Season 2013-14

Spurs: The Taste Of Honey Bitter On The Lips

/ Alan / 12 Comments

If I were a proper journalist, I’d focus on a few key incidents that altered the course of Wednesday’s night game against City. Overwhelmed early on, Spurs were only, miraculously, a goal down when Toure’s unnecessarily hard tackle in midfield confirmed the lingering suspicion that they are not entirely comfortable if put under a little pressure.

That this put some fire in Spurs bellies, that Tottenham rallied with the crowd at their backs. That Spurs nearly scored as a corner fizzed low into the six yard box, then Dawson’s ‘goal’ from an Eriksen free kick was disallowed, a close call.

That closer still was Danny Rose’s goal-saving tackle on Dzeko, tipping the ball away with his toe, only to find the linesman semaphored ‘penalty’. That Rose was dismissed, City converted the penalty and that extinguished the dim spark of comeback.

So that’s one story of the match, and it’s true. However, what worried me were the bits in between. Spurs were completely outclassed for extended periods of this game. In the first half, 11 v 11, City repeatedly scythed through our defence. I’d tell you a bit about what happened and how they did it except that it was all a blur, so swift and innovative were their attacks. For certain our defenders did not have a clue what was going on.

City’s movement on and off the ball was fluid and cohesive, a joy to behold in other circumstances. Pressing in midfield, they hunt in packs, three or four players surrounding the man on the ball. Time and again we lost possession, either tackled or in getting the ball away, thinking we had outwitted them, only to find the pass had nowhere to go except to sky blue feet.

With the ball, they could and should have scored three or four. Hugo did what he could, precious little mostly but he made one blindingly fast reaction save, hurling himself to his left to palm away a certain goal. A standing ovation, justified.

This story makes sober reading. For that opening half hour, this had a cup-tie feel with big time City slickers visiting the plucky underdogs who were hanging on for dear life in the hope that the big boys would miss a few chances then take their foot off the pedal. Spurs cast as the minnows. That’s my story and I don’t want to tell it.

There’s something wrong here and I know I’m not the only one. We sat and admired City’s play instead of urging the team back into contention. Marvelling at how they did it, as if we’d come as neutrals. Instead of railing against the injustice of the penalty, I shrugged in resignation. I bought into the minnows, no real chance but live in hope, a couple of meaty tackles, never mind playing football, come on! A sign that we were nowhere no-hopers before we kicked off. For a side as good as we might be, it’s the ultimate condemnation.

Usual rubbish on 606. “Worst team since the second division” – come on. “Sell the lot of them” – really? “It’s time to start again and rebuild over two years” – yeah right, after £100m worth of rebuilding 6 months ago. All Spurs fans these, bollo but I couldn’t identify with the anger, never mind the remedy. No solace in midnight Twitter. Those not finger-pointing were so miserable, they couldn’t muster the energy to raise a finger to point.

Tim Sherwood is making a decent fist of things in a job for which he has no experience, precious little preparation and with a squad not of his choosing. What is happening off the field at Spurs pervades the air and seeps in through every pore.

This is what I think about modern football. On the pitch, football’s fine. Football was never nine or ten months of rollicking Brazilian flair or for that matter push and run style. It’s about sweat, luck, brilliance, cock-ups and drama. Always has been, always will be, and that’s why it is compelling and irresistible. W formation, registas, heatmaps, tactics truck – the game’s the same. How team-mates players relate to each other, what they do with the space with and without the ball.

It’s what happens before and after the whistle blows that’s the problem. Spurs are not the only club to suffer but it’s the one I care about. For some time, the deteriorating relationship between the club and supporters has created a sense of alienation. Because the club makes little or no effort to look after us, we fans are increasingly distant from the reason we turn up every week. It’s us and them, not we.

No need to go over the reasons in detail. The board do lazy backstroke through deep pools of television cash yet seat prices rise year on year as living standards fall. Not that of the chairman, mind – £2.2m pa at the last call. My salary is 1% higher than it was five years ago. TV dictates we can kick-off most any time Saturday morning to Monday evening. £2 for a bottle of water. Kids priced out of it.

