• 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

Taking stock: are we heading for another Chelski style car-crash ?

A bit like England our players are not good enough.

We need a LB and RB. Maybe ok for CB when all fit. Midfield is okish, but possibly not creative enough , only one creative player and many who are not good passers,

Our strikers don't score . Hopefully Lamela will be spacial when he plays. Townsend is a bottom 6 player.

You can change the formations as much as you like, if you're players are not good enough, you are going to come unstuck in the end.
 
A bit like England our players are not good enough.

We need a LB and RB. Maybe ok for CB when all fit. Midfield is okish, but possibly not creative enough , only one creative player and many who are not good passers,

Our strikers don't score . Hopefully Lamela will be spacial when he plays. Townsend is a bottom 6 player.

You can change the formations as much as you like, if you're players are not good enough, you are going to come unstuck in the end.

Interesting points, but i'm sorry I want you to elaborate on the bolded bit. So who are these poor passers in midfield? Also, how do you compare our midfield's (lack of) passing ability to previous sides over the last 8 to 9 years?

Cheers
 
Interesting points, but i'm sorry I want you to elaborate on the bolded bit. So who are these poor passers in midfield? Also, how do you compare our midfield's (lack of) passing ability to previous sides over the last 8 to 9 years?

Cheers

Dembele, Sigi Townsend all look poor passers . Paulniho has not look good so far.

Previous midfields have not been good enough either, this one cost a lot.

So far the midfield has just not been creative enough. Very difficult to buy a good creative midfielder, unfortunately Arsenal have two, so do Chelsea even more.

Cazorla, Ozil, Mata, Hazard, Oscar all different types to ours.

Hopefully Eriksen will be in the same class
 
Dembele, Sigi Townsend all look poor passers . Paulniho has not look good so far.

Previous midfields have not been good enough either, this one cost a lot.

So far the midfield has just not been creative enough. Very difficult to buy a good creative midfielder, unfortunately Arsenal have two, so do Chelsea even more.

Cazorla, Ozil, Mata, Hazard, Oscar all different types to ours.

Hopefully Eriksen will be in the same class

You mean not even the ones that finished 4th in 2010 and 2012?
So in your opinion when was the last time (if ever) we've had a good enough midfield in your opinion?
 
You mean not even the ones that finished 4th in 2010 and 2012?
So in your opinion when was the last time (if ever) we've had a good enough midfield in your opinion?

1981,1987 before that 1961

Depends what you mean good enough. If we are comparing ourselves to Arsenal and Chelsea obviously a long time ago.
 
1981,1987 before that 1961

Depends what you mean good enough. If we are comparing ourselves to Arsenal and Chelsea obviously a long time ago.

I remember 1987 and I agree.
Out of interest, what about 1985 (wasn't following football then)?

Arsenal and Chelski? Probably 1995 when we had Klinsmann and finished 7th. They both took risks after that though and we suffered for Sugar calling any foreigner a 'Carlos-Kickaball'

Hasn't the problem post Gazza been often that our midfield has had very good passers (Samways, Nayim, Anderton, Ginola etc) but not enough grid to balance it out? Then we get the grit but lose the passing ability? Would you agree that at least since Arnesen was brought in there has been better overall balance (mostly) between grit and passing ability in Spurs midfields?
 
Just under 2 ppg, only one result, out of 12, a particularly surprising one. One loss is still only three points.


I'd say no. In the grand scheme of things we are doing fine. Every team will falter at some point during the season, in fact every team has already faltered during the season, it's just about how we pick ourselves up and go on from here really.


All we need is a striker to hit a vein of form in the PL and everyone will start ****ing off about our title chances again. Just need to be a bit more clinical with the chances we are creating.


Football is a fickle thing.
 
Thanks for the detailed reply. Are you sure about the bolded bit? Are you not talking about discussions also happening during Redknapp's time regarding not scoring from corners as opposed to conceding from them?

Also on all the points you've counted, do you have a view on how they are different to AVB's 9 month spell at Chelski? That's the overall theme that worries me the most, i.e that he/we may be heading towards similar failings.

Ta!

Can't be bothered digging for stats right now, but I was under the impression we weren't much better under Redknapp. We certainly looked vulnerable in this area a lot of the time.

For me a lot of AVB's problems at Chelsea stemmed from the conflicts between him and the squad. Much have been said and written about it, for me both AVB (and his team) and the squad have to shoulder some of the blame.

I'm not sure about goals scored under AVB at Chelsea, I thought their defensive problems was the biggest concern there but could be that they didn't score enough either.

Lone striker isn't a problem for me.

Were set pieces a problem are for Chelsea under AVB? I don't remember.

We obviously have several areas where there's a lot of room for improvement, as there were for AVB at Chelsea. For me some of those will obviously always overlap, but I can't see a systematic failure down to the manager based on the problems at the two clubs.

Good post, and generally points I agree with, but I do hear a lot of commentators urging teams to push up and stop dropping deep when they have a lead. It's a generally an accepted thing that dropping onto your penalty spot invites pressure, and failing to come out quickly enough after a corner is dangerous to do. Well, in Martin Tyler and Alan Smith's view, anyway.

