Selection this, selection that...

You might have read West Ham United have complained to the Premier League about Fulham's decision to rest players last weekend when they played (and lost) 2-0 to Hull City. Obviously, a weakened Fulham side is detrimental to West Ham (and arguably others in the same predicament down at the bottom) because to those sides struggling for points, seeing one of their rivals for survival gather them with comparative ease leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

You'll remember similar complaints when Wolves fielded practically a reserve side up at Old Trafford, a sacrifice/risk that their manager calculated as worthy. If you're not going to win against Manchester United, you might as well lose without losing players to injury. Utd's rivals might also disagree with these types of selections because it is, on paper, an easy three points. But that's not Man Utd's problem, is it? The same way it's not Fulham's problem if West Ham are absolute toilet.

Wolves lost three points at United, and won three against Burnley. Rather than end up with the one or nothing at all. Sure, it should be about glory and had Wolves shocked Utd...but then again the manager makes the final decision, and in this case it paid off for McCarthy. Much like it has in the eyes of Hodgson and their 2-1 win in the Europa League.

For the sake of footballing justice, yes, I agree every side should be at its most strongest in order for competition to be fair. But define strongest? Actually, don't bother because that's not your job - it's the managers. If Hodgson wants to play youth and reserves because he has prioritised his teams objectives (Europe being that priority) then the side that faced Hull was the strongest he could possibly field.

If West Ham are in such dire desperate times, they should perhaps look inwards at sorting out their inability to function as a cohesive unit. If a side is in trouble it's because they've dragged themselves down there and not because other teams are winning thanks to the odd (very rare) occasion a rival side has played an under-strength upper region side and won.

The footballing governing bodies should not legislate team selections to the nth degree. Even if the final game of the season a manager rests every first team player in a game that might decide someone else's fate - and yes, I know, the Hull/Fulham result might just have been that type of game - just not played on the final day. And nobody rests players for the sake of it, there's always a reason and that reason is always justified as far as the team doing the resting are concerned. It's the ones who are desperate who look for a way to claw back some hope.

The crux of the problem is that this form of complaint is driving towards the suggestion that a club should consider the plight of another club when they are making decisions based on their own ambitions. The rule about having to field a full-strength side is there to protect the integrity of the league - which it does perfectly fine.

But placing another club ahead of your own? In a parallel universe perhaps where a match is postponed to allow players to recover from a dodgy lasagne, perhaps.

Hodgson cares for nothing more than Fulham and their progression, so of course he's going to take a risk and sacrifice potential points for the sake of silverware in another competition.

It's a bitter pill to swallow, and I know that if Spurs had to rely on others to fail (a possibility in the run-in for 4th place) its still something completely out of our control and there is nothing we can do other than do the best in our own games - a destiny we can shape. If one of our rivals plays an under-strength side and gains points that places them above us, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. If it was the other way around, we'd be smiling our faces off.

So to go back to the actual rule that West Ham are arguing Fulham broke (from the BBC article covering this story):

The Premier League's E20 rule stipulates that clubs must field a full-strength side in all top-flight games.

Perhaps next time Hodgson should play a full-strength side and ask them to play at around 40% effort. Which matches the level that West Ham have been playing all season long. Which should restore some balance to the farce.

I love the BBC

These stats make for grim reading. Yes, more grim than last week, and the week before, and the week before that. Enjoy (don't be choking on your coco-pops).

Hull visit North London in search of a remarkable double over successive weekends. Last Saturday, the Yorkshire club in their first top-flight season, became only the second side ever to leave Arsenal's Emirates Stadium with all three points; now they set about the task of adding to Tottenham's misery and gaining their first back-to-back victories at the highest level.

If Hull can go to the Emirates and survive the onslaught of constant passing movements from the home team, and win 2-1, then what can they achieve at Spurs, were the ball just gets played sideways and then hoofed up the pitch? A lot.

Juande Ramos' side are the only club yet to record a Premier League victory this season; Phil Brown's newcomers are yet to lose on the road.

Something's gotta give, right? Erm, no. Spurs are likely to stay on the side of recent history and lose, with Hull storming to 12 points clear of us. That's 12 points behind Hull, potentially. Will the players finally admit to being in a relegation scrap? Nah, cause 'we're too good to go down' innit...

Spurs have made their worst start to a league season in 53 years; since gaining just one point from the first six outings of the 1955-56 top-flight season. The point came from a 2-2 draw away to Manchester United, and their first win in the seventh game was 3-1, home to North London rivals Arsenal on 10 September 1955.

Honestly, if they can't be arsed to restore some pride, end this dismal miserable run, and prove their worth - cometh Sunday - then drastic measures will be taken. By the board, no doubt. But also by me. Stay tuned.

If Spurs do not pick up maximum points, it will be the first time in 96 years that they have failed to win any of their first seven games of a league season. In the top-flight campaign of 1912-13, the Londoners took 13 games to register a first victory. They lost nine games and drew three of their opening 12, until they beat Newcastle 1-0 at home on 23 November 1912.

96 years. No-one can say we are not re-writing the record books, right? Can imagine the back pages of the tabloids already. Big white bold numerals, stating: 96. Scathing.

This is the first league meeting of Tottenham and Hull in 30 years; the Tigers have never won on Spurs' turf.

Until Sunday, of course.

BBC 5 Live on the scene.....

BBC Five Live have a reporter up at the Spurs Lodge who apparently has just spoken to Poyet.

This is what Ramos right-hand man had to say:

Woodgate

'I would love to sign Woodgate, hes a magnificent player, I hope we can sort something out'

Chimbonda

'Chimbonda played one of his best ever games for the club on Tuesday......we'll see'

Berbatov

'I guarantee he will be at the club when we go to Wembley...that is unless Abramovich gives us a 100 million for him'

Bit of beeb whorage for you right there.