Alienation becomes the equilibrium, tolerated and in balance. It rumbles under the surface, omnipresent and dormant save for a few grumbles, like this one in fact. Until something happens. Then, it becomes other things – anger, resentment, bitterness, protest, resignation. Different things to different fans but the same underlying cause.

I know we shouldn’t complain in one way. Going nowhere, 12 years ago, from Pleat the caretaker (my worst ever experience at Spurs in the 45 years I’ve been going because even in Division 2 there was hope and expectation for the future) to the Champions League. I am grateful, really I am. We’re still contenders, in 5th place. At least I think we are. I don’t actually know off the top of my head where we are because it doesn’t seem to matter. There’s no plan. We all know there’s another guy lined up for the summer. We know our chairman cannot judge a manager’s ability in advance so it will be potluck. So we wait and in the meantime go through the motions.

Buying and selling over the years, buy young to build them up, stick with them to develop a team, against the odds, the admiration of football because we haven’t broken the bank, do it the proper way. Reality exposed – no plan. Buy a team for a manager, sack him, bring in another guy, he’s not happy with the squad, buy and sell. And so it goes. But Levy’s still here. As the immortal Smokey Robinson says, a taste of honey is worse than none at all. If we seem ungrateful, Mr Levy, it’s because Spurs supporters know the game. We know good football, we know how to get it, and this isn’t the right way. Sullen silence in the stands is that resignation palpable, in the air, real because this isn’t right. We know the potential and time and again it’s been wasted.

This is hard. It feels a bit like that caretaker horror year, marking time, twiddling thumbs, the loftiest ambition was just to get it over with. At least we have much better players this time and are at the other end of the table. Poyet, Anderton and Redknapp to get us through a 38 game season – hah! We are expected to be bothered when Levy isn’t. You might want to remember these last few paragraphs, these last few games, when you want to fill the new stadium, dear Daniel.

And so to the game itself. This week we had a rare insight into the tactical approach taken by Tim and his management team. I’m referring to Les Ferdinand’s interview where he talked about the role of a holding midfielder. What he said has been discussed as if he doesn’t like them but his actual meaning was admirably nuanced. Midfield defensive cover is essential, it’s just that having a midfielder in a purely defensive role is a waste.

This is something that ‘ahem’ I’ve talked about every now and again. These days we need midfielders who are flexible, who are mobile and alert, with a highly developed positional sense that is more effective a protection for the back four that the old-fashioned hard tackling destroyer, who can get a toe in but who can also pass the ball to turn defence into attack. That’s why AVB persisted with Dembele in a defensive role, the wrong position for him in my view but he fitted the bill. It also explains why Sherwood prefers Bentaleb to Capoue, whose passing range is more restricted.

Good stuff. It requires flexibility and an understanding between players, an awareness of when to go forward and when to cover depending on where the ball is, where the opponents are and the position of team-mates. We had a brief glimpse of how this works when Sandro and Dembele formed a powerful midfield axis in AVB’s first season, one goes forward while the other covers, before Sandro was injured.

Trouble is, it takes time to build up that teamwork and time is one thing Tim hasn’t had. After City sliced through what passed for our defensive cover for Aguero’s  opener, Les leapt from the bench and he and Sherwood berated the midfield. Dembele and Bentaleb looked sheepish: I guess it was primarily directed at them.

This is what happens when a manager takes over. Chopping and changing. The new moves may be better but they take a while to learn. Another example: City pressed as a unit, we as individuals. Outcome – City dominated the midfield with only Dembele escaping every now and again – twice leaving Toure for dead – the nerve of it. I forgot Lennon was playing in the first half. Eriksen was invisible throughout, Siggy ineffective. It was just too quick for him.

Much of the match passed Bentaleb by. It was a brave selection and wrong for this game, but paradoxically it was confirmation that he is a player of rich potential because he never gave up, never once shirked any responsibility and did not hide. He did no worse than several more experienced men around him.