That's quite different from playing a high line as your default strategy though.

Your first point is generally later in games when teams are tiring and being pushed back. Often it's not by design and it's often an extreme case of defending deep (imo) that gets criticism from pundits. Very few teams drop onto their own penalty spot as their default strategy at the start of the game. I was talking about the more "standard" level of pressure that quite a few teams use compared to the higher pressure/defensive line we (and many successful clubs) attempt.

We were poor against West Ham, but we opened up both Cardiff and Norwich and got our reward in terms of goals. Both teams defended with what I think can be described as a normal defensive line. I haven't seen anyone has been critical of them not pushing higher and pressing more. Had they come out with that strategy and gotten beaten I think there would have been comments about them being "naive" or playing too high up the pitch etc as pundits were trying to pick apart the game.

Hope that makes some kind of sense.
 
How old are you?

That 1987 midfield was weaker than most of our other 80's midfields and our 81 midfield definitely was weaker than 83 and 85.

Looking back with rose tinted spectacles and all that. And I know that there are lots of reasons for this not to happen, but imagine a team like this:

------------Thorsvedt----------------
Hughton----Mabbutt----Ruddock---Edinburgh
Gascoigne---Hoddle---Stewart----Waddle
--------Lineker---Sheringham---------

It's a team comprised of '87 - '92 vintage players, that could have a had slight chance of playing together as there were cross over periods involving them, not an 80's select. That's why there is no Ardiles or Perryman.
 
GGE - I think you are right to be concerned but it is still too early to worry. Our newbies must be given a chance to bed in and no snap decisions made.

Personally, I would like to see more evidence of improvement from set pieces - both attacking and defending. There can be no excuses in this area.
 
Last edited:
I think in some ways views are being clouded by one (very) bad result.

I accept that the performance against West Ham wasn't good enough, but it was one of those 3-0 losses that wasn't really a "3-0" type of game. While I certainly don't think that we deserved to win the game, had Defoe scored his one on one instead of their keeper saving it then we would probably have gone on to win the game reasonably comfortably as West Ham would've had to have come out more thus opening up gaps for us to exploit going forward.

In Sunday's game I thought that West Ham were tactically excellent. They basically played 6 across the midfield and stifled all of the room in the centre of the pitch. We didn't help ourselves in two ways - firstly by having no width at all down our left side and secondly by slowing the play down too much when we won back posession, allowing West Ham to regroup and get all 11 men back behind the ball. Unfortunately due to us not really having a true wide left midfielder and our attacking left back being out injured it was difficult for AVB to fix the first problem. The second problem it looked like AVB had attempted to address at half time - as we seemed to come out in the second half moving the ball a lot more quickly and trying to always go forward instead of being as patient and just keeping the ball. It just then happened that West Ham's set piece goal came at the wrong time, just as we seemed to be building pressure.

In games such as Sunday's the first goal is massively important. From what I could see West Ham's only chance of scoring was from a set piece (they went close with the free kick in the first half and then scored from a corner in the second half). Once West Ham had scored we then had to commit more players forward and that opened up the gaps for West Ham to exploit on the break to add the second and third. Our high line on Sunday was not a problem in the first half and nor was it really the cause of the first goal. We then just got caught with our pants down as we committed men forward in search of an equaliser. I actually wonder whether we should've been a little less eager to get men forward immediately after their goal. There was still a good portion of the match left and our over eagerness resulted in them getting the chances on the break to put the game to bed as opposed to us building gradual sustained pressure and forcing the mistake from them that would likely have occurred as the game wore on.

From what I have seen of us so far this season we are generally going to dominate posession in every game. We have creative passers in Ericksen and Holtby, players who can arrive in the box to finish chances in Paulinho and Siggurdson and we have players who can beat their opposite number at will in Dembele and Townsend. These sorts of players will ensure that we end up creating enough chances to win games both at home and away.

Many teams are likely to come to WHL this season and play like West Ham did. To counter this AVB is going to have to find a way to make sure the game can become more stretched. Lennon coming back may allow Townsend to play on the left and give us true width on both wings. Rose coming back will also add balance as the left side can then operate in a similar way to the right - time will tell there.

Anyway - let's not overreact to one (awful) result. After all Arsenal were comprehensively beaten at home by Aston Villa and Man Utd outplayed by West Brom. We will soon see whether the Sunday result was merely a one-off or a pattern for our season. I am still of the opinion that it is more likely to be the former. I also feel that both AVB and the players will learn from Sunday and turn that result around to be a catylst for another good unbeaten run.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you Finney.

It's not about never failing or never losing or never performing badly. It's about how you react after a loss, after a poor performance or after failing.

Or to quote the philosopher Balboa: "But it ain’t about how hard you hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done!"
 
How old are you?

That 1987 midfield was weaker than most of our other 80's midfields and our 81 midfield definitely was weaker than 83 and 85.

