• 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

OMT: Spurs vs Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.

Spurs Man of the Match

  • Total voters
    58
  • Poll closed .
thfcsteff said:
Sorry mate, could not disagree more. He is absolutely NOT that type of player and should never be used that way unless in an emergency (such as yesterday). His best position is in a narrow three through the middle or with at least the option to go left/right. He is absolutely never going to be a Palacios type player (they're nothing alike), ditto Parker.

One thing I find interesting is that despite the hammering you're giving him, we worked our way into a 3-0 advantage with him filling in that role. Our concessions (I think we'd agree) were largely down to other people/another person making mistakes.
Click to expand...

I think he does the defensive stuff really well, and some of those powerful runs caught the eye. My issue is that he was mainly in a 2 man midfield with Winks. You really cant afford to burst forward and lose the ball. Its no wonder they then waltzed through our midfield time and time again.

Its about managing the situation. At 3-0, 3-1, 3-2 his role should have been simply to break up play, gain possession and move it on to one of the forwards, and then find his shape again. If, later down the line he is picked as an AM then he can do things differently.
 
Benny_Lad said:
Son assisted the first goal and built the move to feed tripper for the 2nd goal. He played 56 mins and we were 2-0 up when he went off.

I don't know what people want from him some times!

I'm all for calling out players under performing but lets not just throw names out willy nilly!
Click to expand...

when you put it like that, maybe I was wrong about Son on Saturday
 
regarding Sissoko's marauding to the far touch line, obviously better things could happen, but at that point of the game with us completely under the cosh, it was the only thing we did which didn't result in the ball coming immediately back into the danger area

it had value in Hugo having time to catch his breath and reset the defence, we tried playing down the flanks with Davies and Tripps, we tried getting the ball into Kane to hold up, nothing else was sticking

it was stop start for us but it killed the momentum Wolves had built up too
 
Happy with the win. But we really made it difficult for ourselves with the 2 soft penalties we gave away. Thought we would get a big win after leading 3-0. Instead, it was really tense when they made it 3-2. We could have easily ended up losing this match as they had a goal wrongly ruled offside and missed many goal scoring chances as well. This match shows, we need to improve our defending if we want to stay in top 4 race this season.

Credit to Lamela, Moura and Kane for the goals. Lamela was easily our best player as he was involved in all the 3 goals. He scored a brilliant individual goal after being assisted by Son. It was brilliant the way Lamela controlled the ball on his chest and passed the ball into the net with his weaker right foot. Lamela's tackle helped us for our second goal while he also set up the goal for Kane. It is great to see Lamela continuing his great goal scoring form this season. Good to see Moura scoring the second goal with a perfect header after a perfect cross by Trippier. It was great to see Kane scoring his first goal in 4 matches after being set up by Lamela. Too bad Kane couldn't score more despite testing the goalie with 2 or 3 shots. Son came on to replace the injured Dembele and did well to assist the goal for Lamela but thought he was poor apart from that. But it was really strange to see substitute Son being substituted by Eriksen in the second half. It reminded me of how substitute Ghaly threw away his shirt after being substituted in 2007 ! Thought no Spurs manager will ever replace a substitute after that ! Eriksen didn't have much time to make an impact after replacing Son.

Our midfield had a mixed match. Too bad Dembele got injured so early before being replaced by Son. Sissoko and Winks played well in the first half but failed to control the midfield in the second half. Not sure why Wanyama or Dier was not even on the bench as we badly needed a defensive midfielder in the second half. Sissoko worked hard but was again let down by poor finishing. Sissoko really should have shot on goal when he had the chance in the second half but was too slow to react.

Our defence have been conceding too many soft goals this season. And it continued in this match. It is always risky starting a young defender in a league match. Foyth's lack of experience showed as he conceded 2 soft penalties. Trippier should get the blame for the first penalty as he tried to showboat instead of clearing the ball and end up losing the ball which resulted in Foyth conceding the penalty. Foyth also should have been more carefull after that but end up conceding another soft penalty. This match shows Foyth, just like Sanchez, still have long way to go before becoming a regular in the league. Credit to Lloris for pulling of a few good saves to stop Wolves.

It is good to see us get back into winning form by beating Wolves. Just wish we had won more comfortably instead of putting us into tensed mode in the second half. Let's hope Vertonghen will come back soon in defence as we badly need to improve our defending if we want to stay in top 4 race this season.
 
Spurs7891 said:
But it was really strange to see substitute Son being substituted by Eriksen in the second half. It reminded me of how substitute Ghaly threw away his shirt after being substituted in 2007 ! Thought no Spurs manager will ever replace a substitute after that ! Eriksen didn't have much time to make an impact after replacing Son..
Click to expand...

Agreed. The answer that everyone on here had was that a) Son and Eriksen were deliberately both left with enough in the tank to play tomorrow, that b) we were unbalanced under pressure and so needed to swap a forward midfielder for a deeper-lying one, and c) Son wasn't doing that well.

But if a) was the case - and b) should have been foreseeable - then surely Son was the wrong sub in the first place. An injury effectively loses you a planned sub. Subbing a sub then means you've used up two subs! That's pretty much guaranteed to make the last twenty minutes rather hairy.

