-
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
Last ten minutes
- Thread starter Pirate55
- Start date
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
jts: My point is that all though people see a pattern it's way too early to say that one is there. Especially when based only on results. I made a similar point to the one in that Guardian article when Hudd was taken off for Livermore (I think) against Chelsea (not for the first time this season I think), I think that taking off your best ball players when you are expecting to be put under considerable pressure is a mistake, at least if done too early. That's more of a theoretical discussion based on choices being made, not based just on the results.
Looking at the result in the Norwich game we conceded two goals from set plays against them, it was obviously that they were going to be a threat. Taking off our smallest player (I think) and putting on the tallest player we had on the bench to help us become more solid for those set plays seems like a choice it should be possible do defend in that situation.
I'm sure we could come up with dozens, if not well over a hundred, other similar talking points like "The last ten minutes of the game". How the team starts a game, how they start after half time, how you defend set pieces, how you attack set pieces, wing play going forward, defending against crosses, passing, movement, movement in the final third, finishing, heading, crossing and so on and so on. There are so many of these that any team at any point is bound to be among the bottom 5 in the league in at least some of these areas just by random chance as long as the sample size is small enough, and in this case it is. Even more so when the team in question isn't the best or second best team in the league either.
If the points are being reasoned out as to why we are poor at specific things based on something other than result I'm normally up for a discussion.
Looking at the result in the Norwich game we conceded two goals from set plays against them, it was obviously that they were going to be a threat. Taking off our smallest player (I think) and putting on the tallest player we had on the bench to help us become more solid for those set plays seems like a choice it should be possible do defend in that situation.
I'm sure we could come up with dozens, if not well over a hundred, other similar talking points like "The last ten minutes of the game". How the team starts a game, how they start after half time, how you defend set pieces, how you attack set pieces, wing play going forward, defending against crosses, passing, movement, movement in the final third, finishing, heading, crossing and so on and so on. There are so many of these that any team at any point is bound to be among the bottom 5 in the league in at least some of these areas just by random chance as long as the sample size is small enough, and in this case it is. Even more so when the team in question isn't the best or second best team in the league either.
If the points are being reasoned out as to why we are poor at specific things based on something other than result I'm normally up for a discussion.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Imagine for a moment that, when defending a 1-0 lead, we could bring Parker on for Hudd/Dembele to relieve the pressure. Or that we could start with BAE at left back, and take advantage of his cross-field passes, and Kaboul at centre-back, and take advantage of..well, having our version of Kompany (last year, anyway) fit and firing. Or if we could bring on a hungry, motivated, FIT Ade to relieve pressure for the last ten minutes. Or if we could start games wit little Luka Modric in the side, and let him endlessly recycle possession without a care in the world.
I'd wager we'd concede a lot less in the last ten minutes. And I'd wager we'd score a lot more. Point being, circumstance has led to us having a decimated squad, which forces us to play clearly unfit or off-the-boil players like Hudd, Walker and Livermore, and forces us to play Dempsey and Sigurdsson game after game despite them clearly needing time to settle in. Is it a surprise, then, that we look shaky for large parts of a game?
------------Lloris-------------
Walker---Kaboul---Vertonghen--BAE
---------Sandro---Parker-----
Lennon-------Dembele-------Bale
---------------Ade
Subs; Friedel, Caulker, Naughton, Huddlestone, Dempsey, Sigurdsson, Defoe
That's what our full strength side would look like. Compare that to the teams we put out at Norwich and Southampton and you'll get your answer.
I'd wager we'd concede a lot less in the last ten minutes. And I'd wager we'd score a lot more. Point being, circumstance has led to us having a decimated squad, which forces us to play clearly unfit or off-the-boil players like Hudd, Walker and Livermore, and forces us to play Dempsey and Sigurdsson game after game despite them clearly needing time to settle in. Is it a surprise, then, that we look shaky for large parts of a game?
------------Lloris-------------
Walker---Kaboul---Vertonghen--BAE
---------Sandro---Parker-----
Lennon-------Dembele-------Bale
---------------Ade
Subs; Friedel, Caulker, Naughton, Huddlestone, Dempsey, Sigurdsson, Defoe
That's what our full strength side would look like. Compare that to the teams we put out at Norwich and Southampton and you'll get your answer.
But surely we should be looking to the new manager to fix this?
At the moment it seems that we are still doing the things that cost us CL last season, when is avb going to improve us?
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
When he gets the squad that Harry had, I'd imagine.
Its been mentioned in some quarters that the players have been doing double training sessions under AVB and recently some of the players went to him saying could he ease up on the sessions as they were clearly impacting the team's fitness. I'd be interested to know if this is the case as this might be one of reasons for why we fade so badly and concentration goes out the window.. We need a physical trainer to answer the question of does double training make you stronger in the long term? Apparently Mourinho makes Real players do double sessions.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
According to what has been reported they only did double training sessions during pre-season.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Its the pattern, not one decision in isolation.
We are conceding late goals in a high proportion of our matches. There may be good reasons - player fitness and new tactics, weak squad due to injuries, etc - but the scores and times of the goals are facts we need to deal with. In each case we can make an excuse or justify the decision, but if the decisions keep leading to the wrong result, its perhaps time to ask questions.
jts1882
Dean Richards
If people see a pattern, surely it means there is one. It may be too early to draw conclusions about the reasons for the pattern, it could just be bad luck and coincidence, but the pattern is real enough.
