Official - Defoe

[elltrev]

I actually watch Emirates Marketing Project and think thats part of their problem, too many indivdual talents not sticking to a said role. They look to me like a team without a system who eventually fullfill their goal of winning games because of the added quality they have rather than the brilliance of their system.

Looks ok when it works but when it falls apart it does so in style...

Interesting ... I don't see it that way. I think they're lucky to have a front four who are versatile enough to display that kind of movement. I think it's far easier for defenders to do their job when opposition players stick to their area of the pitch. When they start moving around they drag people out of their position, and create space for each other to exploit.

I certainly wouldn't say that it's individuals not sticking to a role - it seems to me like a pretty clear system and one that Mancini is in charge of. Full-backs providing the width, two central midfielders providing a 'base', and the four attacking players with the freedom to move and interchange in the attacking third.

 

[mick cooper]

Do you disagree with what I've said? That he doesn't get involved in build-up play as much as Adebayor? That he has the technical ability to do it? That this would help the team more?

Why do you have such an issue with people who enjoy trying to look in depth at the game (I'm referring to the expert and rocket scientists comment)? It's just something that people find interesting, and it's just an opinion. Maybe the fact that people like you are so scornful of it is reflective of the fact that the English national team are behind some of the top teams in so many ways... when I was in Spain recently, their football call-in show was about Spain's use of a 'False nine' and 'Double pivots' - phrases that you presumably think should be left to the rocket scientists?

Why do you think that Defoe has scored just 11 league goals on average over the last 6 seasons? Do you not think he has any flaws?

Because football is a sport and not a science

Defoe is what he is, trying to apply formulas and intricate tactics to a free flowing entity with infinite variables like a game of football is virtually meaningless. All you have done is to quote jargon, not explained anything, to anyone but the wholly ignorant. Football hasn't changed so significantly in the last 50 years beyond tactical tinkering, more often based on on the resources available to a given manager, rather than a sea change in idealism and the ebb and flow of the game has only improved because of diets, training regimes and the athleticism of players generally.

My complaint is the continual soul searching on this board for reasons to criticise Defoe for his (supposed) flaws and faults and the lad just keeps on scoring. Must tinkle you lot off beyond reason.

Its a bit like the bee thing. That science has proved that aerodynamcally a bee should be incapable of flight. Its just that someone forgot to tell the bee.

Keep making it up though, it makes me laugh.

Oh and the looking in depth thing, I think a lot have people have the telescope the wrong way round - and the scientist remark was a lie.

This isn't a personal issue. its a general issue and the thrust of my argument is that people try too hard to knock the guy, but the fact is that he can score goals if he stays fit, match fit and and in a successful team that provides him with chances. He can't do that from the subs bench or the infirmary which has a bigger impact on his "goals for" stats, than his flaws in comparison to the guy you are all searching for.

You can come up with scientific formulas for boiling an egg, but its still just sticking an egg in really hot water for the right length of time.

 

[Jordinho]

Because football is a sport and not a science

Defoe is what he is, trying to apply formulas and intricate tactics to a free flowing entity with infinite variables like a game of football is virtually meaningless. All you have done is to quote jargon, not explained anything, to anyone but the wholly ignorant. Football hasn't changed so significantly in the last 50 years beyond tactical tinkering, more often based on on the resources available to a given manager, rather than a sea change in idealism and the ebb and flow of the game has only improved because of diets, training regimes and the athleticism of players generally.

My complaint is the continual soul searching on this board for reasons to criticise Defoe for his (supposed) flaws and faults and the lad just keeps on scoring. Must tinkle you lot off beyond reason.

Its a bit like the bee thing. That science has proved that aerodynamcally a bee should be incapable of flight. Its just that someone forgot to tell the bee.

Keep making it up though, it makes me laugh.

Oh and the looking in depth thing, I think a lot have people have the telescope the wrong way round - and the scientist remark was a lie.

This isn't a personal issue. its a general issue and the thrust of my argument is that people try too hard to knock the guy, but the fact is that he can score goals if he stays fit, match fit and and in a successful team that provides him with chances. He can't do that from the subs bench or the infirmary which has a bigger impact on his "goals for" stats, than his flaws in comparison to the guy you are all searching for.

You can come up with scientific formulas for boiling an egg, but its still just sticking an egg in really hot water for the right length of time.

So people shouldn't discuss how potential changes to Defoe's game could impact him or the team?

