[scottsati]

watching spurs today made me think that not only now but over the last couple of decades they must be one of the major contenders for clubs who are they're own worst enemy, constantl;y shooting themselves in the foot one way or another are they're any worse teams??

consistently spurs have always been a good cup teams but always they've been on the verge of doing something big in the league for 40 odd years, never happened, always on the brink of signing world stars- rivaldo, ronaldinho,maradona-never happened. always spent money yet players they have got never seemed to live up to expectations. had managers galore who been great elsewhere...then they arrive at white heart lane. add this to the problems behind the scenes down the years and for a so called -big club they have consistently managed to **** it up pretty damn regulalry.
is any one worse than them??

 

[Nachito Coronel]

For them I think it comes down to consistency as far as players and personnel. constantly they are changing players and I think that to be a competitive squad you need chemistry within the squad, also I think they lack leaders, you look at all the competitive teams and see that they have a couple of players that will show leadership qualities, which is what tottenham lack.

 

[MsUnited]

I still believe they are one of the teams who can really put up a strong challenge against the big 4, including us.
But at least, they were never annoying .. Like City, or Everton.

 

[Sownak27]

Well noticed it is something that I have wondered as well

Spurs like chelski is one of the london "glam" clubs so the expectstions ofthe fans are really high. the welath of the club too is a problem in a weird way cause they end up spending a ssh8te load of money on players who dont fire

In a way it is a bit like a City situation - trying to buy extremely good players, but being unable to form an extreemely good team