*** OMT Tottenham Hotspur v Sunderland, Saturday 7th December KO 17:30***

[Mumorn]

First goal:

Second goal:

Lloris delight:

 

[Poker Boy]

Also well done to the Spurs supporters at the game , you were excellent . =D>

This

=D>

 

[BrainOfLevy]

we had the opportunity to counter, but didn't take it.

So we could score goals, but deliberately choose not to in order to 'increase our intensity' in the second half.

I think AVB does trust our team not to commit individual errors. But even if they do, we can usually come back from a goal down and did it a fair few times last season.

Se we are completely fine with going 1 goal down and then trusting in our 'higher intensity' to score more than the opposition in the second half, even though our entire team has just one more goal than Luis Suarez alone this season and even though we evidently can't finish for toffee even when we do make chances.

It's so we can attack the opposition with increased intensity when they are at their weakest.

Masterful strategy: "Lads, here's the plan. Go one nil down as soon as you can. Don't take any counter-attacking opportunities in the first half, even if they present themselves to you on a plate: we'll wait for the second. Once the second half begins go out there and be intense, so we can score two goals to their one." Essentially, throw away a half and start from one nil down so we can 'attack with intensity' in the second half.

There are an awful lot of illogical points to this 'strategy', surely? We have 90 minutes to score as many goals as we can. We basically throw the first forty five minutes away and wait for the second forty-five to start playing. We have chances to score goals in the first half, but we deliberately bumble along to avoid scoring them because we're so intent on 'increasing the intensity' in the second half. We're even okay with starting from 1-0 down after 45 minutes.

That is a very, very strange strategy to pursue. Flat out illogical, actually. I don't think AVB is a fool: far from it, I think he's one of the most intelligent men at the club. Ergo, I cannot believe that, having looked at the countless individual errors we've committed this season, he says 'no, don't worry, THIS GAME will be the one where we won't make any'. I cannot believe that, having seen the opprobrium the fans, the media and the wider footballing public have heaped on our lack of goals, he says 'Also, we will throw away the first half so we can be INTENSE in the second'. And I cannot believe that he believes that we can overcome both our individual errors and our lack of cohesion in front of goal to regularly reverse 1-0 deficits like we did today. Cannot believe it.

Yes, we probably play better in the second half: we run faster, pass faster, and make better choices. That is probably because AVB turns things around at half-time after regularly lethargic performances, in all probability by shouting loudly. It is likely no because we decide to surrender one entire half of football to play with some 'intensity' later on.

We had the opportunity to counter, but didn't want to commit as many men as possible forward too early in the game and get caught in an end to end slug-fest which WILL sap our ability to raise our game later on when it matters. We wanted to establish control. To play the game on our terms. Simply going out there to score as many as possible as soon as possible sounds very glamorous and idealistic, but it also sounds very old school and doesn't allow us to plan for an approach to a game to give us as many advantages as possible.

Just to be clear, it doesn't mean 'not trying to score'. It also doesn't mean 'try and go one down' either, so I don't know where you get that from. It's about establishing control to give us a base to exploit the opposition when at their weakest and our strongest. It isn't illogical, it's the most logical thing you can do.

 

[DubaiSpur]

We had the opportunity to counter, but didn't want to commit as many men as possible forward too early in the game and get caught in an end to end slug-fest which WILL sap our ability to raise our game later on when it matters. We wanted to establish control. To play the game on our terms. Simply going out there to score as many as possible as soon as possible sounds very glamorous and idealistic, but it also sounds very old school and doesn't allow us to plan for an approach to a game to give us as many advantages as possible.

Just to be clear, it doesn't mean 'not trying to score'. It also doesn't mean 'try and go one down' either, so I don't know where you get that from. It's about establishing control to give us a base to exploit the opposition when at their weakest and our strongest. It isn't illogical, it's the most logical thing you can do.

I might have been too aggressive with that last post of mine. I apologize, it's needlessly antagonistic. Still, I really don't see the point in what you say. We have established that we are very, very prone to committing individual errors that either lead to us conceding or lead to us missing gilt-edged chances. It's fine to try to control the game when you can keep concentrating for ninety minutes, make the right decisions when in possession and finish the chances you get. It isn't fine when you miss chances galore, concede easily preventable goals and lose concentration repeatedly.