I also think the pattern is strong enough that we can justifiably start asking questions and trying to draw conclusions. These late goals are following substitutions very closely. Now it could just be coincidence. When conceding late goals, its inevitable that they tend to occur around the same time or a bit later than substitutions almost by definition. However, the frequency of the late goals is very high compared to the frequency before. You have to wonder about cause and effect.
There is the phrase that once is happenstance, twice coincidence and thrice enemy action. There was no mention of four or more times.
milo
Jack L. Jones
One option might have been to bring on Defoe for Carroll and dropped Sig back into central midfield.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
If people see a pattern, surely it means there is one. It may be too early to draw conclusions about the reasons for the pattern, it could just be bad luck and coincidence, but the pattern is real enough.
I also think the pattern is strong enough that we can justifiably start asking questions and trying to draw conclusions. These late goals are following substitutions very closely. Now it could just be coincidence. When conceding late goals, its inevitable that they tend to occur around the same time or a bit later than substitutions almost by definition. However, the frequency of the late goals is very high compared to the frequency before. You have to wonder about cause and effect.
There is the phrase that once is happenstance, twice coincidence and thrice enemy action. There was no mention of four or more times.
Most assuredly not.
We are pattern seeking mammals, however we are not particularly good at separating actual patterns from imagined ones, we see plenty of patterns where there are none and even see patterns in random sequences with surprising ease. A ton of very solid research backs this up and there's plenty of decent stuff on this online.
jts1882
Dean Richards
The patterns in finite random sequences are real patterns, just not ones that will continue indefinitely. I'm not sure you are correct on us seeing patterns when there is nothing there. Isn't it more that we are very good at detecting patterns and have a tendency to determine there is one even if only transient? This could come down to semantics, though.
I think the pattern of seeing a late goal after a substitution is a real pattern. You can't say they didn't happen. What is yet to be determined is if the cause is random or something that needs correcting.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I think you're right about semantics
When I talk about patterns I mean stuff that is caused by something, not patterns in finite random sequences.We are instinctively very poor at estimating what is random and what isn't, but there are (often) what you call patterns there, the question in this case is about assigning causal links to those patterns. People are very quick to jump to conclusions here. My point is that just by random chance there are bound to be some areas where we are among the worst in the league over a small sample size like this. If you prefer to call that a pattern in a finite random sequence I have no problem with that and that might be a better description of what is going on than just calling it random - I'm not sure. Although when called just a pattern (without the "in a finite random sequence part") that word for me carries connotations about something that will continue or recur into the future (if nothing is done about it), but that might just be me.
Did anyone say semantics?
As long as we agree that based on the stats alone there is no reason to believe that we currently are particularly bad in the last 10 minutes of games we are on the same page...
jts1882
Dean Richards
I think you're right about semantics
We are instinctively very poor at estimating what is random and what isn't, but there are (often) what you call patterns there, the question in this case is about assigning causal links to those patterns. People are very quick to jump to conclusions here. My point is that just by random chance there are bound to be some areas where we are among the worst in the league over a small sample size like this. If you prefer to call that a pattern in a finite random sequence I have no problem with that and that might be a better description of what is going on than just calling it random - I'm not sure. Although when called just a pattern (without the "in a finite random sequence part") that word for me carries connotations about something that will continue or recur into the future (if nothing is done about it), but that might just be me.
Did anyone say semantics?
As long as we agree that based on the stats alone there is no reason to believe that we currently are particularly bad in the last 10 minutes of games we are on the same page...
Agreed with almost the whole post, but I'll question the last sentence.
The stats do give us reason to believe we are bad in the last ten minutes. They show we are. The questions are whether it is just chance or if there are good reasons.
I'm undecided on this issue. It could be chance or it could be related to injuries or adjustment to a new system. However, I can't dismiss it as something that might be just chance as that is making a determination one way or the other. There is enough evidence to ask questions, but not enough for definite conclusions.
P.S. On the semantics issue. If someone is tossing a coin and it come up heads ten times in a row, that is a pattern of heads. I wouldn't expect it to continue but I would see the pattern in the limited sequence.
Jurgen the German
Willie Hall
4 of the games you listed there were already over when said late goals went in. It's the ones that actually cost us points that we should be concerning ourselves with. I believe we are conceding late goals this season because we playing too cautious in the 2nd half.
Kingdawson
Banned
Is it safe to assume we'd be in the relegation zone if we're going by the last 15 minutes of games this season?
THFC6061
Paul Robinson
The other side of the coin is that Spurs would be second in the Premier League if games were played over 80 minutes.
DHSF
Les Ferdinand
We really do need to sort out the last ten minutes as it has become ridiculous. Its like we now need a three or four goal lead before we can 'relax' a bit.
Yes it was a mistake that caused a goal on sunday BUT it was still a goal and they still put pressure on us (which you would expect) but we actually didnt keep the ball particularly well in the very latter stages
Yes it was a mistake that caused a goal on sunday BUT it was still a goal and they still put pressure on us (which you would expect) but we actually didnt keep the ball particularly well in the very latter stages
paxtonwolf
Tony Marchi
I agree. Although we did almost reply straight away, Jasskelainen denied Bale with a good save IIRC. Really disappointing we couldnt keep the clean sheet though, and it could have been worse I suppose, they really should have got a 2nd goal, that would have set the backsides twitching for the last 2 minutes