We were torn apart by stunningly beautiful attacking football. The irony was that for all their enterprise they scored only once as the fans looked on in silent envy. There was no sense of expectation that this would be anything other than the shape of the match. We expected it to turn out like this. That dull, flat mood says all you need to know about life at the Lane right now.

Dawson desperately tried to stem the flow, singlehanded. He hurled himself around the box and outside, in position, out of position, ineffective at times, heroic at others. You have to admire him – beaten for pace and he knew it but when the going got tough, he got going.

Then a tackle or two changed it. Toure’s blemish got the crowd going and you sensed that there was a soft centre underneath the hard tasty City shell. Rose made waves down the left, shame his crossing was poor because we had men over. City can’t defend set pieces either. A low corner was nearly stabbed in on the line then Dawson had his effort in the net but ruled out for offside.

Relief at half time that it was only one. Capoue on for an injured Dembele. His first touch was on a player not the ball as he ploughed through Silva on the halfway line. Then the penalty and the lingering hopes of a revival and a decent match ruined by a lousy decision. I am in a minority of one it seems in saying I have some sympathy for refs. I sit fairly low down and can assure you that you have no idea how quick Premier League football is from watching on TV. Here, the ref looked to his linesman, as he should. All I would say is the linesman is not a ref because they are not good enough, yet this crucial decision was taken on his say so.

Sherwood then showed his inexperience again by not thinking quickly about the substitution. After Rose was sent off for depriving City of a goal scoring opportunity, inevitable once the penalty was given, Capoue moved into the back four. This upset the centre back paring, moved Chiriches to left back and further unsettled a jittery and uncertain midfield. City scored quickly, Dzeko picking up a loose ball in the box. Sherwood then brought on Naughton as left back with the other reverting to their positions, but the damage had been done. Game over. Perhaps it was at kick-off.

City’s final three goals were all a bit scruffy – two loose balls in the box and one deflection. This is the stuff in the penalty box that ten men can defend as well as eleven but we were all over the place. Luckily for us so was Dzeko. We played out time wondering how many it might have been had he been on form.

 

 

Spurs And The Y Word: Fans In The Dock

/ Alan / 20 Comments

The Prime Minister is a man of the people only when it suits him, and what suits is when votes might be at stake. He’s hardly the first politician to attach himself temporarily to sport as a way of proving his street cred and he won’t be the last. He tipped up at a few Olympic events and suddenly became a Blues fan when the late-running 2012 Champions League final provided an unexpected G8 photo opportunity. Angela, I’m with you all the way on that one.

So when in September last year he pronounced upon the long-running dispute over the use of the Y-word at Tottenham Hotspur, he was focussed less on the good of the national game and more on his intended audience, those involved in the debate around free speech and the readers of the Jewish Chronicle, where the interview was published and whose editor happens to be a Spurs fan. Yet there’s no doubt he stuck a chord with many of us.

“There’s a difference between Spurs fans self-describing themselves as Yids and someone calling someone a Yid as an insult. You have to be motivated by hate. Hate speech should be prosecuted – but only when motivated by hate.”

He’d better change his legal advisers. Although the PM would have been thoroughly briefed in advance on the topic, the Metropolitan Police beg to differ. Last week three Spurs fans, Gary Whybrow, Sam Parsons and Peter Ditchman, were charged with using threatening, abusive or insulting words and are due to appear in court on February 4th. The BBC report a Met spokesperson as confirming the alleged offences were racially aggravated and charges brought under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Perhaps they could call DC as a character witness.

I don’t know anything about the precise circumstances of this case but it is possible to talk about the whole issue of active police intervention in what goes on amongst football fans, which has implications not just for Spurs supporters but for fans of football all over the country.

