koonal shah's column

            08.08.2002          How Very 'Sir' Les
            21.08.2002          More Misery for Poor Sergei
            10.09.2002          Love of my life
            29.01.2003          The Football Genius is Leaving
            20.08.2003          Forward thinking
            03.01.2004          You Canuck Be Serious
            01.09.2004          Oh, Fredi Fredi
            23.3.2005            The Best Team In Europe
            28.12.2006          Matchday Diary: Tottenham vs Aston Villa, December 26th 2006
            04.07.2007          Losing Is The New Winning
            16.07.2008        2007-08; what do the numbers tell us ?

16.07.2008

Over the past twelve months, I've witnessed Tottenham fans using statistics to do things such as:

(i) promote the merits of a generally maligned player – e.g. "Bent's goals-per-minute ratio is actually pretty decent."

(ii) downplay the achievements of a generally well-regarded player – e.g. "Berbatov's shooting accuracy isn't all that."

(iii) confirm conventional wisdom – e.g. "we always concede last-minute goals!"

Personally, I've never known quite what to make of such claims. With the old adage "you can show anything with statistics" in mind, I usually try to approach conclusions based on numbers alone with a degree of caution. However, I was keen to see if I could uncover any interesting trends myself, and so decided to spend a day analysing Tottenham's season, without making a conscious effort to reach any conclusion in particular.

The data is admittedly limited. All I used was a list of Tottenham's competitive results in the 2007/8 season and a list of the players who participated in each match. My aim was to investigate whether the inclusion of a particular player had a systematic impact on the team's fortunes.

I made a few potentially controversial decisions that should be borne in mind when assessing the findings. First, I only considered a player to have participated in a given match if they were on the pitch for 45 minutes or longer. This is to avoid unfairly attributing a result to a late substitute or to a player who was withdrawn early due to injury. Of course, the problem with this method is that it fails to account for 'super-sub' appearances such as that of Darren Bent against Portsmouth, in which he was arguably the architect of our victory despite only being on the field for 20 minutes.

Second, the overall assessment excludes any player who made less than five appearances over the course of the season. If I were to relax this rule, Benoit Assou-Ekotto and Chris Gunter would come out top in just about every category. For example, Ekotto appeared in just two matches – one of which was a 6-1 victory – and it seems overly generous to let him take all the credit. Applying a five-match minimum limits the extent to which a player's overall rating is affected by similarly anomalous results.

Third, I made no adjustments for the difficulty or importance of each match. However, I did attempt to rank each team in order to measure the average standard of opposition that each player faced over the course of the season. My rankings were based on the 2007/8 Premier League final standings (Manchester United ranked as 1, Chelsea as 2, etc.). Ranking cup and European opposition was less straightforward, and I rather arbitrarily decided to rank PSV as 4.5 (between Liverpool and Everton), Blackpool and Anorthosis as 20 (surely nobody should be rated lower than Derby?!) and all other UEFA cup opponents as 11 (mid-table Premier League quality).

Finally, I counted our extra-time victory over Chelsea in the league cup final as a win rather than a draw.

Of course, limited data mean limited conclusions. Crucially, no measure of the quality of a player's performance is considered. This can generate misleading conclusions that can be either excessively harsh or excessively lenient. Jamie O'Hara, for example, distinguished himself in the 2-1 defeat against Arsenal in December, whilst Kevin-Prince Boateng will take credit for the 3-0 victory over Derby despite having put in a dreadful performance. However, short of applying my own (probably biased) judgement I feel that this is the most accurate way of approaching the analysis.

My basic analysis also implies that each result depends on the performance of 11 individuals, when in reality we know that it is more about how the team performs as a unit. For instance, it is all well and good saying that we conceded less with Cerny in goal, but to what extent is this due to the fact that he had a stable, experienced defensive duo playing in front of him? An in-depth study of the various permutations and combinations regarding team selection would be fascinating, but is beyond the scope of this article.

Now to the results. Tottenham's 2007/8 season was characterised by underperformance and inconsistency. Overall, we won 39% of our matches with an average goal difference of approximately +0.40 per match. Excluding cup and European matches provides a gloomier view: in the league we won only 29% of our matches with an average goal difference of 0.13. According to my subjective ranking system, the average difficult of opposition lies somewhere between West Ham and Newcastle.

