'These are the times that try men's souls...'

These next few weeks could be pivotal to the immediate future of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. As we approach the end of the season, the work of the last few years, stretching back to the beginnings of the club's resurgence under Martin Jol, faces its sternest test to date.

If the club fails to qualify for next season's Champions' League, there is a genuine risk that all of that hard work could begin to unravel. Not only might we lose star names such as Gareth Bale or Luka Modric, two of the most sought-after players in the game and the linch-pins of our side, but the club would surely find it much harder to attract top-class replacements without boasting the attraction of participation in Europe's elite competition. Moreover, if Manchester City were to replace us in the Top Four, they would then be able to boast top-level competition as well as unparalled finances, which would undoubtedly make them an even tougher proposition next season. Chelsea have signalled their intent to remain at the very top of the English game through the big-money signings of Fernando Torres and David Luiz, and rumours are rife that Roman Abramovich will sanction similarly expensive acquisitions in the summer. With the exception of their rather questionable defense, Arsenal's squad, which has promised so much for so long, is finally showing signs of fulfilling its potential, and it would be a brave man who would bet on Manchester United failing to remain in the title race next season, especially given their success so far this year with what can be described as a truly threadbare squad by their own high standards. Add to that Liverpool's resurgence under Kenny Dalgleish and the wealth of talent at his disposal, and Spurs' prospects of competing for the Champions' League again next season should they fail to qualify for it this time around look bleak.

The most frustrating thing is that, should the club fail to finish in the top four this season, it will be entirely their own fault. In the six league fixtures we have played against the 'big' clubs, we have lost once (at Old Trafford), drawn three times (at home to United, City and Chelsea) and won twice (at home to Liverpool and away at Arsenal). As has been further proven by our Champions' League campaign, we tend to raise our game against the big sides. Yet we seem to display a shocking complacency against the 'smaller' clubs. We have lost at home to Wigan (a side we beat 9-1 in the corresponding fixture last season), and away at the likes of Bolton, Blackpool and West Ham. This is not to take anything away from the performances of the opposition in those games - frankly, their victories were well deserved. But it underlines our chief problem: we lack a killer instinct, and seemingly the motivation to perform against teams who, on paper, we should beat comfortably. Take our performance against Wolves yesterday: we scored three fantastic goals, and had a number of excellent attacks which created further chances. However, for the majority of the game, we sat back and allowed Wolves to play, to control possession, and ultimately to score three goals, the last being their equaliser in the 87th minute. It is also worth noting that they had another goal (wrongly) disallowed for a foul on Huerelho Gomes. Would we have been so complacent against a 'big' team? Based on our performances in such fixtures this season, I don't believe we would have been. So why can we not perform with the same commitment and energy in what are, on paper, the 'easy' games. Add to our defeats draws against the likes of Birmingham, West Brom, Wolves and Sunderland, and a pattern seems to emerge.

http://www.theeplblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/harry-redknapp-123.jpg

This complacency may prove crucial come the end of the season, and raises a further important question: can we handle the pressure, or will we ultimately choke at the critical moment? A fortnight ago, we had the chance to leapfrog Manchester City and go third in the league if we won away at Blackpool. Despite creating a host of chances, we only managed to score a 92nd minute consolation goal in a 3-1 defeat. Now, I take nothing away from Blackpool, they have been a revelation in the top flight this season, but, once again, they are a team against whom we should, on paper be winning.

This season is incredibly open. It would be wrong of me to suggest that Spurs are the only 'big' club to lose games against seemingly weaker opponents, but at the end of the day, the table doesn't lie, and we are in 5th position, no longer with sufficient games in hand to make up the points deficit. The fact that we have taken more points off the other 'big' clubs than we have conceded would also suggest that we are in our current predicament because of our relative form against the 'smaller' clubs. We are not out of the Top Four race yet, but we have certainly made it hard on ourselves. Realistically, we now need to beat Arsenal at home and Mancheter City away if we are to stand any chance of securing a second consecutive Champions' League spot, and could use getting something from trips to Stamford Bridge and Anfield. These will not be easy tasks! In addition, we cannot afford the same kind of complacency in our remaining fixtures (against West Ham, West Brom, Stoke, Blackpool, Birmingham and Wigan) that has plagued our season, and effectively need maximum points from these games. Some might argue that no side can perform to the highest standard week-in, week-out. Well, that is precisely what Spurs have to do between now and the end of the season. And a fantastic as players such as Bale and Modric have been for us this season (it would be genuinely unfair to make any criticism of their performances), they, along with the rest of the squad, need to take the attitude that if they want to be playing in the Champions' League again next season, they have to earn it. This side is so close to greatness, yet rarely has the margin between success and failure been so apparent. This is make or break time. Ultimately it will come down to desire and determination. The question is, do they want it enough? Do they care about it enough? And, above all, do they believe strongly enough in their own abilities? If I were Harry Redknapp, I would read my troops the following passage:

'These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph'

These are the words of Thomas Paine, that were read out on the orders of George Washington to American troops before they crossed the Delaware to fight one of the pivotal battles of the Revolutionary War. All the world thought their campaign doomed to failure, but their belief in their cause and their ability carried them through the darkest of times, and they achieved one of the greatest victories in history. It would be a dramatic exaggeration to suggest that the consequences of defeat in that Revolution are the same as those currently facing Tottenham, but in relative terms, they are not far off. The club has committed itself to a course of action that will either end in victory or defeat. There can be no middle ground. It is up to the players now to rise to the challenge, and prove their worth, or else to fall by the wayside, to be swallowed up by the hazy mist of regret that has consumed generations of 'nearly-men' before them...