Jellied eels? No thanks

More speculation, this time about the potential re-building of White Hart Lane and who Spurs may have to ground share with. BBC run a news item on 'Inside Sport' last night, and the Mihir Bose 'understands' this with another insightful article on the Beebs football pages.

Firstly, nothing new. Spurs will either move away from WHL for a couple of years while it's rebuilt and ground share or Spurs will remain at the Lane while a brand new stadium is built from scratch. We all knew this, it's obvious that Spurs will either re-develop their current home or move on. What is new in the way of information is that we have apparently we have Tony Winterbottom (who played a role in the development of Arsenal's ground) on board who is looking at how WHL can expand to 52,000. Also, Paul Philips (a project manager, again involved at the Emirates) and Ken Shuttleworth, an architect who is the right-hand man of Norman Foster who worked on Wembley.

All very good. Dream Team in place. All we need now is the decision on whether we stay or go. Don't want out of WHL. I'm a sentimental bastard. If we did move then ground sharing isn't something I'm looking forward too. Have to scoof at the idea of sharing with West Ham United. I can see the police loving that idea. Getting to the ground on match days would probably involve the odd ambush and flare-up. Imagine playing at Upton Park in a 'home' match against Chelsea. That's one three-some I'd gladly say no to. Better still, when WHU play as at Upton Park in our 'home' game and they turn up with 20,000 away fans. Wear your colours for that early kick-off.

Other suggestions have us playing outside of London at Watford or Reading. Don't really approve of that either. And as for the Emirates, no thanks. Even though, of all the potential clubs we could share with that would give us the least amount of trouble in travel. Wembley would have to be the number one choice. But the FA seem reluctant to help out.

Will be interesting to see if the club decide to ask the fans what they would like with regards to having the ground expanded or move to a new location in Enfield. Bose states that Spurs would prefer to remain at the Lane. Hopefully this is the one thing Levy won't let me down on.

Another bloody Sunday

Ever wondered what happened to white dog shit? Look no further than Tottenham. There’s more white dog shit there than the 1980’s. I shouldn’t be too harsh with Sundays defeat at home to Blackburn. It was a better performance than recent displays (not by much). Decent keeping stopping us from going 2-0 up but it was still without any true confidence or belief we could actually win. And as for the 93rd minute winner from Samba, well, it was pretty unstoppable and more to do with having no luck at all but then Spurs have a habit of carving out opportunities for the opposition to take advantage of. Our bad luck is self-inflicted. Yes, dry them I hear you cry. Today, Monday, we find ourselves at Day Zero. Ramos has arrived and another new era/transitional period/mistake is upon us. Poyet has also been joined as one of two first team coaches.

As for Jol, he was apparently telling viewers (via a phone-in) on the Dutch version of Match of the Day that the purchases made this summer were not his own (shock horror exclusive right there). He remarked that Bale was a £10M 18 year old, Kaboul an under-21 player and Bent a £17M bench-warmer, unnecessary with Berbatov at the club. And all signings basically failing to resolve positions that needed attention with proven experienced quality. Whether something was lost in translation or Jol was stirring, he also suggested he wanted Distin, Petrov and Elano during the summer transfer window.

And talking of Match of the Day, on BBC2 last night we heard about how Spurs were pretty much crap (no defence etc) yet no talk about the fact we could have quite easily won it if it wasn’t for some brilliant work by the Friedel. Spurs are shit, yet it was a ‘fantastic win’ by Blackburn. So beating a shit team is fantastic? Yes, yes….dry them. Being kicked when you're down isn't the most comfortable of things.

Jol Press Conference

Click me: Jol Interview from the Beeb

Looks drained, tired. Angry too. Hides it well behind jokes and mentions of support from 6,000 emails along with the ‘love of Berbatov’. Though it’s hinted (and obvious) that Man Utd have enquired about our beautiful Bulgarian.

Crooks asking the questions. Thankfully, his mug in a pink shirt is not viewable.

Jol saying all the right things, and you almost want to believe that the media took this ‘story’ earlier this week and turned it something one thousand times worst than what it actually was – like taking a mogwai, slapping it about a little and giving it Chinese burns before dipping it in water.

I said ‘almost’. The fact the club waited so long to deny everything says more about the morning after cover-ups and interviews.

Everything spoken suggests nothing has changed with regards to the future. Doubt that will be the case. He is under insurmountable pressure now to claim 4th spot. Unfair and unnecessary pressure. Completely the fault of the chairman. If we crack and it all goes to pieces its down to Daniel Levy.

Daniel, pray that you have created a monster from this public humiliation and that Jol responds with acute ruthlessness that inspires the players and team forward.

Otherwise, kiss it goodbye.

Two truths - One Lie

Ramos (from the BBC):

Sevilla coach Juande Ramos says he rejected a "dizzying" offer to take over from Martin Jol at Tottenham.

Jol's future was in doubt after Spurs lost their first two games of the season before beating Derby.

Spurs were reported to have met the Ramos camp over the weekend before telling Jol his job was safe providing he delivered Champions League football.

"They made an excellent, dizzying offer, but I'm under contract and my decision is to fulfil it," said Ramos.

"There was not the slightest possibility that I would accept it because I'm under contract. It did not interest me or the club.

Levy (from official site):

tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/thanksandfurtherclarification

"To further clarify the situation - the Club wishes to make it clear and unequivocal that no individual was or has been offered the position of manager/coach at this Club whilst that position has been held by Martin Jol. It is wholly inaccurate and inappropriate to suggest otherwise"

Can't even imagine how Jol feels at this moment in time. If another club come in for him, he should take their offer. I would be in full support of his departure if it meant kicking Levy square in the balls. Not that Levy has any.