The numbers suggest that our top statistical player was Ledley King. We were victorious in an impressive 50% of matches in which our captain played a part, recording an exceptional average goal difference of +0.90. However, it is worth noting that in spite of the view that King's presence in the team delivers a sense of stability in the defence, this remarkable goal difference is driven not by goals conceded, but by goals scored. Indeed, the team conceded an average of 1.70 goals in each match that King played in – only Bale's figure of 2.11 is worse.

King's record is even more remarkable if you consider the fact that he was often brought in for particularly difficult matches such as those against Arsenal and Chelsea. Overall, King and Woodgate tended to face a much tougher quality of opposition than the overall club average, whilst the likes of Bent and Defoe tended to play against weaker teams.

Another strong performer was Young-Pyo Lee, who played in 29 of Tottenham's 57 matches. Lee's inclusion in the team saw a healthy win rate of 45% and an average goal difference of +0.59. Bent and Defoe both do well in terms of the win rate measure, but as mentioned above this is likely to have been because they tended to start against the weaker teams. Rather surprisingly, Aaron Lennon comes out well above average on all measures, suggesting that perhaps he didn't have quite as bad a season as many are making out. A possible explanation for this finding is simply that our lack of decent options on the right meant that even an off-form Lennon was likely to do a better job for us than any possible replacements. The much-maligned Younes Kaboul and Kevin-Prince Boateng also performed well compared to the team average.

One of the key problems with this analysis is that it doesn't enable strong conclusions to be made about players who featured in the majority of matches – rather, it is more useful for analysing the impact of fringe players who took part in, say, 10-30 matches. For example, Steed Malbranque appeared in 52 of Tottenham's 57 matches and so will always show up close to the overall team average for any given measure – we have very little indication of how the team fares without him. With this is mind, however, it is interesting to note that we tended to perform slightly worse – both in terms of win rate and goal difference – with Dimitar Berbatov in the team.

The weakest performers were Gardner, Bale, Rocha and O'Hara. In fairness to the first three, they managed only twenty appearances between them, almost all of which occurred during the turbulent August-October period. Despite some very promising moments, O'Hara tasted defeat in 50% of his outings last season and suffered an average goal difference of -0.36. If this form were to be carried across the entire season, it would have meant relegation.

By most accounts, January arrivals Jonathon Woodgate and Alan Hutton have settled in well and are now key members of Tottenham's first team. Both are associated with a below-par win rate but an impressive loss rate - this is consistent with the fact that we took our foot of the gas towards the end of the season, culminating in a run of four consecutive draws.

The central midfield position provides some interesting results. For the reason outlined above, Jenas scores close to average on the basis that he played in most matches. Zokora and Tainio perform poorly on all measures, although the latter's case is helped by the fact that he tended to be brought in against relatively difficult opposition. Tom Huddlestone, one of those controversial players who usually generates a divide in fans' opinions, comes out looking like an important player for the club. With Huddlestone in the team, Tottenham score more, concede less and win a lot more points.

Finally, on the goalkeeping front Paul Robinson conceded more goals per game than Radek Cerny (1.51 compared to 1.15). The difference in quality of opposition was negligible, but actually in Robinson's favour.

So, what can we draw from these results? The most striking conclusion is one that most of us already knew – Ledley King is a vital player for Tottenham Hotspur. If he had been fit and available at the start and end of the season, it is likely that we would have finished much higher than 11^th.

We can also see that we appear to be better off with the likes of Lee and Huddlestone in the team than out of it. Both players have been linked with moves away from the club, but the stats suggest that they can make useful contributions next season.

Finally, we can conclude that statistics (at least when considered in isolation) don't really mean much in themselves. Earlier, I suggested that Boateng's stats might have been biased by the fact that he has occasionally been the weak link in an otherwise satisfactory performance. A detailed examination of all the data confirms that this is indeed the case. Conversely, an evaluation of Malbranque's season is hurt by the fact that he was one of the squad's most consistent players.

I leave you with a selection of some of the more interesting standings.