The debate over Spurs’ fans use of the Y word has been part of my consciousness and identity for the entire time I have been a Tottenham supporter, which dates back to the mid sixties. It’s hard to know when it began. Spurs have always had a loyal following drawn from the Jewish community in north London, which persists to this day. Tottenham itself has had a large Jewish population ever since substantial sections of the community moved from the east End in the early years of the twentieth century encouraged by employment in Jewish-owned businesses based in what is now Tottenham Hale. It was easy to walk up the High Road after schul on Saturday or even, and don’t tell the rabbi, to hop on a tram. Many used their precious leisure time to watch the Spurs, to be part of the local community, to fit in. By the mid thirties, some accounts state a third of the crowd were jewish. That proportion seems inflated but it’s certain the links with the community have lasted almost as long as the club has been in existence.

The explanation of why Spurs are the yids lies outside the club and its fans, however. Arsenal also have huge support within the same north London community. Both clubs have had Jewish representation at board level. The Manchester clubs have a jewish following too. The origins of the term lie in the pernicious, consistent abuse of Spurs supporters from other clubs, especially at away matches. Tracing the origins is difficult. Talking to a couple of long-standing Jewish fans recently, one said it began from Charlton supporters, a mild-mannered bunch there are too. Another watched the 1967 Cup Final from the Chelsea end and vividly recalled the remarks at the final whistle that the ‘the yids have won it.’ After my piece in When Saturday Comes on this topic, a contributor to the letters column blamed Alf Garnett for popularising the term, but I suspect that may have emerged as authentic bias from actor Warren Mitchell, who would have heard it regularly when he came to the Lane as a fervent Tottenham fan.

As a young impressionable jew, I heard the abuse develop in the early to mid seventies and I saw the response. Instead of marginalising the Jews amongst their number or blaming them for provoking trouble and – literally in those days – aggro, Spurs fans chose defiance and reclaimed the word to neutralise its negativity. Claiming class consciousness is pushing it but there’s no doubt that White Hart Lane was notable for an absence of the casual racism sadly rife in football grounds at the time.

I understand that there is a legitimate counterargument, that the use of the word ‘yid’ cannot be justified. It carries a long, sorry history of anti-Semitic abuse and is seen as profoundly abusive to this day by large sections of the Jewish community. It is also argued that Spurs fans cannot reclaim a word that never belonged to them.

Remember that there is no agreement over the use of the word amongst Spurs fans. Many Jewish supporters, including people who regularly and loyally read this blog and whose views I utterly respect, do not want to hear it at the Lane.

These objections are far more substantial than pointing to the culture of instant outrage and offence that prevails in social media, twitter especially. This week the words of national treasure Stephen Fry have been quoted in support of the view that outraged people can feel what they like but this does not give them rights, that being offended has no meaning other than as an expression of an individual’s feelings. “I am offended by that. Well so f**king what.” I agree but this debate has real heft, formed over decades of anti-Semitism. It’s not about Baddiel, newspaper columnists or even the Chief Rabbi – it has history and substance.

I cannot escape that context. It has over-riding significance for me. As the response was formed in fan interaction, I was there. I don’t use the word yid to describe my identity as a fan. Don’t know why, not something I have thought about, but ask me and I am a Spurs supporter. But I defend the use of the word by Spurs fans. I get the debate, the balance but come down firmly on the side of ‘no objections’.

I might fast become the minority if the FA and the Met have anything to do with it. The one point of agreement for everyone involved in the debate is that there are grey areas of interpretation. Nothing is cut and dried. Back last autumn, around the time of the PM’s comment, the FA deliberated on the matter at length. Their report as described in the papers contains a balanced summary of the debate.  However,  the FA chose sides, concluding, “The FA considers that the use of the term ‘yid’ is likely to be considered offensive by the reasonable observer.”

It is likely they were conscious not of anything happening on social media but problems around the alleged use of racist and discriminatory language in other prominent cases. Then, significantly, their definition was endorsed by the Met, declaring before the West Ham home league game that fans who use the language could be committing an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act. A year before, the police publicly stated that fans would not face prosecution in these circumstances. Now, saying the word itself was enough. Only the FA’s reaction has changed, nothing else. Context was erased from the equation.