 

[elltrev]

Because football is a sport and not a science

Defoe is what he is, trying to apply formulas and intricate tactics to a free flowing entity with infinite variables like a game of football is virtually meaningless. All you have done is to quote jargon, not explained anything, to anyone but the wholly ignorant. Football hasn't changed so significantly in the last 50 years beyond tactical tinkering, more often based on on the resources available to a given manager, rather than a sea change in idealism and the ebb and flow of the game has only improved because of diets, training regimes and the athleticism of players generally.

My complaint is the continual soul searching on this board for reasons to criticise Defoe for his (supposed) flaws and faults and the lad just keeps on scoring. Must tinkle you lot off beyond reason.

Its a bit like the bee thing. That science has proved that aerodynamcally a bee should be incapable of flight. Its just that someone forgot to tell the bee.

Keep making it up though, it makes me laugh.

Oh and the looking in depth thing, I think a lot have people have the telescope the wrong way round - and the scientist remark was a lie.

This isn't a personal issue. its a general issue and the thrust of my argument is that people try too hard to knock the guy, but the fact is that he can score goals if he stays fit, match fit and and in a successful team that provides him with chances. He can't do that from the subs bench or the infirmary which has a bigger impact on his "goals for" stats, than his flaws in comparison to the guy you are all searching for.

You can come up with scientific formulas for boiling an egg, but its still just sticking an egg in really hot water for the right length of time.

Who is applying formulas or intricate tactics? Or quoting jargon? Or suggesting football is a science? My point was that Defoe hardly ever drops deeper to show for the ball, and that he doesn't get involved much in our build up play. That can make it harder for us to get the ball into the final third of the pitch than it is when we have someone like Adebayor showing for the ball more. It would be interesting to actually hear your opinion on this point, rather than you ignoring it and simply dismissing it as for the wholly ignorant. Or does what I've just said count as scientific jargon too?!

You clearly have longstanding issues with people who criticise Defoe unfairly in your view. I'm not trying to say that he's a bad player; in fact I think he is exceptionally talented in some ways. I like him. As you say, if people provide him with chances he will score goals. I just think that his game is limited by his lack of inclination to involve himself more in build-up play. And I think if he did do that more, he wouldn't have found himself on the subs bench so often throughout his career.

As you say yourself, this is a general issue - why not respond to the specific content of each post rather than pigeonholing it into a particular attitude and point of view that you find annoying, and then criticising that?

 

[WookieD]

Because football is a sport and not a science

Defoe is what he is, trying to apply formulas and intricate tactics to a free flowing entity with infinite variables like a game of football is virtually meaningless. All you have done is to quote jargon, not explained anything, to anyone but the wholly ignorant. Football hasn't changed so significantly in the last 50 years beyond tactical tinkering, more often based on on the resources available to a given manager, rather than a sea change in idealism and the ebb and flow of the game has only improved because of diets, training regimes and the athleticism of players generally.

My complaint is the continual soul searching on this board for reasons to criticise Defoe for his (supposed) flaws and faults and the lad just keeps on scoring. Must tinkle you lot off beyond reason.

Its a bit like the bee thing. That science has proved that aerodynamcally a bee should be incapable of flight. Its just that someone forgot to tell the bee.

Keep making it up though, it makes me laugh.

Oh and the looking in depth thing, I think a lot have people have the telescope the wrong way round - and the scientist remark was a lie.

This isn't a personal issue. its a general issue and the thrust of my argument is that people try too hard to knock the guy, but the fact is that he can score goals if he stays fit, match fit and and in a successful team that provides him with chances. He can't do that from the subs bench or the infirmary which has a bigger impact on his "goals for" stats, than his flaws in comparison to the guy you are all searching for.

You can come up with scientific formulas for boiling an egg, but its still just sticking an egg in really hot water for the right length of time.

Sorry Mick, you just sound like a grumpy sod here. I think pretty much everyone, fan of Defoe or not, recognises that he doesn't offer anything outside of the box. Problem with Defoe is, if he isn't scoring, he isn't generally doing anything at all. That was OK in the days of the poacher, but the whole team has to work in the modern game.

 

[mick cooper]

So people shouldn't discuss how potential changes to Defoe's game could impact him or the team?

You might as well discuss whether a death star will be created - but knock yourself out.

 

[mick cooper]

Who is applying formulas or intricate tactics? Or quoting jargon? Or suggesting football is a science? My point was that Defoe hardly ever drops deeper to show for the ball, and that he doesn't get involved much in our build up play. That can make it harder for us to get the ball into the final third of the pitch than it is when we have someone like Adebayor showing for the ball more. It would be interesting to actually hear your opinion on this point, rather than you ignoring it and simply dismissing it as for the wholly ignorant. Or does what I've just said count as scientific jargon too?!