% of matches won

1	King	50%
2	Boateng	50%
3	Bent	47%
4	Lee	45%
5	Defoe	44%
6	Lennon	44%
7	Kaboul	42%
8	Chimbonda	42%
9	Huddlestone	41%
10	Jenas	41%
11	Robinson	41%
12	Stalteri	40%
13	THFC AVERAGE	39%
14	Malbranque	38%
15	Tainio	38%
16	Berbatov	35%
17	Keane	35%
18	Woodgate	35%
19	Cerny	35%
20	Dawson	34%
21	Zokora	34%
22	Hutton	33%
23	Bale	22%
24	O'Hara	21%
25	Rocha	20%
26	Gardner	20%

% of matches lost

1	King	20%
2	Lennon	22%
3	Woodgate	24%
	THFC AVERAGE	30%
24	Rocha	40%
25	O'Hara	50%
26	Gardner	60%

Average goal difference

1	King	+0.90
2	Lennon	+0.78
3	Lee	+0.59
	THFC AVERAGE	+0.40
24	Bale	-0.11
25	O'Hara	-0.36
26	Gilberto	-0.50

Average goals scored

1	King	2.60
2	Kaboul	2.12
3	Huddlestone	2.03
	THFC AVERAGE	1.79
24	O'Hara	1.21
25	Stalteri	1.20
26	Gardner	1.20

Average goals conceded

1	Boateng	0.80
2	Defoe	1.00
3	Stalteri	1.00
	THFC AVERAGE	1.39
24	Tainio	1.63
25	King	1.70
26	Bale	2.11

Average opposition quality

1	King	7.4
2	Woodgate	8.1
3	Tainio	9.2
	THFC AVERAGE	10.5
24	Stalteri	13.2
25	Bent	13.7
26	Defoe	13.8

2007-08 statistical team of the year

	Cerny
Chimbonda	King	Kaboul / Woodgate	Lee
Lennon	Jenas	Huddlestone	Boateng
	Keane	Bent

Send your praise and abuse to koonalshah@gmail.com

28.12.2006

Matchday Diary: Tottenham vs Aston Villa, December 26th 2006

I love Boxing Day matches. Possibly because we seem to have done well in them recently (we’ve won every Boxing Day fixture since drawing 2-2 against Charlton back in 2002), but probably more to do with the fact that it gives me an opportunity to proudly don my blue and white Santa hat.

Festive accessories aside, today saw a number of other changes to my usual matchday routine. I normally have to wake up at an absurdly early hour in order to begin my (usually hungover) journey from my home in Nottingham. Staying with my folks in North London over Christmas, I was granted extra sleeping time, but the early 1pm kick-off meant that I was still slightly dreary-eyed as I left the house. I also managed to bag a lift to the game, so my brother was spared from having to endure my customary ‘how f***ing s*** is the Northern Line!’ rant.

We parked just around the corner from the Lane, paying a tenner to a greasy-looking guy who was on a mission to cram seven into his ‘car park’. Some quick fag-packet maths suggested that if he succeeded to do so for every home game, he’d end up pocketing about a grand and a half over the course of the season. Not a bad little earner, one of the few benefits of living in Tottenham I guess !

The game itself was entertaining, although I thought that the quality of football was pretty average. Our midfielders were wasteful in possession, losing 50:50 tackles far too easily. Thankfully, the assured brilliance of Ledley King was such that we looked fairly comfortable throughout. Watching him calmly turn Baros and accurately pass the ball out of defence had me roaring in delight. A team of Robbie Keanes would be a good laugh, but whatI really want to see is a team of Ledley Kings.

The crowd were pretty quiet, with a lot of the guys in my block looking like they’d been fed far too many mince pies over the last few days. There were a few half-hearted attempts to get ‘Glory Glory’ and ‘Oh when the Spurs’ going, but the real moment of entertainment came in the second half, shortly after two of the Villa defenders had accidentally collided with each other. With the game paused to allow the players to be treated, the crowd worked through a medley of chants for all the players – all, that is, except for Chimbonda, Ghaly and Lee (and I don’t count the senseless ‘DVD’ taunt I’ve been hearing about recently). Great to see the players acknowledging the fans’ support, and I’m pretty sure I can see Zokora grinning every time he hears his name being sung. I hope that we can work on some chants for all
the remaining players – ‘what’s that coming over the hill’ sounds pretty promising for Chimbonda, and we also need a song for Jermaine Jenas, a player whom I would have liked to have seen on the pitch today. For all his faults, Jenas is one of the few players whom I can rely upon to be full of energy from start to finish – I don’t think that it’s any coincidence that we’ve looked far more prone to losing out on loose balls during his recent absence.