Washington Crossing the Delaware. http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/gw/art_gw/el_tut_img.jpg

Another scapegoat bites the dust...

The resignation of Howard Davies is a travesty. While perhaps not an innocent victim, he has been made into a scapegoat by a sensationalist media, and hung out to dry by a government so embarrassed by its links to the Gaddafi regime that it will confrom to anything that deflects attention away from itself.

Scapegoat: Howard Davies. Image courtesy of http://petersearle.com/images/howard_davies.jpg

For the exact details of the accusations levelled against Davies and the LSE, I would suggest reading the Guardian or BBC articles covering the story, which clarify them in some detail -


http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/03/lse-director-resigns-gaddafi-scandal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12642636

I will openly admit that my first reactions to the revelations concerning the LSE's links to the Gaddafi regime were very negative. There can be no doubting the corrupt nature of the current Libyan government - if previous years had not made this obvious enough, then the events of the last fortnight have served to underline once and for all just how unpopular Muanmar Gaddafi is, and the criminal lengths he is willing to go to in an effort to cling on to power. It is undoubtedly a black mark against the School that it should have links with such a leader, and I still hold that view.

However, from reading related articles, it seems that the LSE is far from the only institution to have links with the Libyan leader. Nor is there any indication that the University has acted in an underhand or dishonest way - its actions have been open from the start. While we might question the personal decision taken by Davies to advise the Libyan government on financial matters, he ultimately acted at the request of the British government. Why, then, are we not also chasing the resignation of those officials who proposed such an undertaking in the first place? Nor, as the Guardian has pointed out, was Britain the only country to offer such advice.

None of this would be an issue were it not for recent events in Libya. Tony Blair was famously pictured embracing Colonel Gaddafi in 2007, yet no purge was demanded upon his return to the UK. Equally, the Labour government's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, while hugely unpopular, did not result in this kind of witch-hunt. Current events can be the only explanation for why Howard Davies is being so vilified - he is being made into the British accomplice of Gaddafi, a sensationalized story in an effort to sell newspapers and ensure a British interest in the current Libyan crisis, not to mention a blatant attempt deflect attention away from the government that encouraged his actions. His actions, while undoubtedly misguided in PR terms, appear on the face of things to be innocent enough. While personal judgement should perhaps have told him not to offer financial advice to a regime of such questionable moral integrity, this in no way implicates him in the crimes of the Gaddafi government, and he only acted at the request of the British government, so if questions of morals are being raised, the buck certainly cannot stop with him.

Best of Friends - Blair and Gaddafi. Image courtesy of http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2011/2/24/1298572836940/Tony-Blair-Embarks-On-Tou-007.jpg

While the LSE's decision to accept money from Saif Gaddafi and to train future Libyan civil servants certainly does little to help the School's case, it does not directly imply their support of any of the morally questionable activities of the Libyan government. If the independent report into the decision to accept the donation happens to prove that the money was accepted as some sort of bribe, then I will happily revise this statement, but as things stand, there is no evidence to prove this.

Yet the most frustrating thing is that while that none of these accusations link the LSE in any way whatsoever to the current actions of the Gaddafi regime, this is precisely what is being implied by the press. Howard Davies, and by implication the LSE, is being made into the British scapegoat for Gaddafi's actions, which is utterly absurd. Howard Davies is not the only individual, nor the LSE the only institution, to have links with the regime, and yet they are the only ones being publically vilified by the media for such links. And in doing so, the media is entirely missing the point. The events in Libya should be commanding our attention, rather than some absurd witch-hunt within our own community in an effort to cleanse our Government's current embarrassment at their recent attempts to curry favour with the Libyan despot. I'm not sure which is more despicable: the media's attempts to portray Davies and the LSE as being linked to the crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime, or the Government's decision to let them. Frankly, both should be ashamed. While I do not personally agree with Davies' actions, I do feel that they have been blown entirely out of proportion, and he is clearly not the only person, nor LSE the only institution, involved here. Support for Gaddafi evidently ran/runs much deeper than one University, and the media's apparently successful attempts to make an example of Davies and the LSE completely fail to reflect this. But then again, it always has been easier to single out one man or one organization for blame, and declare them unique, than to take the deeper and undoubtedly more painful route of questioning our societal values as a whole...