OMT: Spurs v Fulham

[alekaras]

Consider this: we finished 3rd last season with a load of injuries. Now, granted, we're starting the season with Wanyama and Winks out. But if they get fit within the next couple of months, we'll have a stronger squad than we did last season. Add to that a bedded in Moura and a fit Lamela. And perhaps a Rose at 80% of his 2016 self. And to top it off, a cohesive team that has played together for a couple of seasons and players entering their prime.

And we really think that a signing, any signing, would have made more of a difference than the above?

I think the "no signings keep all your players" approach might actually work out quite nicely.

Now to get this defense back to 2016/17 levels, although it must be said that the two goals we conceded thus far have been from inch-perfect crosses.

 

[Baleforce]

I think the "no signings keep all your players" approach might actually work out quite nicely.

Now to get this defense back to 2016/17 levels, although it must be said that the two goals we conceded thus far have been from inch-perfect crosses.

Everyone will be trying it next season.

 

[alekaras]

Everyone will be trying it next season.

Once again blazing new trails.

 

[parklane1]

Maybe. On the other hand, keeping him fit and sharp, and introducing him every week on 60 minutes might win us the league.

I think that is the way to get the best out of him, he has injury/fitness problems and his performances (being brought on in the second half) in the last two games shows he still has a part to play.

 

[Rorschach]

Did Fulham change their setup at halftime? I couldn't see the change but they swamped us for the 1st 15mins or so. We were controlling the game pretty well in the first half so whatever changed it worked for them.

 

[Bullet]

Did Fulham change their setup at halftime? I couldn't see the change but they swamped us for the 1st 15mins or so. We were controlling the game pretty well in the first half so whatever changed it worked for them.

I think they pushed forward a bit more and believed in themselves and 'went for it' and closed us down, at the same time we dropped off the gas slightly and didn't come out at full whack... I don't know if there was a specific tactical thing, or just a general belief and determination instilled by Jokanovic, whilst Spurs seemed slightly complacent

 

[Legohamster]

Watching the highlights now as was watching at work so missed some bits.

fudge me, that mitrovic miss was shocking

 

[Spur of the moment]

Did Fulham change their setup at halftime? I couldn't see the change but they swamped us for the 1st 15mins or so. We were controlling the game pretty well in the first half so whatever changed it worked for them.

Not one for tactics /formations but did notice that Sessegnon switched flanks.

Assumed it was because they would have been given a rollicking at HT for sitting back and letting us play first half. They certainly got in amongst us for about 15-20 mins after the restart in a way they hadn't previously. Fortunately we managed to wrest back control once Dembele came on, then tightened our grip even further through Lamela's energetic press and penetrating runs.

 

[StephenH]

Dembele was immense and was apparently at the "bottom of the diamond" according to Jokanovic.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

I think the role as game closer suits us and him, like the closing pitcher in baseball comes on the get the team over the line.

 

[Moby]

Dembele was immense and was apparently at the "bottom of the diamond" according to Jokanovic.

Heard that - couldn’t for the life of me work out how it was a diamond!! We had 1 holding, plus 4 attacking midfielders!

...................Dembele..................
..Moura.....Dele........Lamela....Eriksen
.....................Kane......................

 

[Pirate55]

Things I took away from the Fulham game:

1. Delight at the result and confident about another successful season
2. Sessegnon played most of the game on the right - I thought he was a left wingback
3. Moura will come good this season. Great to have him, Son and Lamela vying for places.
4. Dembele and Lamela are ideally suited as impact subs - a job they did particularly well on Saturday
5. Poch made great subs at the right time (I actually called for Dembele about 5 mins before he brought him on)
6. The change of formation (and Dembele) really helped us wrest back control of a midfield battle we were losing at the start of the second half
7. Our corners (and crossing generally ) were sh!t. I thought we had learned at Saudi Sportswashing Machine to give our players a run at the ball, but here we reverted again to massing our players on the six yard box. Time for the Love Train methinks
8. The Wembley atmosphere was pretty dire for most of the game.
9. The result was a fitting tribute to Gilly - the King of White Hart Lane - and gg Gilly's own Dad RIP.
10. Onwards to OT in fine fettle. Hope there is no backlash from them after the Brighton result today.
11. Tripper must take free-kicks in shooting range in future. Spectacular goal!!!!
COYS

 

[thfcsteff]

Heard that - couldn’t for the life of me work out how it was a diamond!! We had 1 holding, plus 4 attacking midfielders!

...................Dembele..................
..Moura.....Dele........Lamela....Eriksen
.....................Kane......................

Yup, I thought it was a 4–1-4-1 myself? Unless he considered the diamond Dembele deep, Lamela top, with Moura and Eriksen lookin to find Alli and Kane? Still looked more 4-1-4-1 to me?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Spur of the moment]

Things I took away from the Fulham game:


7. Our corners (and crossing generally ) were sh!t. I thought we had learned at Saudi Sportswashing Machine to give our players a run at the ball, but here we reverted again to massing our players on the six yard box. Time for the Love Train methinks

Whoah!!! You've spent the last couple of seasons if not more banging on (and on and on) about the need for Poch to vary our corners and I have certainly agreed with you to an extent.

So I'm surprised to see you are STILL complaining now things are definitely being mixed up a bit more. For a start Trippier was taking them from the right instead of Eriksen and I noticed he sent a great one early on to the far post first half created a decent chance. Then there was one short corner from him to Eriksen second half that admittedly did not come off but at least it was a variation on the usual to the near post.

As to our crosses I disagree that they were mostly crap. Tripps was constantly sending in low first-time balls aiming to get in behind their defence across the face of the goal just like he did during the WC. Yes, tbf a few of them WERE poor but you cannot expect perfection every time and some were excellent.