Just after the game had finished, we were informed that Chelsea had drawn 2-2 at home to Reading, while Portsmouth had defeated West Ham 2-1. The first result made me smile – it’s very rare for the away team to score twice at Stamford Bridge these days, and my pre-season prediction that Reading would comfortably survive their first season in the Premiership looks likely to be borne out. The second result had the rest of the departing crowd cheering, but not me. As amusing as it is to see our London neighbours struggling at the foot of the table, the thought of ‘Arry and Sol celebrating victory together still makes me feel uneasy. No – I don’t think I’ll ever be able to move on !

So…a 2-1 win against Villa - I’m happy with that. It wasn’t the most convincing of performances, but it was fantastic to see Defoe score twice, and even better to watch us continue our tremendous run of home victories.

As I say every December, all I really want for Christmas is three points.

Once again, Santa delivered !

Send your praise and abuse to yidarmy@gmail.com

23.3.2005

The Best Team In Europe

I apologise in advance if this column ends up turning into meaningless, uncontrolled rant. But I haven’t been this infuriated by an item of football-related news since the day that Sol Campbell decided that red was his new favourite colour.

David Gill, chief executive of Manchester United, has called for a change in the Champions League seeding system whereby the more glamorous clubs are given a improved chance of reaching the tournament’s latter stages. It seems that in the second round draw, for example, he wants the number one ranked UEFA team (currently Real Madrid) to be paired with the number sixteen ranked team; the number two team with the number fifteen team, and so on.

Gill’s reasons ? “It’s not good for the big clubs, not good for TV and sponsors if there are no Spanish clubs in the quarter-finals.”

Predictably, money is the primary concern: last year’s Porto-Monaco final was clearly far less lucrative than, say, a showdown between Manchester United and Barcelona. But surely the competition’s purpose is to determine the best team in Europe, not ‘the best team out of all of Europe’s biggest and most powerful’ ? The achievements of Porto provide inspiration to everyone – they have shown that with sound management and hard work, anything can be achieved. The fact that people like Gill have suggested that such an outcome is “not good” does nothing but undermine their success.

Personally, I’m averse to seeding of any kind. Maybe that’s why I like the FA cup so much – anyone can be drawn against anyone – for me, that’s what a proper cup competition is all about. However, I think that if UEFA wants to reward past performance (which seems reasonable enough), then the current system of pairing group winners with group runners-up is spot on. If Manchester United really are a top European side, then they’ve got six group stage games to prove it.

This season, we’ve witnessed something truly special at Everton, a club with, and I think I’m being pretty kind here, a playing squad that can be described as average at best. Admittedly, they’ve wobbled a bit lately and might well have slipped down the table by the time you read this, but as I write, they’re in fourth place – and I rate their season as having been nothing short of outstanding. Although I have no attachment towards the club, I am delighted to see them up there (imagine us in their position, and Arsenal in the position of their local, ‘superior’ rivals Liverpool, and you’ll understand why). But Everton aren’t exactly TV-friendly, and Gill’s proposals imply that the game is better off if such ‘fairytales’ never happen again. Effectively, the big clubs seem to want to create a closed shop in order to ensure that small fish like Everton and Porto aren’t given the opportunity to obstruct their path to world domination.

And just as Manchester United were on their way to becoming my most hated team, along comes Mr. Wenger with an equally ludicrous comment: “You can’t afford to have Real Madrid and Manchester United – big clubs who invest so much money – going out in the last 16.”

Interesting. So Wenger believes that clubs who have invested vast sums of money ought to be lent a hand. Somebody better inform him that Tottenham have spent even more than Arsenal over the last 10 years … where’s our place in Europe? At least when Tottenham moan, we moan that we’re not good enough, rather than moaning that the Premier League aren’t making it easy enough for us !