If Son wasn't the right option for the whole match, then perhaps Sanchez and the shift to a back three could have been the immediate response, with Eriksen and Son both coming on later to bring some fresh impetus to the game.
 
Last edited:
Benny_Lad said:
Son assisted the first goal and built the move to feed tripper for the 2nd goal. He played 56 mins and we were 2-0 up when he went off.

I don't know what people want from him some times!

I'm all for calling out players under performing but lets not just throw names out willy nilly!
Click to expand...

Assisted by accident, that ball wasn't meant for lamela.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Agreed. The answer that everyone on here had was that a) Son and Eriksen were deliberately both left with enough in the tank to play tomorrow, that b) we were unbalanced under pressure and so needed to swap a forward midfielder for a deeper-lying one, and c) Son wasn't doing that well.

But if a) was the case - and b) should have been foreseeable - then surely Son was the wrong sub in the first place. An injury effectively loses you a planned sub. Subbing a sub then means you've used up two subs! That's pretty much guaranteed to make the last twenty minutes rather hairy.

If Son wasn't the right option for the whole match, then perhaps Sanchez and the shift to a back three could have been the immediate response, with Eriksen and Son both coming on later to bring some fresh impetus to the game.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if your out of the U.K. but over here on sky they said it was part of a plan that they thought had been pre agreed to save them both... not sure how they would know of course
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I don’t know if your out of the U.K. but over here on sky they said it was part of a plan that they thought had been pre agreed to save them both... not sure how they would know of course
Click to expand...

Yes, here in sunny Poundland like the rest of us. And I don't see how it could have been a pre-agreed plan, unless Moussa's injury was all part of it. In which case, the level of deviousness escalates to fiendish.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
An injury effectively loses you a planned sub. Subbing a sub then means you've used up two subs! That's pretty much guaranteed to make the last twenty minutes rather hairy.
Click to expand...
The time that Son came on meant he was effectively playing the from the start, i am not sure the logic holds up after that.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Agreed. The answer that everyone on here had was that a) Son and Eriksen were deliberately both left with enough in the tank to play tomorrow, that b) we were unbalanced under pressure and so needed to swap a forward midfielder for a deeper-lying one, and c) Son wasn't doing that well.

But if a) was the case - and b) should have been foreseeable - then surely Son was the wrong sub in the first place. An injury effectively loses you a planned sub. Subbing a sub then means you've used up two subs! That's pretty much guaranteed to make the last twenty minutes rather hairy.

If Son wasn't the right option for the whole match, then perhaps Sanchez and the shift to a back three could have been the immediate response, with Eriksen and Son both coming on later to bring some fresh impetus to the game.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the intention was to put the game to bed, then see how he was going.

Son for Dembele was an explicitly attacking move, and with Son on we went to 2-0 up and relatively comfortable.

Im not sure anyone saw such an implosion coming (and despite which, they still didnt score from open play!)

Son on - game won - Son off, isnt the worst idea.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
The obstacle to the logic is that Dembele would probably have been subbed anyway. Otherwise, it's entirely sound.
Click to expand...
you are effectively choosing a new starting formation, he has played the full game. Its a sunk cost after this you pick the best subs you can at that point.

who is the best player to play and win - dembele
who is the best player if dembele is not fit - Son
it just so happened that option two was a few minutes into the game rather than from the start.

is separate to

who is best to take off to get the win.
 
Last edited:
r-u-s-x said:
you are effectively choosing a new starting formation, he has played the full game. Its a sunk cost after this you pick the best subs you can at that point.

who is the best player to play and win - dembele
who is the best player if dembele is not fit - Son
it just so happened that option two was a few minutes into the game rather than from the start.

is separate to

who is best to take off to get the win.
Click to expand...

But "who is the best player if Dembele is not fit" could easily have a different answer depending on whether you have three or two subs available, especially when Son can only be played if he is hooked after 50 minutes. So the situation a few minutes (well, seven IIRC) into the game is not the same as the situation from the start.

I'm boring myself now, though, so I'll give up on this.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
But "who is the best player if Dembele is not fit" could easily have a different answer depending on whether you have three or two subs available, especially when Son can only be played if he is hooked after 50 minutes. So the situation a few minutes (well, seven IIRC) into the game is not the same as the situation from the start.

I'm boring myself now, though, so I'll give up on this.
Click to expand...
ok

who is the best player to play and win - dembele
who is the best player if dembele is not fit and we only have two subs - Son
it just so happened that option two was a few minutes into the game rather than from the start.

is separate to

who is best to take off to get the win.
 
Ade's folks are ok really said:
I too am certain his pass was meant for Tripps out wide. If it wasn't then it really was a poor pass to Lamela, given what it left him having to do to bring it under control.

Sonny got it right though for Moura's goal ;)
Click to expand...


It was a metre or two out from being perfect for Lamela, but about 10-15 metres short from being perfect for Trippier.....but you think it was for the latter?

Just concentrate on the weight of the pass, It only had one target imo. Also, there would have been no point in recycling out wide when Lamela had already made a more dangerous run (Son is decent you know - he will have seen this!)

Watch the side on view and you will see how far wide Trips was and that it was never for him.

**Edit - I've just watched the side on again. Its so obvious. Its a tiny little clipped pass, just shy of being perfect for Lamela. Would have dropped 15 metres short of Tripper and there was a defender in the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back