Just back from the Britannia

[Rossi22]

We're 1-0 up against 10 men, their blood is up, the wind is blowing, the crowd are going nuts and they are having a good 15 minutes...and most people in the OMT were calling for SPURS to bring on a DM, meaning the team moves backwards 10 feet and sets a rearguard in front of the D.

Against 10 men Stoke?? Seriously? Have you all lost your minds? With our dodgy defence and the wind blowing a gale in Hugo's face...you want to move BACK? And you also want to sabotage our offensive threat in the process?

On top of which, this is precisely the kind of tactic that when it goes wrong and they score people say: "This always happens when you sit back!"

The correct sub at that point was an OFFENSIVE player. You are Spurs fans, not Palace fans! Can we please break this goddam fever about AVB-style tactics with DM's and "platforms" and scared football? All that fukking nonsense. You are all more conservative than our coach, which is frightening.

Some people are making a fairer criticism: why not Bentaleb rather than Siggy? That's a fair point. But:

a) Neither of them are a DM, which is what half the OMT were screaming for.
b) Who's more likely to score the crucial second, Ben or Siggy?

I might have put Ben on myself, but the idea of Siggy popping up with one of those late goals - how many has he scored for us? - might well have tempted me to him. Tight call.

Finally:

Spurs are 6th.

Stoke are 10th.

Some people are making it sound like we're Real and they're Acrington Stanley.

Yes, you're right, just throw more attacking players on. You know that in order to attack, you need to get the ball first right? Our powderpuff midfield couldn't win the ball back, that's why were were getting overrun even against 10 men. Bringing Sandro on doesn't mean we'd have moved back, nor does it mean we'd be more defensive or less likely to score again, he'd have just made it fair more difficult for them to walk through us and at the same time given us more of the ball. Unfortunately it seems that Tim and a lot of our fans believe that in order to finish the house quicker, you just throw another roofer on. Paulinho and Chadli should not be starting as CMs in a 442 in any game, let alone ones like this. I don't believe that Sandro and Bentaleb instead of those two would make us any less attacking, you will dismiss it but they give us a better PLATFORM for the other players to attack, Sandro wins the ball and Bentaleb moves it. Paulinho doesn't really do either and Chadli may be able to do the latter but he can't win it so that's rather futile.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Yes, you're right, just throw more attacking players on. You know that in order to attack, you need to get the ball first right? Our powderpuff midfield couldn't win the ball back, that's why were were getting overrun even against 10 men. Bringing Sandro on doesn't mean we'd have moved back, nor does it mean we'd be more defensive or less likely to score again, he'd have just made it fair more difficult for them to walk through us and at the same time given us more of the ball. Unfortunately it seems that Tim and a lot of our fans believe that in order to finish the house quicker, you just throw another roofer on. Paulinho and Chadli should not be starting as CMs in a 442 in any game, let alone ones like this. I don't believe that Sandro and Bentaleb instead of those two would make us any less attacking, you will dismiss it but they give us a better PLATFORM for the other players to attack, Sandro wins the ball and Bentaleb moves it. Paulinho doesn't really do either and Chadli may be able to do the latter but he can't win it so that's rather futile.

Good post

 

[chancer]

Yes, you're right, just throw more attacking players on. You know that in order to attack, you need to get the ball first right? Our powderpuff midfield couldn't win the ball back, that's why were were getting overrun even against 10 men. Bringing Sandro on doesn't mean we'd have moved back, nor does it mean we'd be more defensive or less likely to score again, he'd have just made it fair more difficult for them to walk through us and at the same time given us more of the ball. Unfortunately it seems that Tim and a lot of our fans believe that in order to finish the house quicker, you just throw another roofer on. Paulinho and Chadli should not be starting as CMs in a 442 in any game, let alone ones like this. I don't believe that Sandro and Bentaleb instead of those two would make us any less attacking, you will dismiss it but they give us a better PLATFORM for the other players to attack, Sandro wins the ball and Bentaleb moves it. Paulinho doesn't really do either and Chadli may be able to do the latter but he can't win it so that's rather futile.

In fairness, my post didn't mention the starting line up - my post was simply about the sub decisions later in the game.

On that part of your post (bold), there are 2 ways to get the ball:

1. Have a ball winner/DM
2. Don't give the ball away in the first place

I believe that recent games have shown that approach 2 is credible against certain teams. As such Siggy over Sandro in an attempt to improve our retention and passing (and goal threat) so we don't have to win the ball back in the first place is a fair call.