For me, there’s only one solution. Let’s grant the wishes of the ‘big clubs’ and let them form their European Super-Premier-Championship, or whatever they want to call it. I’m sure it will be sensational – the continent’s most famous teams, the world’s most talented and marketable players – it’s a sponsor’s dream.

Then the rest of us can be left in peace to enjoy proper football.

Please send your praise and abuse to yidarmy@gmail.com

1.9.2004

Oh Fredi Fredi

After over a year of armchair viewing, I finally returned to the Lane to watch Spurs grind out a 1-0 victory over Birmingham City. I returned home delighted. The result was good, the new players performed well, and most importantly, the Lane was buzzing. It was almost moan-free.

I say “almost” because I still came across a few disappointed comments, mainly aimed at Frederic Kanoute. The Malian striker came on for Robbie Keane halfway through the second half and didn’t have much of an impact, bar a few one-twos with Defoe. Some of the fans around me complained that he was “lazy”, “uninterested” and “ready to leave for Southampton”. Although it wasn’t a vintage performance by Fredi, I took offence with some of these criticisms.

It seems that since he chose to play for Mali in January, Kanoute has found it increasingly difficult to please the Tottenham supporters. This topic has been covered in great detail, and I don’t want to go into it too much in this column. My opinion, for the record, is that the fault lies not with Kanoute, but with FIFA for introducing the absurd nationality-changing rule.

Then, when Santini arrived as Head Coach, many predicted that Kanoute would be offloaded because of past disagreements between the two at French club Lyon.

Kanoute responded to these claims on his icons.com website:
“I hear that there has been a lot of noise being made in the media about the fact that Mr. Santini was with Lyon when they allowed me to join West Ham and that we didn’t get on too well in France. The truth is that I don’t really know him that well. He was not manager of Lyon at the time, he was Director of Football, and I never really had a lot to do with him.”

This failed to quieten the media, but Kanoute made a positive move by turning down an opportunity to represent Mali in the Olympics in order to play in the opening games of the Premiership season. And although Defoe has undoubtedly been the star of the show so far, I believe that Kanoute has had an important role to play, particularly in the absence of the injured Keane.

There has also been much speculation in recent weeks surrounding a possible swoop for Southampton’s James Beattie. Many newspapers claimed that Spurs would offer “unsettled” Kanoute in a player exchange deal. Again, Kanoute was aware of these rumours and responded on his website:

“I also hear that I have been linked with a move to Southampton as part of an exchange with James Beattie. I can assure you I know nothing about that. It seems like I am always talked about in terms of leaving Tottenham but I just don’t know why ? At the moment I have absolutely no intention of going anywhere else. I am happy at Spurs and looking forward to the season ahead.”

The transfer window has now shut, and Frederic Kanoute is still a Tottenham player. I’m glad. Watching Keane and Defoe together up front is exciting, but it is clear that the partnership’s lack of height will pose a problem, particularly if the wide players continue supplying lacklustre crosses. Against Birmingham, Defoe challenged for every long ball, but failed to win a single header (if I’m not mistaken). Kanoute is also very good at holding up the ball and releasing it into space for a quicker player: something he showed with Defoe at West Ham, and last season with Keane (remember when we were all raving about the KK partnership?).

We’re lucky to have three very talented strikers at the club. Jermain Defoe, Robbie Keane and Frederic Kanoute are capable of making a huge impact at any Premiership club.

Let’s give all three of them our full support.

Send your praise and abuse to koonal.shah@zoom.co.uk

21.8.2002

'More misery for poor Sergei'

There is no doubt that Sergei Rebrov has struggled since his £11m move from Dinamo Kyiv two summers ago. Particularly under George Graham's long ball tactics, the little Ukrainian has often been found to be too lightweight when facing some of the Premiership's tougher centre halves. But, the twelve goals that he did manage to score in his debut season indicated that he could, given the right sort of service, become a prolific striker for the club.

Hoddle's arrival at the helm was bad news for Rebrov, mainly due to the fact that it was soon followed by the return to the Lane of Teddy Sheringham. Most fans expected Hoddle to play the two together, but it was, in fact, Les Ferdinand who was preferred as Sheringham's strike partner. Rebrov was used mainly as a substitute, if at all, and any starts he did make were usually the result of an injury to Ferdinand. It soon became clear that Sheringham-Rebrov was not the most effective of partnerships: both forwards enjoy working behind or slightly wide of a 'target' striker, and whilst the two link well in terms of passing, there is nobody present to finish off the chances that they create.

