• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Thomas Frank - Head Coach

billyiddo said:
Xavi does not look a better player than either Kulusevski or Maddison and has a long way to go before he proves to be in this league. If Kudus can produce what Son did last season in terms of attacking numbers then that would be a big step up for him.
Click to expand...
I’d be stunned right now if any of out attackers produce decent numbers without seeing a passing midfield structure change
Frank wouldn’t know how good Maddison and Kulu are because he hasn’t had a chance to work with them
He did sign Xavi though for a lot of money
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I’d be stunned right now if any of out attackers produce decent numbers without seeing a passing midfield structure change
Frank wouldn’t know how good Maddison and Kulu are because he hasn’t had a chance to work with them
He did sign Xavi though for a lot of money
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether or not he has seen them, you are saying we have better attacking options than last season - i dispute that

Richarlison is weaker than the injured Solanke (Muani is yet to get match fit and play a run of games to judge)

Xavi is not at the level of Maddison or Kulusevski - at least not while he beds in, there's potential there, though he has it all to prove in England and currently way off the pace.

Kudus over Johnson - correct, but he doesn't have a consistent record of producing goals or assists so this opens up the argument over where our goal/creative threat is supposed to come from.

Tel/Odobert vs Son - all 3 were at the club, the one who produced goals and assists has left, the 2 remaining players are both potential who have only shown brief glimpses of what might develop over time.



As things stand we are clearly weaker overall in attack on paper - there is some potential there but either through bedding in or age they are not there to make an instant impact.
 
billyiddo said:
It doesn't matter whether or not he has seen them, you are saying we have better attacking options than last season - i dispute that

Richarlison is weaker than the injured Solanke (Muani is yet to get match fit and play a run of games to judge)

Xavi is not at the level of Maddison or Kulusevski - at least not while he beds in, there's potential there, though he has it all to prove in England and currently way off the pace.

Kudus over Johnson - correct, but he doesn't have a consistent record of producing goals or assists so this opens up the argument over where our goal/creative threat is supposed to come from.

Tel/Odobert vs Son - all 3 were at the club, the one who produced goals and assists has left, the 2 remaining players are both potential who have only shown brief glimpses of what might develop over time.



As things stand we are clearly weaker overall in attack on paper - there is some potential there but either through bedding in or age they are not there to make an instant impact.
Click to expand...
Where did I say we had better options
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Where did I say we had better options
Click to expand...

You didn't say it directly but it's what was implied in the conversation being had.

If i have misread that then fair enough.

Edit : "they are better than what we had" with reference to Xavi Muani & Kudus - at this juncture is only 1 out 3 correct (Kudus)
 
Last edited:
NaijaSpurs said:
If Frank wants to progress at Spurs he needs to learn how to play with Palhinha or Bentancur on a regular basis, not both of them.
Click to expand...

He needs to learn how to use his players effectively. He needs to instruct them tactically and coach them to be better players. Palhinha and Bentancur aren’t the best pairing in being adventurous but I think at least part of that is down to tactical instruction. Put Sarr in and if he’s advised to play in the same way, there won’t be any significant change in performance.
 
billyiddo said:
Xavi does not look a better player than either Kulusevski or Maddison and has a long way to go before he proves to be in this league. If Kudus can produce what Son did last season in terms of attacking numbers then that would be a big step up for him.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

If Kudus and Xavi produce Son and Maddison (or dare I say Johnson and Maddison) numbers I’ll eat my shoe.

I believe there is better to come from Kudus when he has quality around him and attacking intent in the system. He’s a danger to no one picking the ball up 70 yards from goal.

And let’s be straight - Frank did not arrive with a piece of paper that had buy Xavi and loan RKM at the top of it. I reckon we’re on to at least page 2 before we got to that scenario.
 
NaijaSpurs said:
Frank played a back 5 and 2 defensive midfielders, that was criminally unambitious.
Click to expand...
I think the point for me is, you can do that with Kane, Son and Bale as a front 3 (I’m being extreme).

You can’t do it with Odobert, Richy and Kudus.

So therefore it was an ok idea but without the tools to execute - hence fail. So Frank has to find the right balance between strategy and tools. Pretty much the same as anyone in any work place.
 
Mikey10 said:
The truth is that Frank had much better attacking players at Brentford last season than he’s had available for us this season. Our squad is MILES off being able to consistently challenge top 4 teams, as evidenced by our PL finishing position last season.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Mbuemo, Wissa and Damsgaard all players who get in our attack and likely do a better job than what we've seen. The DM they had as well Nordgaard would also do a good job in possession. I don't think it's a wild take to say they had settled components that work better than again what we've seen.
 
harr1984 said:
When people talk about Sons numbers and Maddison's numbers what people don't seem to be factoring in is that they wouldn't be getting those numbers with the way Frank sets us up to play....
Click to expand...
That is true to a degree. But we sat in against City and won 4-0. We had players capable of getting us out. Solanke and Deki to hold the ball. Madders to pass. Son and Johnson with pace. They still played deep but were dangerous on the break. (Relates to my above post).

On the flip side, the current attacking crop would be much more effective playing most of their football around the opponents box - like the 2nd half of the Man U game.
 