Now, maybe there is an argument that this was a mistake in this particular game today on 72" because Stoke were ferocious, but I regret that people instantly think negatively - we must win it back - rather than positively - let's get more passers and attackers on so they can't get the ball off us. Even moreso when they only have 10 men.

 

[paxtonwolf]

Very interesting to hear from someone actually at the ground that you felt he got all the subs right. He was being panned on here for his subs!!!

Guess one mans meat etc etc

Cheers. Read the OMT after starting this thread and clocked all of that, and as posted above, during the game I just felt, as Chancer says, a DM was a step back, 2-0 and it was game,set and match, and Siggy has a knack of snatching one here and there.
In hindsight we possibly should have brought on Sandro/Bentaleb to regain the midfield. As it is we held on, so lets celebrate the win. 4 more pts and its guaranteed EL football (although 2 could be enough), and even 5th has not gone yet.

 

[DTA]

Good post

Dude you promised me you would praise Sherwood if we won as you were predicting a 4-1 loss... So where is the praise for my man Tim?

PS I'm more inclined to believe someone who was at the game then those that watch a stream....im going to watch sky highlights in a bit and try to give an honest appraisal, if that means that Tim was a tactical clown I will say it, because what's the point in having an agenda, we are all spurs after all.

 

[chancer]

In hindsight we possibly should have brought on Sandro/Bentaleb to regain the midfield.

Yeah, I'm prepared to meet Rossi and others half way on this and say that given how good Stoke were today, it is a fair call that we could have shut it down a bit more. I don't think it's reasonable to discount either approach because there was logic to either today on 70.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Dude you promised me you would praise Sherwood if we won as you were predicting a 4-1 loss... So where is the praise for my man Tim?

PS I'm more inclined to believe someone who was at the game then those that watch a stream....im going to watch sky highlights in a bit and try to give an honest appraisal, if that means that Tim was a tactical clown I will say it, because what's the point in having an agenda, we are all spurs after all.

See the OMT

 

[DTA]

See the OMT

You weren't exactly gushing .... But fair play to you sir, you kept your word.

 

[Rossi22]

In fairness, my post didn't mention the starting line up - my post was simply about the sub decisions later in the game.

On that part of your post (bold), there are 2 ways to get the ball:

1. Have a ball winner/DM
2. Don't give the ball away in the first place

I believe that recent games have shown that approach 2 is credible against certain teams. As such Siggy over Sandro in an attempt to improve our retention and passing (and goal threat) so we don't have to win the ball back in the first place is a fair call.

Now, maybe there is an argument that this was a mistake in this particular game today on 72" because Stoke were ferocious, but I regret that people instantly think negatively - we must win it back - rather than positively - let's get more passers and attackers on so they can't get the ball off us. Even moreso when they only have 10 men.

What did you think of our team that won 4-0 away to Saudi Sportswashing Machine?

------ Capoue - Bentaleb ------
Dembele -- Paulinho -- Lennon
---------- Adebayor ----------

Looks pretty defensive on paper you might say, but it was solid as hell and gave us great control of the game, we pretty much dominated from start to finish. You could well say that Saudi Sportswashing Machine are crap(you'd have a fair case) but I'd be far more confident of a side like that(but Eriksen for Lennon) in tough away games than this:

Lennon - Chadli - Paulinho - Eriksen
--------- Kane - Adebayor -------

It may have "worked" today but long term I'd be amazed if a lineup like that could keep somehow picking up three points - even if it does have attacking players shoehorned into every position.

 

[glorygloryeze]

You weren't exactly gushing .... But fair play to you sir, you kept your word.

Statistically it was a good win (given their home record).

But by all accounts performance-wise....? Well I worry that when we play against 10 men it becomes clearer just how random our play really can be. It's one thing to not pull-apart a team who have a man less, but to actually play WORSE in that scenario??

As I say, I didn't expect 3 points but we got them so fair play to TS and the team

 

[glorygloryeze]

What did you think of our team that won 4-0 away to Saudi Sportswashing Machine?

------ Capoue - Bentaleb ------
Dembele -- Paulinho -- Lennon
---------- Adebayor ----------

Looks pretty defensive on paper you might say, but it was solid as hell and gave us great control of the game, we pretty much dominated from start to finish. You could well say that Saudi Sportswashing Machine are crap(you'd have a fair case) but I'd be far more confident of a side like that(but Eriksen for Lennon) in tough away games than this:

Lennon - Chadli - Paulinho - Eriksen
--------- Kane - Adebayor -------

It may have "worked" today but long term I'd be amazed if a lineup like that could keep somehow picking up three points - even if it does have attacking players shoehorned into every position.