An obvious answer to this dilemma is to play both Sheringham and Rebrov behind a goal poacher, either Ferdinand or Iversen for the time being. This 'triangle' attack was used in the latter stages of the pre-season friendly at Watford (with Qu Bo playing the 'goal poacher' role) and it worked well. However, the main drawback of this tactic is that it leaves the midfield looking seriously lightweight ... effectively one of the midfielders is being moved into attack. So, it looks like its back to the bench for the little Ukrainian.

Fair enough. If Hoddle doesn't feel that Rebrov deserves to start matches at Sheringham's expense, that's his decision. I'm not going to argue with that. It simply means that Rebrov's has to make the most of the opportunities that he is given: substitute appearances, the odd cup tie, and pre-season friendlies. Hoddle did, in fact, select Rebrov in most of Tottenham's pre-season friendlies, including two that I attended - the matches against Watford and Crystal Palace.

Throughout both games, the crowd gave Rebrov a considerable amount of flak ... there was no customary chanting of how 'There's only one Sergei Rebrov'. Every few minutes the words 'Oh, come on Rebrov!' could be heard, but more often than not, he hadn't actually done anything wrong. Incredibly, some Spurs fans even began moaning about Rebrov's 'lack of motivation' when the player in question wasn't anywhere near the ball ! It seems that the continuous media assertions about Rebrov's 'misery' at Tottenham have been drummed into fans' heads so many times that every time something goes wrong, they immediately point their finger at the striker.

It seems ridiculous to say 'it's because he wants to leave the club' every time a player fails to hit the target, but that is exactly what has been happening recently. Unlike his teammates, Rebrov can't be 'unlucky' anymore - every time things don't go his way, it is seen as further evidence that his heart is no longer at Spurs.

This has to stop. Whether you rate him or not, he is still a Tottenham player, and because of that we should continue to give him support and hope that he turns things around and proves that he really is an 11 million pound striker.

Do you think that we should continue to back Rebrov, or has the Ukrainian had one chance too many ?
Send your praise and abuse to koonal.shah@zoom.co.uk

29.1.2003

The Football Genius is Leaving…

It’s been a while since I last wrote, but there is one issue that has been filling me with passion such that my hand has been forced.

On Monday, it was announced on Tottenham’s official website (www.spurs.co.uk) that Steffen Freund, known to many as ‘football genius’ will not be offered a new contract, and will thus leave the club at the end of the current season.

This news upsets me. Steffen Freund has gradually become my favourite Tottenham player, because as well as being a footballer, he is the team’s cheerleader. I have never heard a louder roar of approval than when our favourite German ran up to the East stand and enthusiastically waved ‘come on!’ No other Spurs player is anywhere near as charismatic.

I am a big fan of players who take some time to talk to and communicate with the supporters. And that’s what Steffen Freund is all about. As well as being one of the most committed autograph-signers ever to ply his trade at the Lane, he also runs a brilliant column on the club’s official website, ‘Steffen’s diary,’ which he updates regularly. In his articles, he is just as willing to criticise the team as he is to praise them.

Now here’s the controversial bit … I think that Steffen Freund is a good footballer. Since Hoddle has arrived as manager, Freund’s ‘foul the attacker before he gets to Ledley and Deano’ role has become more and more important.

He is great at breaking up play and ‘winding up’ the opposition. And he takes an excellent throw-in. Granted, his ball skills are close to non-existent and his passing is a little wayward at times, but I feel much more comfortable in the knowledge that Freund is playing in midfield rather than his rivals for the position (Tim Sherwood and the recently departed Stephen Clemence). It is no consequence that after Freund got injured in the Worthington Cup semi final last year, the club’s season went downhill and we became much more fragile at the back.

But, I feel that the club have made the right decision in letting Steffen go. He is 33 after all, and although the last two years have seen a massive improvement in his game, I can’t really see him developing any further. And whilst he is undoubtedly a better player than Sherwood, there are similar players around who could probably do Freund’s role as well as throwing in a bit of skill and accuracy ! The club have just unveiled the signing of the Japanese international Toda, who will undoubtedly need some time to settle in, but could become the new ‘Steffen Freund.’ Another foreigner with a crazy appearance and an uncanny ability to play the man rather than the ball … these are the makings of a new Spurs cult hero.