You clearly have longstanding issues with people who criticise Defoe unfairly in your view. I'm not trying to say that he's a bad player; in fact I think he is exceptionally talented in some ways. I like him. As you say, if people provide him with chances he will score goals. I just think that his game is limited by his lack of inclination to involve himself more in build-up play. And I think if he did do that more, he wouldn't have found himself on the subs bench so often throughout his career.

As you say yourself, this is a general issue - why not respond to the specific content of each post rather than pigeonholing it into a particular attitude and point of view that you find annoying, and then criticising that?

oh right, you hop on the "mindless" bandwagon - and I have to justify myself? Righto.

I have longstanding issues? Who are you, Simund Feud? I think you will find that I have a compelling desire to take the mickey out of people who talk footballbabble - but if thats your thing, then enjoy yourself.

 

[mick cooper]

Sorry Mick, you just sound like a grumpy sod here. I think pretty much everyone, fan of Defoe or not, recognises that he doesn't offer anything outside of the box. Problem with Defoe is, if he isn't scoring, he isn't generally doing anything at all. That was OK in the days of the poacher, but the whole team has to work in the modern game.

Does it?
Until next season - or the next fad after that, or the next made up positional piece of nomenclature crawls out of the babblebox.

Oooh we've invented something perfectly round, we'll call it a centripetal velocity transposition wizzer

Err no Bill, its already called a wheel.............

not sure why you think I'm grumpy, this stuff is funny as fudge to me.

 

[elltrev]

oh right, you hop on the "mindless" bandwagon - and I have to justify myself? Righto.

I have longstanding issues? Who are you, Simund Feud? I think you will find that I have a compelling desire to take the mickey out of people who talk footballbabble - but if thats your thing, then enjoy yourself.

Wow... it's great to see you back on the forum.

Anyone else have any thoughts on Defoe?

 

[Crawley]

I'm trying to figure out when the rule forbidding free-speech and opinion on football became law here?

Jeez.........if you can't have an opinion, we may as well shut the internet.

 

[WookieD]

Does it?
Until next season - or the next fad after that, or the next made up positional piece of nomenclature crawls out of the babblebox.

Oooh we've invented something perfectly round, we'll call it a centripetal velocity transposition wizzer

Err no Bill, its already called a wheel.............

not sure why you think I'm grumpy, this stuff is funny as fudge to me.

Not really mate, any team that doesn't work tends to get rolled nowadays. It's not a fad, it has been that way for a long time now. Eriksson identified the problem with Defoe nearly a decade ago and tried to change his game and Jol followed suit. Whilst we were still playing two up top, I didn't see a problem with Defoe playing like he did, but times change.

Problem is, if you're going to play with one up top, a lot of the time you need that striker to hold onto the ball whilst the wingers get up the pitch. It isn't voodoo or psychobabble, it's just facts Mick.

If we were still playing two strikers, then Defoe's work rate wouldn't matter so much, but when he's isolated by himself for large periods of the game, it does. Sorry mate, but scoring less than a dozen goals in a season is only OK as a lone striker if you're creating assists or helping the team in other areas. Or are you happy with a lone striker whose scoring rate is middle at best? If Defoe had 20 goals in him, then it wouldn't be a problem, but the last time he came close to that was in 04/05 I think.

 

[mick cooper]

I'm trying to figure out when the rule forbidding free-speech and opinion on football became law here?

Jeez.........if you can't have an opinion, we may as well shut the internet.

just to check, does that include me having an opinion as well?

I was simply responding with my own views on an opinion expressed by elltrev, with my counterpoint. As you see, I said he's welcome to his opinion - but simply reserve the right to comment on it.

As he is more than welcome to engage me on mine, or condemn me for it as he sees fit.


or perhaps you would prefer that he stuck to your thought process, that he can put up an oinion or view, and that no-one is allowed to comment or provide an alternative view.

Tell me, as a mod do you prefer posters on this Spurs message board to continually carp and complain about the faults and deficits of Spurs players, or posters who support and stick up for them?

 

[Jordinho]

just to check, does that include me having an opinion as well?

I was simply responding with my own views on an opinion expressed by elltrev, with my counterpoint. As you see, I said he's welcome to his opinion - but simply reserve the right to comment on it.

As he is more than welcome to engage me on mine, or condemn me for it as he sees fit.


or perhaps you would prefer that he stuck to your thought process, that he can put up an oinion or view, and that no-one is allowed to comment or provide an alternative view.