That strategy you mention would lead to a very high risk of us conceding a goal before half-time ,which will mean coming back from a 1-0 deficit in the second half, which will mean finishing at least two of our chances. It happened last week, it happened this week, it will not happen every week. Isn't it far, far better to attack with intensity from the off, build up a lead and then sit back and control the game in the second half against tiring opposition? Even if we do concede goals through errors, we will at least have built up a lead to work from, or failing that, wouldn't have to start from 1-0 down more often than not.

That 'preserve your energy' strategy is logical if your team is a focused, cohesive, ruthless one. We are none of those things, and it would be folly for AVB to try to impose that strategy on us at this stage in our development: we won't do well under it. And I think AVB knows this, or at least, I hope he does. Hence me chalking that first half down to lethargy or tiredness more than anything else.

 

[Eatmyownbrainwithaspork]

Was sat in the North Stand with the Mackams but just underneath the mighty, mighty away support - sang hearts out all game ... thought we controlled pretty much all of it and were unlucky not to get more. Defoe and Holtby did well - just a lot of energy - Capoue put in a couple of crucial blocks which turned into attacks and Dembele glided past people constantly... Sunderland fans thought Lee Mason had been bought but I'll MOTD to see if they really had any complaints. Not such a bad few days for us. Happy.

 

[paxtonwolf]

First goal:

Second goal:

Lloris delight:

Any of the AVB celebration right at the final whistle??

 

[paxtonwolf]

No match analysis from me only to say that I'm loving the effort AVB and the boys are putting in . Sure, there's plenty to be worked on and no doubt there will be other bad runs along the way but I do believe in the methodology of the coach. We will get better and soon enough ( hopefully), we will give one or two of our opponents a good hiding and then we will all value the importance of the confidence factor. Patience is required.

Also well done to the Spurs supporters at the game , you were excellent . =D>

Spot on. Fantastic today

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I might have been too aggressive with that last post of mine. I apologize, it's needlessly antagonistic. Still, I really don't see the point in what you say. We have established that we are very, very prone to committing individual errors that either lead to us conceding or lead to us missing gilt-edged chances. It's fine to try to control the game when you can keep concentrating for ninety minutes, make the right decisions when in possession and finish the chances you get. It isn't fine when you miss chances galore, concede easily preventable goals and lose concentration repeatedly.

That strategy you mention would lead to a very high risk of us conceding a goal before half-time ,which will mean coming back from a 1-0 deficit in the second half, which will mean finishing at least two of our chances. It happened last week, it happened this week, it will not happen every week. Isn't it far, far better to attack with intensity from the off, build up a lead and then sit back and control the game in the second half against tiring opposition? Even if we do concede goals through errors, we will at least have built up a lead to work from, or failing that, wouldn't have to start from 1-0 down more often than not.

That 'preserve your energy' strategy is logical if your team is a focused, cohesive, ruthless one. We are none of those things, and it would be folly for AVB to try to impose that strategy on us at this stage in our development: we won't do well under it. And I think AVB knows this, or at least, I hope he does. Hence me chalking that first half down to lethargy or tiredness more than anything else.

We have been using his strategy for most of the season, when we had a great defensive record, and a lot of clean sheets. I don't think we are particularly more prone to errors than any other team, we just hit a bit of a bad patch on that score lately.

The point is this: at the start of the match, let's say both teams are at 100%. We could go at this 100% team with our 100% team. We might do ok. We might score. We might win the game. Fair enough. But we also might get sucked into an end to end kind of match that we can't control, where we have left too many gaps open for exploitation and where we won't be able to raise to that same level for the next game, where we may start at 90%. We may then win that game too, but if we keep doing it, we will get to a point where we simply can't raise our level and we can't pick up the points we want at some point in the season (see season 11/12, or even the one before that).

