Tottenham Hotspur Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
I really thought that when Bent came on borad Jol had the idea of two partnerships - ie K & B and D & B that he could swap around, but the D & B bit didn't work out. So I assume Bent was 'happier' with just sitting on the bench - and hence Daffy's departure.
But surely HR would have taken (if not rung) MJ to see why he didn't play daffy with Bent? Much the same as Pav and Bent - if they can't play together then why bring Pav in in the first place? In this case, the daffy / bent thing didn't appear to work - so isn't this a lot of dosh on a hope? Hop HR knows what he's doing....
PS that talk of JG got me looking for my old THFC year book from 196? - it had that picture of JG slotting the ball home with 3 or 4 players on the ground behind him..What would you pay for a pair like Greaves and Gilzean now?
Partnership didn't gel? Are you lot nucking futz! When you got a starting partnersip that's scoring goals for fun when does your back up partnership have time to gel...they didn't play together well, because they didn't have a chance too! No manager/coach in his right mind is going to pull a winning combination off the park for the sake of an experiment; an experiment they'd hope was a hit from the off. So to judge their partnership (Bent and Daffy) as a failed one is as stupid as saying Bent and Pavy can't play together after their second time on the pitch.
Defoe a good buy? No, not this time around. I still say we needed a big crusty back to the goal centre-forward, any of the 2 and a half forwards we've got would thrive off of someone like that; to bring a another minnow-sized striker into the fold just doesn't make much sense to me.
But...Greaves and Gilzean...ahhhhhh (turn back the clock, please!)