Tell me, as a mod do you prefer posters on this Spurs message board to continually carp and complain about the faults and deficits of Spurs players, or posters who support and stick up for them?

How about actually responding to his points instead of trying to belittle him for having an opinion that doesn't fit with your views?

 

[mick cooper]

Not really mate, any team that doesn't work tends to get rolled nowadays. It's not a fad, it has been that way for a long time now. Eriksson identified the problem with Defoe nearly a decade ago and tried to change his game and Jol followed suit. Whilst we were still playing two up top, I didn't see a problem with Defoe playing like he did, but times change.

Problem is, if you're going to play with one up top, a lot of the time you need that striker to hold onto the ball whilst the wingers get up the pitch. It isn't voodoo or psychobabble, it's just facts Mick.

If we were still playing two strikers, then Defoe's work rate wouldn't matter so much, but when he's isolated by himself for large periods of the game, it does. Sorry mate, but scoring less than a dozen goals in a season is only OK as a lone striker if you're creating assists or helping the team in other areas. Or are you happy with a lone striker whose scoring rate is middle at best? If Defoe had 20 goals in him, then it wouldn't be a problem, but the last time he came close to that was in 04/05 I think.

Not sure where I gave the impression or ever suggested that Defoe can play as a lone striker.

Defoe and Adebayor, or Defoe and Sheringham, or Defoe and Gilzean, or Defoe and etc etc

He is what he is, is the message - trying to wish for, or mould him into something he's not is a waste of time, effort and debating energy.

and it wasn't what I was commenting on anyway, simply the tireless and tedious repetition of the same old arguments about how ineffective Defoe is, and he just keeps on plodding along and scoring goals. Whenever we lose or play badly, the guy gets it in the neck. If the midfield fails to feed him, he wont score - but its not his job to come looking for the ball and then creating his own chances - is it? The strikers who play that role are the Adebayors of this world, a different beast.

Instead of criticising him for what he doesn't do, why don't we consider the idea of utilising him in a set up that gets the best out of him? Playing a team with no creative players in the midfield, to drive the wide players who can feed Defoe was the mistake on Saturday, Sigurdsson was anonymous and Modric was missed so sorely it was painful to watch. Still I'm sure there's a cool and groovy set of new wheel expressions and formulas that explain it all.

Eriksson and his opinions, look where he is now, thats how much his opinions are worth.

 

[jts1882]

There is a difference between criticism just for the sake of it ("he's brick") and constructive criticism, making suggestions about how he could change his game and contribute more or fit in with our presumed new formation.

I hate the former but find the latter interesting.

 

[mick cooper]

How about actually responding to his points instead of trying to belittle him for having an opinion that doesn't fit with your views?

I did, if you can't understand the answers, maybe you didn't understand the questions.

Maybe you should concentrate on the quality of your posts, rather than flooding the board with the volume of them?

 

[mick cooper]

There is a difference between criticism just for the sake of it ("he's brick") and constructive criticism, making suggestions about how he could change his game and contribute more or fit in with our presumed new formation.

I hate the former but find the latter interesting.

Do you seriously think that Defoes game is going to change dramatically?

He could do a Robbie Keane, as he gets slower, he could drop back and get in the midfields way, and fudge up the team plan.

 

[Jordinho]

I did, if you can't understand the answers, maybe you didn't understand the questions.

Maybe you should concentrate on the quality of your posts, rather than flooding the board with the volume of them?

I was referring to your replies to Elltrev, which have not included anything constructive regarding Defoe. As for my posts, they tinkle all over yours.

 

[elltrev]

just to check, does that include me having an opinion as well?

I was simply responding with my own views on an opinion expressed by elltrev, with my counterpoint. As you see, I said he's welcome to his opinion - but simply reserve the right to comment on it.

As he is more than welcome to engage me on mine, or condemn me for it as he sees fit.


or perhaps you would prefer that he stuck to your thought process, that he can put up an oinion or view, and that no-one is allowed to comment or provide an alternative view.

Tell me, as a mod do you prefer posters on this Spurs message board to continually carp and complain about the faults and deficits of Spurs players, or posters who support and stick up for them?

In response to the first bolded bit:

Which is what exactly what I tried to do. You replied with "oh right, you hop on the "mindless" bandwagon - and I have to justify myself? Righto." Not exactly conducive to engaging each other on our opinions if you don't feel the need to justify yours or actually comment on the content of what I said.

Arguably you have done now, and shown that our opinions aren't really any different; shame you can't get to that point without all the brick in between.

 

[ArcspacE]

IBTL