So we could go 100% vs 100%, and we will win a good amount of games. However it can also be quite difficult to break down a team that is in peak condition for the match. It would probably get us top 6 every year because we have a top 6 squad. What I am saying is, we need to be cleverer about it because we need to overachieve. We need consistency. We need to manage our exertions so that we aren't at the mercy of other teams. Those teams should be at the mercy of us. So rather than go at a 100% team with our 100%, we suck it out of them. We control the game, we make them chase shadows, we make them think that they can break forward and have a chance, and we wear them down. When the second half starts it's a 90% team vs a 60% team. They try to start the second half as they did the first, which wears them down to 50% while we are still on 85%. It's at this point we flick the switch. We can run on them all day long. We can exploit one v one situations because we are better conditioned. We have that extra bit of acceleration that creates the opportunity. We can run from midfield without being tracked because we are more alert. We can get in behind the defence because they are losing concentration. We hit them for one goal, then two, and the opposition doesn't know what to do. If they were still matching our condition, we would find it harder to find these advantages, certainly later on in a hard season.

We can then see out the rest of the game making them chase shadows again. We've gone down to 70% after ramping up the pressure for the goals, and they are now on 40%. By the time the next game rolls around, we can do the same thing again. Our recovery is swifter, and we can get those energy levels we need to exploit the situations that will give us goals.

If we are playing a team like Sunderland, we could score 1, then two, and then spend the rest of the game maintaining our condition and preserving it that way round. But what is more likely to be effective? Ramping up the pressure against a team with much worse condition, or trying to ramp it up against a team that can match you ball for ball? It's the former. Of course we can concede goals playing the way we do, and of course going all out from the off can win matches, but I would suggest this is the smart play. This approach, over a season, will win us points and give us the consistency we need to overachieve. Not every team can do it. You need adaptable players, you need players that can make good decisions and you need players with the mental capacity to switch approaches within the game. But we can, and if there's anything that's going to see us reach our targets, I believe it is this.

I bet you vs Anzhi we see a performance that most people will call slow, dull, turgid etc. But it won't be because they aren't motivated. They will do a professional job, and do what is asked of them. And that will be to make Anzhi chase shadows and not get sucked in to a battle they can't control.

 

[DHSF]

I thought Defoe and Lennon were very very good today. Defoe looked good against Fulham too. He, at the moment, is looking better than Soldado (but not to say he isnt quality but that Defoe is a man 'on form' without the goals).

 

[Jordinho]

Was sat in the North Stand with the Mackams but just underneath the mighty, mighty away support - sang hearts out all game ... thought we controlled pretty much all of it and were unlucky not to get more. Defoe and Holtby did well - just a lot of energy - Capoue put in a couple of crucial blocks which turned into attacks and Dembele glided past people constantly... Sunderland fans thought Lee Mason had been bought but I'll MOTD to see if they really had any complaints. Not such a bad few days for us. Happy.

We got a few throw ins and free kicks in non dangerous areas that they weren't happy about, most of them correct decisions, but he was generally appalling for both teams when it came to the bigger calls.

 

[diego_maradona]

We got a few throw ins and free kicks in non dangerous areas that they weren't happy about, most of them correct decisions, but he was generally appalling for both teams when it came to the bigger calls.

The pen was nailed on

 

[paxtonwolf]

The pen was nailed on

Yes we got away with that one. Although in fairness we are owed a few decisions.

As some have suggested, Dawson got fouled in the first half but as others have pointed out, its very rare, if at all, that a defender gets penalised for holding like that, whether thats right or wrong

 

[Cochise]

The ref was rubbish from start to finish. Dembele had players climbing all over him and pulling him back and the didn't blow for a single one.

 

[onlyme]

Should have been 5-1

Agree. Best display of the season. JD so unlucky.

 

[Rorschach]

The ref was rubbish from start to finish. Dembele had players climbing all over him and pulling him back and the didn't blow for a single one.

Yep there seemed to be an inordinate amount of shirt pulling and pulling back in that match which went unpunished, and not just against Dembele. It was happening al over the pitch actually. Ref was pure ****e.

 

[onlyme]

I thought the ref was OK but FFS...5 minutes ET??

 

[glorygloryeze]

We have been using his strategy for most of the season, when we had a great defensive record, and a lot of clean sheets. I don't think we are particularly more prone to errors than any other team, we just hit a bit of a bad patch on that score lately.