Responses below inbetween mate...


billyiddo said:
@thfcsteff - A midfield 2 of Bergvall and Palinha (away to one of the best sides in Europe no less) gets totally overrun.
Click to expand...

I think it very much depends on the intent. If you're playing 4-2-3-1 to press and play higher up the pitch, not so much for me. It requires the FBs to be aggressive and it also possibly requires a shift to 4-3-3 when transitioning to defence. I accept that the way Frank is going about things, this might have been the case. Of course, instead, we ended up getting battered anyway.


billyiddo said:
IMV people are getting yesterday wrong, we didn't play 532 it was 523 - Palinha + Bentancur in the middle with two AMs/WFs in front with Richarlison.
Click to expand...

I swear I saw him say somewhere it was 5-4-1? I think you might well be right though, because Richy, Odobert and Kudus were at least 8 yards away from each other at all times. It was ridiculous.

billyiddo said:
We needed an additional CM to make up for the shortfall of creativity and give us a fighting chance in terms numbers, 2 of Sarr Bergvall Bentancur alongside Palinha, instead of a third CB would have been a better option IMV, 523 vs 4231 with our options and the result/performance doesn’t change.
Click to expand...

We will never know the answer to this really. What I think it is safe to say is that whatever formation we'd have put out, approaching the game with that degree of callow caution would've ensured the same result. Again, I have no issue with 3 at the back if the 3-5-2 is an attacking one as opposed to becoming 'the 5'.

IF we played 3 at the back, had a midfield of Porro/Sarr/Palinha/Xavi/Udogie and Richy or Tel playing off Muani, and if that side was sent out to press and play, you'd always have players within a few yards of each other and be able to progress the ball quickly and through the middle as well as using the WBs width. When in defensive transitions, Pahlinha drops in the make a 4 if a WB gets caught out of position. For me, again, the Romero to Pahlinha to Sarr or Bergy to Xavi or Kudus through the middle links could be very productive. Muani has shown (me anyway) he can drop into half-spaces, collect and run from deep, which allows his strike partner to profit or vice-versa. Of course the caveat is that this manager (currently at any rate) won't contemplate any approach remotely like that.

I could well be a victim of idealistic thinking here, but I am continuing to find it exceptionally hard to accept the 'risks' he speaks about versus the total lack of risks we see.
 
billyiddo said:
Xavi does not look a better player than either Kulusevski or Maddison and has a long way to go before he proves to be in this league. If Kudus can produce what Son did last season in terms of attacking numbers then that would be a big step up for him.
Click to expand...

In the last few games, whenever Xavi gets the ball, he is required to turn and beat at least 2 or 3 players before seeing a white shirt, because they're all behind him at the moment of reception. If Frank sanctioned the signing of the player and wanted him, then it is on him to make it work/get a system which involves him and allows him to be at his best. I said at the start of the window I wanted Eze but I had heard Frank was less than excited by him as he 'didn't think he worked hard enough off the ball' or thoughts to that effect. He wanted MGW, that was blown, Eze came back up, he changed his mind for whatever reason, we got involved in the Parrish v Levy thing (which according to some was never going to be won because Parrish wanted to stick one on Levy - who knows) and we ended up with Xavi who was also well on our radar at the start of the window and available, however again we went for MGW. I think the fact we wanted MGW over Eze or Xavi says a lot. I genuinely do not think Frank knows quite how to work with Xavi versus what he wants us to do. I believe (as @Bedfordspurs had said he'd had on some podcast) that even if Frank had signed Eze, he'd not have known how to use him. People will talk about Damsgaard, who is a fine player, but who is also a player that Frank took 2-3 years to work into his system.

I am somewhat worried that when Deki & Solanke come back, people will expect everything to change. Unless he changes his approach, I don't think so personally.
 
billyiddo said:
It doesn't matter whether or not he has seen them, you are saying we have better attacking options than last season - i dispute that

Richarlison is weaker than the injured Solanke (Muani is yet to get match fit and play a run of games to judge)

Xavi is not at the level of Maddison or Kulusevski - at least not while he beds in, there's potential there, though he has it all to prove in England and currently way off the pace.

Kudus over Johnson - correct, but he doesn't have a consistent record of producing goals or assists so this opens up the argument over where our goal/creative threat is supposed to come from.

Tel/Odobert vs Son - all 3 were at the club, the one who produced goals and assists has left, the 2 remaining players are both potential who have only shown brief glimpses of what might develop over time.



As things stand we are clearly weaker overall in attack on paper - there is some potential there but either through bedding in or age they are not there to make an instant impact.
Click to expand...

I think that is largely true, and there is still enough talent there for us to be able to do far better attacking-wise than we are.
 
Benny_Lad said:
I think the point for me is, you can do that with Kane, Son and Bale as a front 3 (I’m being extreme).

You can’t do it with Odobert, Richy and Kudus.

So therefore it was an ok idea but without the tools to execute - hence fail. So Frank has to find the right balance between strategy and tools. Pretty much the same as anyone in any work place.
Click to expand...
The fact that Frank did not have the tools meant it was a poor idea.
 
Just a thought, last season when we went to parking the bus in the EL there was a theory postulated that as there was no way ange would ever countenance such tactics that the senior players had taken it on themselves to ignore Angeball.
I've seen a couple of people say that either Frank's tactics are not working or the players aren't following them.
Do we have a player issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back