LB, because there he gets more space and time in which to make his forward run from deep, whereas in LW the opposition players get more chance to get close to him as soon as he gets the ball. But he's been effective in both positions. What I really like about him is his direct style of play, always arrowing for the penalty box jugular on either the inside or outside: give him half a yard of space, or a small gap, and he's through. I'm really looking forward to Lennon's return, because with Bale on the other flank opposition teams won't be able to afford to try and double-team either player.

Yes we did win the FA Cup in 1901, and remain the only non-league club ever to have done so. But we were discussing the 19th century, not the 20th. And we were discussing the 4 "league titles" that Villa won in that era (league titles that the vast majority of today's clubs were not able to compete for), not to mention the three 19th century FA Cup trophies won by Villa.

I see. It's "just" that the vast majority of current clubs were non-league clubs at the time. So the fact that this meant they weren't able to compete for all these 19th century trophies is entirely irrelevant to Villa's winning them is it? Pull the other one. The MK Dons are essentially Wimbledon FC re-named and re-located.

It's not subjective criteria, it's objective criteria because it's objective fact concerning the small number of clubs in the league structure in the 19th century. I don't dismiss them. I merely put them in their true context, a context which considerably reduces - but doesn't completely dismiss - their objective value as a benchmark of club success in relation to many other clubs. No good reason besides your being a powerhouse? Most of the other clubs in existence today were not even in the competitions concerned during the 19th century - that strikes me as an excellent reason as to why they couldn't have won the trophies concerned instead of Villa. No, by that time the full league stucture had been in place for a long time and no clubs were excluded from being able to compete in it In the 19th century Villa were a big fish in a very small pond. In the 60s and 80s the pond was huge, just as it is today.

Another 50 teams are never going to be introduced and a European super league is very unlikely to happen. Besides, you are talking about future 'ifs', whereas I've referred to actual 19th century reality compared to later on. If any of your 'ifs' ever occur, then no doubt the discussion could be resumed at that time. It doesn't mean that your 19th century trophies count for nothing. But it does mean their value, as benchmarks of club success compared to the vast majority of other clubs (who weren't even able to compete for those trophies), is very considerably reduced. I'm prepared to admit the huge credit to Villa for winning the European Cup, but a degree of reciprocal honesty would be apprecated in VTers admitting the truth of what I say above about your 19th century trophies.

No, because in 1961 the full league structure had already been established for many decades with more or less the same number of clubs as exist today. And Manchester United and Liverpool had been in that structure for many decades prior to 1961. In the 19th century the number of competing clubs was tiny in comparison and the league structure existed only in it's infant form.

This whole thread is an attempt to "dish it out" to Spurs. If you didn't like my justified - and entirely accurate - response, then what does that dislike say except that you like dishing it out, but object to taking it back. At least I don't continuously attempt to personalise the issue - I try to keep the focus on football.

True, and this is very much to Villa's credit.

Villa would be huge if they had won more trophies than Spurs in any single decade since World War 1. Villa would be huge if Spurs had not won more trophies than them in 4 out of the last 5 decades. Villa would be huge if Spurs had not won nearly twice as many trophies since World War 1. Villa would have made a small step towards becoming huge if their last trophy wasn't 14 years ago, since when Spurs have added two trophies to their tally. Villa would be huge were it not for the fact that a large proportion of all your trophies were won in the 19th century - when there were only a small number of clubs in the Football League, the whole league structure had not even properly formed and Villa were simply a big fish in a very small pond. Villa would be huge were it not for the fact that it wasn't even until the early years of the 20th century that southern clubs such as Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs even established themselves in the League ... since which time the trophy count of all these clubs has dwarfed Villas.