The point is this: at the start of the match, let's say both teams are at 100%. We could go at this 100% team with our 100% team. We might do ok. We might score. We might win the game. Fair enough. But we also might get sucked into an end to end kind of match that we can't control, where we have left too many gaps open for exploitation and where we won't be able to raise to that same level for the next game, where we may start at 90%. We may then win that game too, but if we keep doing it, we will get to a point where we simply can't raise our level and we can't pick up the points we want at some point in the season (see season 11/12, or even the one before that).

So we could go 100% vs 100%, and we will win a good amount of games. However it can also be quite difficult to break down a team that is in peak condition for the match. It would probably get us top 6 every year because we have a top 6 squad. What I am saying is, we need to be cleverer about it because we need to overachieve. We need consistency. We need to manage our exertions so that we aren't at the mercy of other teams. Those teams should be at the mercy of us. So rather than go at a 100% team with our 100%, we suck it out of them. We control the game, we make them chase shadows, we make them think that they can break forward and have a chance, and we wear them down. When the second half starts it's a 90% team vs a 60% team. They try to start the second half as they did the first, which wears them down to 50% while we are still on 85%. It's at this point we flick the switch. We can run on them all day long. We can exploit one v one situations because we are better conditioned. We have that extra bit of acceleration that creates the opportunity. We can run from midfield without being tracked because we are more alert. We can get in behind the defence because they are losing concentration. We hit them for one goal, then two, and the opposition doesn't know what to do. If they were still matching our condition, we would find it harder to find these advantages, certainly later on in a hard season.

We can then see out the rest of the game making them chase shadows again. We've gone down to 70% after ramping up the pressure for the goals, and they are now on 40%. By the time the next game rolls around, we can do the same thing again. Our recovery is swifter, and we can get those energy levels we need to exploit the situations that will give us goals.

If we are playing a team like Sunderland, we could score 1, then two, and then spend the rest of the game maintaining our condition and preserving it that way round. But what is more likely to be effective? Ramping up the pressure against a team with much worse condition, or trying to ramp it up against a team that can match you ball for ball? It's the former. Of course we can concede goals playing the way we do, and of course going all out from the off can win matches, but I would suggest this is the smart play. This approach, over a season, will win us points and give us the consistency we need to overachieve. Not every team can do it. You need adaptable players, you need players that can make good decisions and you need players with the mental capacity to switch approaches within the game. But we can, and if there's anything that's going to see us reach our targets, I believe it is this.

I bet you vs Anzhi we see a performance that most people will call slow, dull, turgid etc. But it won't be because they aren't motivated. They will do a professional job, and do what is asked of them. And that will be to make Anzhi chase shadows and not get sucked in to a battle they can't control.

This post deserves its own thread. Lots and LOTS of food for thought. MODS can these exchanges between BOL and DubaiSpurs be put into the official AVB thread?

Also anyone like to comment on the above? Fascinating, whatever viewpoint you come from (though I did start to ask myself whether BOL is actually AVB..)

 

[billyiddo]

I thought the ref was OK but FFS...5 minutes ET??

yeah where the **** did that come from?!?

 

[SteveAWOL]

This post deserves its own thread. Lots and LOTS of food for thought. MODS can these exchanges between BOL and DubaiSpurs be put into the official AVB thread?

Also anyone like to comment on the above? Fascinating, whatever viewpoint you come from (though I did start to ask myself whether BOL is actually AVB..)

I am beginning to think that BOL is in fact employed by AVB as an online evangelist, preaching the gospel as written in his sacred training manual to the heathen masses... [-o<

 

[metalgear]

I thought Defoe and Lennon were very very good today. Defoe looked good against Fulham too. He, at the moment, is looking better than Soldado (but not to say he isnt quality but that Defoe is a man 'on form' without the goals).

i thought defoe was very poor! its not for hitting the post and crossbar which were half chances, he was presented two clear cut opportunities -a through ball and a cross and couldn't finish 1-on-1 and didn't bother trying to reach the ball assuming that the defender would get it. if you think about it 4 gilt-edged chances - no goals = poor poor showing.

i agree about lennon - he adds an unpredictability that we missed, applying himself well in both in attack and defence. Glad to see the little man for making his presence felt in 2 successive games.