Away to any of the top 4/5 teams we are looking at humiliation quite frankly

 

[Rossi22]

Away to any of the top 4/5 teams we are looking at humiliation quite frankly

Indeed, but for some reason Tim seems to have picked up this attitude of "well it worked at home to Sunderland" from somewhere. After his mini anti-AVB run of lineups I really thought he was adapting well to each game and the new challenges they present but now he's just putting out these lottery lineups. Has Les "DMs ruin the game" Ferdinand been in his ear or something? These past few weeks have really turned me against him.

 

[chancer]

What did you think of our team that won 4-0 away to Saudi Sportswashing Machine?

------ Capoue - Bentaleb ------
Dembele -- Paulinho -- Lennon
---------- Adebayor ----------

Looks pretty defensive on paper you might say, but it was solid as hell and gave us great control of the game, we pretty much dominated from start to finish. You could well say that Saudi Sportswashing Machine are crap(you'd have a fair case) but I'd be far more confident of a side like that(but Eriksen for Lennon) in tough away games than this:

Lennon - Chadli - Paulinho - Eriksen
--------- Kane - Adebayor -------

It may have "worked" today but long term I'd be amazed if a lineup like that could keep somehow picking up three points - even if it does have attacking players shoehorned into every position.

Our bench today was: Soldado, Friedel, Bentaleb, Townsend, Sandro, Fyers, Siggy - presumably those are our fit/available players. So let's rebuild your Saudi Sportswashing Machine team with available personnel:

------ Sandro- Bentaleb ------
Lennon-- Paulinho -- Eriksen
---------- Adebayor ----------

If we're comparing like-with-like, I think that would have been Sherwood's option for the Saudi Sportswashing Machine shape today. In all honesty, I'd have had no problem if that had been the team today.

However:

1. As a default, I much prefer 2 up front. Pretty much always.
2. That is especially true against weaker teams with weaker defences.
3. If we picked the Saudi Sportswashing Machine team/formation, we'd have been changing a winning team, which to me always sends weird signals to the squad. Leave the winning team as it is without a compelling reason to change it.
4. The difference between Chadli/Kane being in the team rather than Sandro/Bentaleb (the other players are common to both teams) is the difference between 9 goals and 1 goal this season (http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/teams/tottenham-hotspur/top-scorers). Moneyball, yo.
5. Here's today's shape as it might be with fully fit personnel:

Lamela- Dembele- Paulinho - Eriksen
---------Soldado- Adebayor -----------

Put Bentaleb in if you want, or even Sandro. Versus the other shape with full choice:

------ Dembele- Bentaleb ------
Lamela-- Paulinho -- Eriksen
--------- Adebayor ----------

Swap Sandro in if preferred.

I can see uses for both those, and I think it comes down to taste and opposition as much as black/white competence.

But here's the thing: AVB would only ever play one of those shapes. Sherwood has shown far more flexibility, changing the shape and team depending on circumstances.

That's a pragmatic SAF/Jose/Ancelotti approach that I really like, rather than the rigid "system" approach of Rodgers/Wenger/AVB, which I'm suspicious of.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Our bench today was: Soldado, Friedel, Bentaleb, Townsend, Sandro, Fyers, Siggy - presumably those are our fit/available players. So let's rebuild your Saudi Sportswashing Machine team with available personnel:

------ Sandro- Bentaleb ------
Lennon-- Paulinho -- Eriksen
---------- Adebayor ----------

If we're comparing like-with-like, I think that would have been Sherwood's option for the Saudi Sportswashing Machine shape today. In all honesty, I'd have had no problem if that had been the team today.

However:

1. As a default, I much prefer 2 up front. Pretty much always.
2. That is especially true against weaker teams with weaker defences.
3. If we picked the Saudi Sportswashing Machine team/formation, we'd have been changing a winning team, which to me always sends weird signals to the squad. Leave the winning team as it is without a compelling reason to change it.
4. The difference between Chadli/Kane being in the team rather than Sandro/Bentaleb (the other players are common to both teams) is the difference between 9 goals and 1 goal this season (http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/teams/tottenham-hotspur/top-scorers). Moneyball, yo.
5. Here's today's shape as it might be with fully fit personnel:

Lamela- Dembele- Paulinho - Eriksen
---------Soldado- Adebayor -----------

Put Bentaleb in if you want, or even Sandro. Versus the other shape with full choice:

------ Dembele- Bentaleb ------
Lamela-- Paulinho -- Eriksen
--------- Adebayor ----------

Swap Sandro in if preferred.

I can see uses for both those, and I think it comes down to taste and opposition as much as black/white competence.

But here's the thing: AVB would only ever play one of those shapes. Sherwood has shown far more flexibility, changing the shape and team depending on circumstances.