Hoddle’s decision not to offer Freund a new contract, coupled with the sales of Clemence and Ferdinand, signal that he is finally starting to mould together ‘his’ team, and that his five year plan (now approaching the end of its second year) is fully underway.

Everyone has said that if Freund were to score on the final day of the season, it would go down as one of the greatest moments in the history of the club. I agree, but personally I wouldn’t be too disappointed if he didn’t score. Steffen’s goal-to-game ratio is what makes him the hero that he is.

Good luck, Steffen!

Is Steffen Freund’s departure a good thing for the club? Do you think he’ll
get a goal before the end of the season? Send your praise and abuse to
koonal.shah@zoom.co.uk

10.9.2002

Love of my life

I have just read Mark Waldon’s ‘this illusion’ column (http://www.mehstg.com/dis_illusion.htm), in which he speaks of how his life as a Spurs supporter has become so miserable that he wants ‘a divorce’ from the club. A very interesting read. He asks whether it is possible to divorce your team … my answer to that question is yes. It is widely believed that once you begin to follow a football club, you can’t then change your mind and turn your back on them. But that’s rubbish … just look at Sol Campbell. Do you really think that he still considers himself to be a Spurs fan? Many players talk about their ‘boyhood club’ in interviews – referring to the club they USED to support.

People begin supporting teams for a number of reasons. They might, for example, follow them because ‘their dad did’, or because they wanted to follow an ‘ambitious’ club that plays good football. Whatever the reason, once you begin supporting a team, you become a follower of the club’s philosophy (in a footballing sense, anyway), and spend endless hours defending the club against criticism. Last season, for example, Liverpool fans spoke of how the aim of playing football was ‘to win, not to play attractive football.’ Undoubtedly they would have preferred to have watched their side in exciting, end-to-end encounters rather than clinging on to dull 1-0 victories, and would have probably criticised another club for employing similar tactics, but as a supporter of Liverpool football club, they automatically become supporters of Liverpool’s style of play.

Problems arise when fans find themselves defending the ‘undefendable.’ Imagine if Spurs adopted a slower, duller style of play, and sold off their young talented players like King and Davies, only to replace them with a host of ageing players from Division One clubs. Could you continue supporting them? If you began following the club because you enjoyed watching fast, enthralling football, surely Spurs are no longer the right club for you? What if (hypothetically speaking, of course) Sol Campbell was to return to White Hart Lane? Would you be able to continue cheering on the club, given their new ‘forget the past’ policy? I certainly couldn’t. Mr. Waldon’s marital analogy that ‘the sex has been terrible’ is not entirely apt. If Spurs were to change in the ways that I have described, they would have cheated on me repeatedly … and they certainly wouldn’t be the same team that I married twelve years ago!

However, I believe that the main reason that people are so against the idea of divorcing their club is not because they couldn’t turn their back on their team, but because they couldn’t bring themselves to support anyone else. Like other Spurs fans, I have grown up loving Spurs and hating everyone but Spurs. Therefore if I stopped supporting Spurs, I would have nobody else to love and cheer for, and I would not just lose Spurs, I would lose football altogether. In Mark Waldon-speak, I will not only have lost my first love … I will have lost my ability to ever love again.

But regardless of whether you can or can’t divorce a football team, I must make the point that Mr. Waldon’s timing seems slightly strange. Since Hoddle’s arrival at the Lane, we have improved remarkably, and are currently sitting pretty at the top of the Premiership. We have a number of young international stars in our ranks, and there is a real sense that we can challenge for Europe this season. In fact, during my 12 years as a Spurs supporter, I have never been so positive (of course, my age has prevented me from experiencing any of the real ‘glory glory’ days). If he was an Aston Villa fan, I would understand his misery, but he isn’t.

I know Spurs fans have a bit of a reputation for being moaners, but how the man can complain when his team is top of the league, I don’t know. As crazy as Big Ron? I think so!

Could you ever turn your back on Spurs? Send your praise/abuse to koonal.shah@zoom.co.uk