And wasn't it great that Poch showed he was willing to learn from what we witnessed at the WC by not only setting us up to exploit Trippier's crossing to the full in the first half - even if it did not fully pay off - but also by awarding him Eriksen's berth with FKs outside the box? What a great strike that was!

One final point. I seem to recall that one of our goals last week aome from corner. So things do seem to be changing for the better at last, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Robspur12]

7. Our corners (and crossing generally ) were sh!t. I thought we had learned at Saudi Sportswashing Machine to give our players a run at the ball, but here we reverted again to massing our players on the six yard box. Time for the Love Train methinks

The only bit of your post I disagree with. Thought Trippier fizzed in some beautiful crosses. We just need to be more alive to them which we will be as the season progresses.

 

[Spursman]

When you aren't the best team, you look at the best team and see what they do well. City really flood the area when attacking, lots of options when crosses are coming in. We need Kane, Dele, Eriken, Moura, ALL in and around the box when the ball is coming in. At times we only have Kane and dele. Do this and Trippier will have more options to cross the ball successfully.

 

[Pirate55]

Whoah!!! You've spent the last couple of seasons if not more banging on (and on and on) about the need for Poch to vary our corners and I have certainly agreed with you to an extent.

So I'm surprised to see you are STILL complaining now things are definitely being mixed up a bit more. For a start Trippier was taking them from the right instead of Eriksen and I noticed he sent a great one early on to the far post first half created a decent chance. Then there was one short corner from him to Eriksen second half that admittedly did not come off but at least it was a variation on the usual to the near post.

As to our crosses I disagree that they were mostly crap. Tripps was constantly sending in low first-time balls aiming to get in behind their defence across the face of the goal just like he did during the WC. Yes, tbf a few of them WERE poor but you cannot expect perfection every time and some were excellent.

And wasn't it great that Poch showed he was willing to learn from what we witnessed at the WC by not only setting us up to exploit Trippier's crossing to the full in the first half - even if it did not fully pay off - but also by awarding him Eriksen's berth with FKs outside the box? What a great strike that was!

One final point. I seem to recall that one of our goals last week aome from corner. So things do seem to be changing for the better at last, wouldn't you agree?

Some fair points. My principal criticism regarding corners is our players starting positions. Against Saudi Sportswashing Machine, we appeared to have learned from our inadequacies last season (and taken a lead out of the World Cup where many goals were scored from corners).

At Saudi Sportswashing Machine our players ran and attacked the ball in. This resulted in two of our best three attempts on goal - and actually resulted in Verts first goal in yonks.

However, against Fulham, almost all our players were bobbing around the 6 yard box, thereby making it virtually impossible to score - especially from outswinging corners. I was at Wembley and it was incredibly frustrating!

Re Trippier, he made some great runs and got onto some fantastic attacking positions, but he invariably couldn’t find a white shirt, with most crossed balls easily cut out by Fulham’s first line of defence.

 

[scaramanga]

When you aren't the best team, you look at the best team and see what they do well. City really flood the area when attacking, lots of options when crosses are coming in. We need Kane, Dele, Eriken, Moura, ALL in and around the box when the ball is coming in. At times we only have Kane and dele. Do this and Trippier will have more options to cross the ball successfully.

I agree. we should definitely copy City's approach to crosses:

Crosses Goals Crosses/goal
Emirates Marketing Project 18 106 0.170
Arsenal 15 74 0.203
Liverpool 20 84 0.238
Manchester United 20 68 0.294
Tottenham 22 74 0.297
Chelsea 20 62 0.323
Leicester 20 56 0.357
Everton 17 44 0.386
West Ham 19 48 0.396
Saudi Sportswashing Machine 16 39 0.410
Crystal Palace 19 45 0.422
Bournemouth 19 45 0.422
Watford 19 44 0.432
Stoke 16 35 0.457
Burnley 19 36 0.528
Brighton 18 34 0.529
Southampton 21 37 0.568
Swansea 18 28 0.643
West Bromwich Albion 21 31 0.677
Huddersfield 20 28 0.714

 

[Spur of the moment]

I agree. we should definitely copy City's approach to crosses:

Crosses Goals Crosses/goal
Emirates Marketing Project 18 106 0.170
Arsenal 15 74 0.203
Liverpool 20 84 0.238
Manchester United 20 68 0.294
Tottenham 22 74 0.297
Chelsea 20 62 0.323
Leicester 20 56 0.357
Everton 17 44 0.386
West Ham 19 48 0.396
Saudi Sportswashing Machine 16 39 0.410
Crystal Palace 19 45 0.422
Bournemouth 19 45 0.422
Watford 19 44 0.432
Stoke 16 35 0.457
Burnley 19 36 0.528
Brighton 18 34 0.529
Southampton 21 37 0.568
Swansea 18 28 0.643
West Bromwich Albion 21 31 0.677
Huddersfield 20 28 0.714

Please clarify: is the first the average no. of crosses by each club per game? And the last the average no. of goals scored per game from crosses? If so it seems odd that the poorer the team, the more likely they are to score from a cross. Or have I totally misunderstood?

 

[scaramanga]

Please clarify: is the first the average no. of crosses by each club per game? And the last the average no. of goals scored per game from crosses? If so it seems odd that the poorer the team, the more likely they are to score from a cross. Or have I totally misunderstood?

It's total goals, crosses per games (purely because these were the two easiest stats to find) and crosses per goal.

It essentially shows that the better teams don't rely on crosses to score. Something people have known for a long time, yet others still insist upon the importance of crossing.