That's a pragmatic SAF/Jose/Ancelotti approach that I really like, rather than the rigid "system" approach of Rodgers/Wenger/AVB, which I'm suspicious of.

Erm..aren't you contradicting yourself here? You praise TS for keeping the same team and line-up but then talk about his flexibility and pragmatism??
Wasn't today's team the same effectively for the last 3 games? Are we equating Fulham with Stoke?
Where was this flexibible Jose/SAF-like approach you talk of, which posters like Rossi were crying out for in the second half when we were being overrun by a team with ten men?

 

[glorygloryeze]

Also Chancer you seem to do Rodgers a disservice; he has played many different ways this system and one thing he cannot be accused of is being 'rigid'

 

[Rossi22]

I have issues with these points:

3. If we picked the Saudi Sportswashing Machine team/formation, we'd have been changing a winning team, which to me always sends weird signals to the squad. Leave the winning team as it is without a compelling reason to change it.

So if we beat Sunderland at home, we should leave it as it is to play Liverpool away? Because it worked at home to Sunderland, it's going to work away to Liverpool right? That's schoolboy management to me, you pick your team based on the differing challenges each opposition represent. Maybe you can get away with it if you're Bayern Munich ... but we're not Bayern Munich.

4. The difference between Chadli/Kane being in the team rather than Sandro/Bentaleb (the other players are common to both teams) is the difference between 9 goals and 1 goal this season (http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/te...ur/top-scorers). Moneyball, yo.

Sorry but that is also a very simplistic view, just because player a has more goals than player b, doesn't mean the team with player a in it will score more goals than the team with player b. If that's the case, why bother playing Michael Dawson? Swap him out for Sigurdsson and drop Naughton for Soldado while you're at it. How many goals did that Saudi Sportswashing Machine lineup have between them before the game? Other than Adebayor, not a great deal I would imagine yet they managed to put four past them. How does that happen when individually they don't have a whole load of goals? Maybe it's because playing as a team with a proper team shape allows them to score more as a group ...

 

[Roland Beurre]

Yes, you're right, just throw more attacking players on. You know that in order to attack, you need to get the ball first right?

Stoke are not known as a possession side. You will get the ball back.

I think I'd prefer to go for the kill shot and put on some attacking players. It does not sound like it worked in this game but it did not fail, either.

Also, it is worth noting that we were not playing against 10 men; the crowd was their 11th man.

That was a footballism joke, BTW.

 

[braineclipse]

In fairness, my post didn't mention the starting line up - my post was simply about the sub decisions later in the game.

On that part of your post (bold), there are 2 ways to get the ball:

1. Have a ball winner/DM
2. Don't give the ball away in the first place

I believe that recent games have shown that approach 2 is credible against certain teams. As such Siggy over Sandro in an attempt to improve our retention and passing (and goal threat) so we don't have to win the ball back in the first place is a fair call.

Now, maybe there is an argument that this was a mistake in this particular game today on 72" because Stoke were ferocious, but I regret that people instantly think negatively - we must win it back - rather than positively - let's get more passers and attackers on so they can't get the ball off us. Even moreso when they only have 10 men.

I get that this is a credible plan. But there was no visible signs of us being able to do that before or after the Sigurdsson sub.

I don't even think Sigurdsson is particularly well suited to that central midfield role in a 4-4-2.

 

[Raziel]

Siggy was the wrong option, and not just because he's not a DM.

We needed either a DM (it would be an option), or just someone likely to keep possession longer, be comfortable with the ball, moving it. Siggy/Paulinho in midfield tends to lead to a bit more losing of possession, when you add Townsend to that, you have a midfield that if they keep the ball for 20 seconds you probably cheer.

The fryers sub and the instructions to Rose to go to dressing room was smart.

The Townsend/Siggy subs, zero value for me, think he got it wrong.

 

[braineclipse]

Siggy was the wrong option, and not just because he's not a DM.

We needed either a DM (it would be an option), or just someone likely to keep possession longer, be comfortable with the ball, moving it. Siggy/Paulinho in midfield tends to lead to a bit more losing of possession, when you add Townsend to that, you have a midfield that if they keep the ball for 20 seconds you probably cheer.

The fryers sub and the instructions to Rose to go to dressing room was smart.

The Townsend/Siggy subs, zero value for me, think he got it wrong.

To me you're essentially describing Bentaleb.

Sherwood did introduce him similar circumstances early in his career here for just those reasons I think. I cannot for the life of me understand what Bentaleb has done to now be considered behind Paulinho, Chadli and Sig for this kind or a role.