The law under which the Tottenham Three have been charged refers to section 5, which enables action against words and actions that are ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’. The phrasing of the FA ruling is deliberate and careful. Section 5 requires that offence must be caused. However, this does not mean one or more people present have to be offended before action is taken. It’s another moment in the spotlight for the reasonable man, presumably on top of if not the Clapham omnibus then the 279 to Edmonton.

My understanding is that the element of ‘insulting’ is shortly going to be removed from the law although ‘abusive’ rightly remains. In reality, an insult and abuse might run close together. When this becomes the case, a lawyer I have spoken to suggests that someone using the insult ‘yid’ would not be a criminal act. However, someone being abusive towards a Jew because they are Jewish could be liable for arrest. Again this is not cut and dried. The thorny problem of the definition of abuse remains.

As it stands, we stay with ‘abusive or insulting’. I have no idea about the circumstances of the arrest of these three men, although I believe they relate to two separate incidents, i.e. they weren’t arrested at the same time. Whatever was going on, they were not the only three Spurs fans to use the word in and around White Hart Lane. It seems to me that the FA and Met have ruled on the definition and it is this that will be tested in court.

I have deep misgivings about this case. All Spurs fans are vulnerable if the word is used. I don’t accept that the use of the word devoid of context is abusive. As Spurs fans, it seems highly unlikely they were directing the word as a term of abuse towards other Spurs fans, let alone Jewish people. If it is the word that counts in the absence of context, what happens if I as a Jew use it outside the Lane during a conversation with my yiddisher Spurs pal Dave? We’re a long way from abusive or insulting.

Another decision has been made here. Spurs supporters have been charged, not those of opposition supporters who routinely abuse us. I could mount a case that hissing noises, songs about concentration camps and Nazi salutes in the High Road are abusive and insulting, and not just to Jews but to other minorities. The FA has adopted a position so contorted that they are gazing up their own backsides.

The Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust have tracked this case and have pointed people in the direction of advice and representation. They say that, “It remains our firm belief that, used in a football context by Tottenham Hotspur supporters, there is no intent or desire to offend any member of the Jewish Community.” I agree wholeheartedly.

I wonder too about any wider implications for fans in general. The police these days have a sophisticated approach to policing football matches. This implies an interventionist approach at odds with current tactics. After all, police at grounds all over the country have let anti-Semitic abuse directed towards our supporters go past without any action. I have asked police officers in the past why this is. They reply that they can’t prove that any one individual is the culprit. yet the police around our club have made a decision relating to three fans. Also, those officers are acting on orders, which I suggest revolve the idea common in the football policing which is, keep a lid on trouble, if it is in one place it can be controlled and don’t provoke anything more.

Will these tactics change, in the Met and/or elsewhere? Will fans of other clubs be in danger of a word being taken as indicating a possible breach of the law? it seems a reasonable question.

Finally, evidence from twitter suggests this has not increased popular understading of the issues or decreased anti-Semitic abuse one iota. Every day there are examples of fans of other clubs using the Y word as abuse. When challenged, they often dismiss it as not being anti-Semitic, ‘it’s what you call yourselves’, ‘it doesn’t mean anything.’ They are wrong of course but there’s precious little evidence of progress. Plus we return to the problem that this goes unpunished yet three Spurs fans are in the dock. I remain extremely uncomfortable about the whole situation, for Spurs fans and others. I fully the appreciate the deep and complex debate, but to me, in the end this is plain wrong.

 

 

Stop Stubhub Update. The Numbers Are In

/ Alan / 4 Comments

Tottenham On Mind is proud to be working with the Stop Stubhub group and the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust to protest against the club’s links with ticker reseller Stubhub, a partnership that it is not in the long-term interests of Spurs supporters.

Thanks to the work of the Trust, the club and Stubhub have produced data that covers the scheme’s operation thus far. TOMM unequivocally endorses our statement in response to what was discovered:

TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR SUPPORTERS’ TRUST/ ‘STOP STUBHUB’ GROUP

JOINT STATEMENT ON STUBHUB RESALE FACILITY

 20th JANUARY 2014

Having received headline data on StubHub sales for the first six Premier League home games of this season, it is clear that the StubHub resale platform is pushing up the price of tickets to watch Tottenham Hotspur.

