Believe me, this isn't asked in any spirit of partisan crowing or jeering. It's more in the nature of disinterested examination into the nature of collective failure, one which has to do as much with psychology as anything else. Why is it that any player, or manager for that matter, who signs to Spurs finds their natural talent dissipated in a vortex of non-achievement? It's relatively recent, since the mid-1990s, but what have been the contributory factors? As I say, I initiate this debate not in any spirit of Arsenal triumphalism but more in the spirit of sober, neutral, scientific inquiry. Why? How? Whom? What??

It's been going on longer than that. Mid-1960s at least.

I'd hold fire on judging Ramos. He's different from the managers Spurs have had over the past couple decades. He actually is a driven winner with a ruthless work ethic with high expectations for discipline within his team.

The Berbatov saga dragging on to the last day of the window didn't help. Lost a very potent strike partnership. And has brought in three imports to provide the main creative and goalscoring threat to the opposition (Modric, Pavlyuchenko and Giovanni).

Plus i'm dubious to this whole 'he doesn't speak English' lark. I'd have thought it was only to the press he doesn't speak English because - 1. He's always been uncomfortable speaking to the media 2. He doesn't want to be mis-interpreted until he has a full mastery of the language 3. Gives him that distance between the media and the team. Poyet is the buffer zone.

The performance against Chelsea a couple weeks back was impressive enough. Even if it didn't represent the attacking and cohesive style of play Ramos favoured at Sevilla. Which i believe is what somewhat working towards.

I dunno that it's a long term malaise - they were decently successful throughout much of the 80s on and off and into the early 90s. By "successful" I don't just mean in terms of trophies, though they won a few, but successful in establishing themselves as an attractive team adding to the memories and heritage of the club. I dunno, maybe things will pick up for them once their new signings bed in but I betcha it's 10th place again for them this season.

I like to think of it as the Curse of George Graham.

Should we be expecting Spurs to be any more successful than, say, Villa (whose slick performance last night has been overlooked amid the 'Crisis at the Lane' guff) or Everton or Newcastle? I can't really see why.

spurs are the newcastle of the south.

I like to think of it as one trophy in the last 3 years which is more than Arsenal & Ipswich combined.

Why are Ipswich, a team that won the top division the year after Spurs last won it, and won the Uefa Cup 3 years before Spurs last won it, languishing in the second tier?

Fuck me. One of a only clubs in the top division that's not bankrolled by billionaires or riddled with debt, that had it's striking partnership that notched up 50 odd goals last year bought for £50m in the space of 4 weeks hasn't got it right yet.

E10 - well, they spend a great deal more money than Villa, don't they?

I would have called them the poor man's Liverpool. Over the years they have had an innate talent for making lots of mid-price signings that add depth to their bench but add almost nothing to the first XI (Paul Stalteri, anyone?). Jol's splurge on a 38-man midfield a couple of seasons ago is a prime example of this.

I agree with Floating Tramp on this, though. Give Ramos some time - he did some quite amazing things at Sevilla and on first glance his new signings are a cut above Spurs' previous form.

Spurs certainly aren't the Newcastle of the South. They'd have to reach a whole new level of soap-opera-type malaise before they can acquire that mantle. Bet they pick up their ideas and climb up the table before long, but last night's performance was quite surprising in the cock-up department. I'm still trying to work out whether Villa won it because they were so good or that Spurs were, at times, pants.

ian, having sat through it, it looked like a bit of both to me.

1st goal. Huddlestone I think doesn't deal with the wide player, then they create space to get a good cross in, once that's happening it was a certain goal.

2nd goal I can't see why Gomes couldn't have saved it.

Gomes maybe made 3 good saves.

Friedel made none.

Comically, Jts, I had to bang on my cable box to stop the match being a series of weirdly-fluttering stills, therefore missing the first goal.

You're right, though. Gomes looked weirdly and impressively spectacular before the bollixed-up howler. Villa were smart on the break and had a good sense of organisation (or defending for their bleedin' lives, depending on viewpoint) in the last quarter of an hour or so. Spurs did work it well for some time, but there was a bit of 'walking it into the goal' about Spurs attack come the end. It's no crime, it can work, but you're up against stout throw-in-the-bodies defending, which makes it tough.

Like I said, though, there's a time it's got to click and I don't think they'll be bottom for long.

AG, that's right - given the money Spurs have lavished on themselves, you'd expect them to be doing a bit better. And every year, the ambition-ometer has it that they're on the point of knocking one of the Big Four off their perch.Yet . . . something always happens, despite the calibre of the people they get in. I mean, look at David Bentley. He's already showing all the signs of turning into a washout at Spurs. Conversely, Martin Jol is doing splendidly with Hamburg. It's like there's something in the culture, in the water there. (And yes, Ursus, it would be nice to think that that something is George Graham's piss).

And yes, Villa were good. I predicted 2-0 to them and only that ridiculous, deflected goal deprived me of two vital points on the premiership predictor.

There's a WSC cover from back when Hoddle joined Spurs as manager that sums it up for me. Hoddle is speaking to his coach John Gorman saying, "So it's back to the Spurs tradition, then?" with Gorman replying, "Yup. Spend a fortune, row with the board, finish tenth." Spurs just appear to be one of those clubs where the board accumulate as many column inches as the team each season. This is going back to Alan Sugar's reign, through ENIC's jettisoning of George Graham when they publicly criticised him for publicly criticising their transfers budget, up to the undignified manner of Jol's dismissal and the subsequent poaching of Ramos. They have a history of making bad decisions, basically. This on its own probably wouldn't be unusual but their failures are highlighted by the fact that they share a city and compete for supporters with two of England&