The evidence provided shows that 91% of tickets are being sold above face value. At the two category A games included in the data, Chelsea and West Ham, tickets were sold at an average price of 135% and 53% above face value respectively.  

These figures show that StubHub and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) are misguided to continue insisting that that the high prices shown on the StubHub platform do not equate to actual sales.  

The evidence is clear for all to see.  

A system in which 91% of tickets are being sold at above face value, and substantially more in a significant number of cases, is not one that supporters’ organisations can back.  

We also believe the Club should be concerned at the fact that 19%, almost one fifth, of season ticket holders have not been able to make one or more of the opening six league games of the season.  

We note the Club intend to make changes to ticketing T&Cs to prevent abuse of the ability to relist tickets on the StubHub platform, also known as ‘flipping’. We are not confident that a fair and transparent method of identifying what is legitimate relisting and what is abusive relisting exists. The Club is, in our opinion, dealing with a symptom of the StubHub system, which it has willingly agreed to. 

We believe a ticket exchange should be a service to supporters, not a means of pushing up ticket prices or generating additional revenue. 

In support of the campaign against licensed ticket touts, the Football Supporters’ Federation said: “Fans already find ticket prices more than demanding enough. The introduction of an additional level of profiteering at our expense can only serve to price more fans out of the game, and must be resisted”. 

We, therefore, call on THFC to end the partnership with StubHub at the earliest opportunity and, instead, to work with supporter groups, the FA and Premier League in their efforts to establish a genuine ticket exchange scheme that does not drive up prices or incentivise fans to exploit fellow fans.

Signatories:

The Board of Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust

Total Tottenham website

The Fighting Cock

Dear Mr Levy website

Alan Fisher – Tottenham on my Mind

TottenhamBlog

Mel Gomes @ The Substantive website

Spurstalk website

Martin Cloake, author and fan

It seems a long time ago now but remember that the club introduced the Stubhub scheme as a service to supporters, replacing the old club-operated Ticket Exchange scheme that sold tickets at face value. Previous Tottenham On My Mind articles such as this one have highlighted my personal concerns about the scheme. The involvement of the FSF indicates that the ticket exchange issue could soon have a national profile.

 If you have not already done so, please sign the petition to show your support: Stop Stubhub 

Thank you.

Tim The Temp Takes Spurs To Another Win

/ Alan / 8 Comments

After a sticky start, Spurs pushed on to secure a comprehensive victory against a lacklustre Swansea side. Once we went a goal up, the outcome was seldom in doubt. Strong on the counter, we protected our three goal lead efficiently in the last 15 minutes with a smooth display of possession football.

Adebayor rightly deserves the plaudits. On song for 90 minutes, his was the performance that decisively made the difference between the two sides. A roving lone striker, the Swansea defence was powerless in the face of his movement and intelligence, and at last we have someone to put away those chances.

Just as significant in the longer run, Christian Eriksen is becoming better game by game, maturing before our very eyes. He was excellent yesterday, particularly in the first half when he revelled in the increased involvement that came with his central midfield role. He wants to get on the ball, to make it work for himself and the team, and his cross for Manu’s opening goal was a thing of great beauty, hit quickly in a glorious arc, so lusciously inviting that I was shouting ‘that’s in’ even before Adebayor took off at the far post. Of the many subtle but significant changes Tim Sherwood has brought in, playing to Eriksen’s strengths could be seen as his masterstroke in the weeks and months to come.

Sherwood has his feet on the ground and is under no illusions about how he got the nod and the precarious nature of his contract. This weekend Louis Van Gaal took just a soundbite to remind him that he was second choice and that the Dutchman will come back for a second interview after the World Cup. Tim the Temp just shrugged it off, acknowledging post-match that whatever the time-period of his contract, Spurs have to finish fourth or he will be gone. Bit harsh on himself there, if I may say so, but he knows Levy and knows the score.

However, he remains unfazed. His determination to grab the opportunity with both hands is serving Tottenham well so far. No Spurs manager has ever started as well in the job as Sherwood and the indications are that this could be more than just a new manager bounce. Yesterday he showed his tactical flexibility again, confounding all the 4-4-2 debaters with a flexible 4-2-3-1. Chadli played wide left, allowing Eriksen to come inside but not to be stuck so far forward, as he was under AVB, that he could contribute little to the game. Bentaleb and Dembele’s starting positions were deeper but the Belgian could progress forward if circumstances allowed.

By the basic expedient of players settling in positions that suit them, it worked so much better than Villas-Boas’s attempts at the same set-up. While Chadli continues his quest to make as little impact on games as he possibly can, he is learning (slowly) to work back and to time his diagonal runs into the box. Lennon was busy on the right, allowing room for Walker to advance, while Sherwood protegé Bentaleb is remarkably accomplished in central midfield, especially in the final 15 minutes when under some Swansea pressure he kept the ball and stuck a toe in to break up attacks.

However, it wasn’t all sweetness and composure in midfield. They took time to find their rhythm but Swansea failed to make the most of the time they were offered in front of our back four. Bony caused more problems for our back four than any lone striker should. Swansea failed to  give him either the service he required or much support in the box so his tireless efforts were wasted. Drifting almost exclusively onto Dawson, who presumably was targeted as the weak link, he was a real handful although our skipper kept on in there in the sort of battle he relishes. Chirches tidied up where he could – he played well. Our back four were too far apart at this point but they tightened up later and the team worked hard to cut out the supply of crosses to Bony.

In these early stages we gave the Welsh side too much respect and too much room. We preferred spectating to closing down but Lloris was impeccable, saving on several occasions and timing his dashes to the edge of the box well. The one time he was beaten, Bony’s shot crashed against the woodwork.

And that, as far as Swansea’s hopes of winning, was that. Gradually we got on top, then never let go. Adebayor found Eriksen’s cross from the right so desireable, he barged both a defender and team-mate Chadli out of the way to score a classic far-post headed goal.

Swansea made it straightforward for us to pick up where we left off. Throughout they showed none of the accurate, patient football or the pace of passing that has become their trademark under Laudrup. Spurs had a bit of luck for the second. Walker’s cross from the right was hard and low into the heart of the 6 yard box but Flores could have cleared, rather than knocking it past his keeper. As with the own goal Dembele forced against Sunderland earlier this season, it proves once more the value of dangerous crosses between the keeper and his back four.

Spurs were well on top now, easily breaking down the Swans’ feeble attacks and launching a series of smooth counters. Dembele should have scored from one, or passed to an unmarked Adebayor with half the Welsh defence out for a stroll along the Gower, but the Belgian did neither and rolled it past the post.

No matter. A minute later, Danny Rose, with his new beard looking like an extra from Shaft, burst onto a sharp tackle come pass from Siggy and raced down the left. His perfect ball found Ade who guided it carefully home. There’s no greater sign of where we are right now that you did not expect him to miss.

We played out the remaining time without being seriously tested, apart from the compulsory defensive cock-up. We failed to take several opportunities to a clear a ball and eventually Bony sidefooted it inside the right hand post. But Sherwood showed another string to his bow, how to use his subs well, Siggy replacing Chadli to guard against complacency at two up then Naughton shored up our right to protect us from runs from their attacking sub.

This was a good win but without taking anything away from the performance, it is put into some perspective by the fact that Swansea were not very good at all. If Bony on his own can cause problems, City will take us apart in our next game if we play the same way. However, our cunning cup exit gives us 10 days to get Vertonghen, Sandro and Paulinho fully fit.

Also, we may not be a match for the very best but my view has always been, win the games against teams below and around us, then see what happens. And that we are doing. I have grevious anxiety about the lack of long-term planning at Spurs that led to Sherwood’s appointment, which I mentioned last time and are superbly covered in passionate depth by Martin Cloake here. No doubt at all, however, that Sherwood is doing his level best on behalf of the club and is getting good performances from his players, and right now, you can’t say fairer than that.