Galvin, Ardiles, Hoddle, Villa = 81...Galvin, Ardiles and Hoddle were all part of the 85 midfield too. Are you saying that 85 was stronger because you consider Roberts part of the midfield and not defence that season (he was a defender to my memory) and because Hazard was (obviously) around?
 
My thoughts (i.e. largely a defence of AVB):

- We don't seem to be a team like Arsenal or other challengers for top 4 that has even semi-clinical finishing prowess; Yes we've had this issue for a while, but I'm struggling to see signs that AVB will ever mould a tram that creates and scores a relatively high number of goals. In fact, even in those cases when we can and should be racking up the goals, we don't seem to actually want to against poor opposition. 2 goals up and we seem to actively ease off. Thus our GD is always worse off than our direct rivals. GHod knows what would have been the case without Bale.
I seem to remember Chelski under AVB being mostly less potent than the previous seasons. And hanging onto slim leads was often punished by the concession of late goals, in PL and esp in the CL.

I think the thing we are really lacking in the final third is a bit of cohesion between the front 4. We have all the attributes – movement and finishing (Soldado), craft (Eriksen, Holtby), pace and penetration (Lamela, Lennon, Chadli, Townsend), and long range shooting (Siggy). They’ve just not played enough together yet and we’ve perhaps not found the best balance either (Lamela being gradually integrated will help I think)

AVB has said before that 2-0 is the perfect result and any more is expending excessive energy. Remember this approach enabled his Porto team to go through a season losing just one game in all competitions. I’d rather we won more games overall, than clocked up the occasional rugby score.


- Perhaps a part of this is AVB insistence on playing with only one striker; He actively didn't seem to want to buy a striker last January; remember the reaction to Defoe's injury: buy Holtby now not in the summer! If we were only to always play one striker it seems that Benteke or somebody with some of those physical attributes would have been more ideal than Soldado (who cost 26m so was not a stop-gap...). AVB wanted to use Torres or Sturridge instead of also integrate Lukaku. You need more than one way to score; in fact how limp are we now from set-pieces since Bale has left?

Our whole team is very physical. Soldado, Eriksen and Holtby are about our only players under 6’ (Paulinho and Walker too, but they are bulky), so if anything our balance is too far the other way. Benteke would have made us incredibly one-dimensional and even less effective against teams sitting deep.

AVB clearly prefers a pure movement and finishing CF (Falcao, Torres, Soldado) to a target man #9. Ideally we’d have the option of Ade to complement Soldado, which hopefully we soon will, or in January we’ll buy a young Ade-type replacement.


- Our conceding of goals from set-pieces is also poor; How have we become so bad in this regard?? Harry's team were very good in this regard so the fact we've gone backwards on this issue has to be done to AVB's coaching methods...again I remember Chelski getting weaker in this area...

This has been a weakness of ours for decades. I think AVB wants to move us properly to zonal marking (shown by the Espanyol experiment) and we’re possibly just caught between the two stalls at the moment.


- We seem to be hell-bent on using our high-line at all costs, even though we have two of the slowest CBs in the league, who whilst good are always going to be susceptible to traditional British balls over the top with pacy runners attacking. Again Chelski seemed to have the same problems, highlighted very often, most famously in their 5-3 loss against Arsenal.

The high line is what enables us to be so effective at dominating midfield – it’s a calculated risk. Lloris doesn’t keep coming to our rescue, the system is purposely designed so he’s more active in defending.


- Our build-up play is often far too slow, just like what Chelski fans claimed...

When you are playing against a parked bus, it doesn’t matter as much. The point is to keep probing, to eventually pull someone out of position to make room for the killer ball. I like this style – there’s an inevitability about our play, like we are toying with our opponents. Jumpers wrote an interest post the other week comparing us (not that he was keen on it) to Liverpool of the 70s (http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/showthread.php/5163-The-Spurs-Way).


It would be interesting to see whether AVB's Porto side ever scored hatfuls or were just winners by 1-0s and 2-0s over the season.
I just fear that AVB's performance in a league like the Prem will always be infuriating until he is able to be less cautious and do get the basics (for this league anyway) right.

As above. As soon as his teams are two up, AVB starts preparing for the next match. At Porto he always used to take off a forward and bring on a midfielder (from 4-3-3 to 4-4-2) and kill off the game through total possession. It’s completely calculated and is about being efficient, at the expensive of being flashy.
 
Sometimes its just a bad day at the office. And agree with previous poster, it was a 3-0 that wasn't a 3-0 type of loss. Interestingly the only blame I would give AVB was the starting of JD with Eriksen, for me, it's not JD on form, it's JD and Holtby have figured out how to work together, so I would have started either both or neither.

To the original poster, its a bit late to think there will be a Cheat$ki style disaster, we had our first season that proved different. High lines, possession based teams, 1 striker up front is not something in the least bit unique in world football.
 
Galvin, Ardiles, Hoddle, Villa = 81...Galvin, Ardiles and Hoddle were all part of the 85 midfield too. Are you saying that 85 was stronger because you consider Roberts part of the midfield and not defence that season (he was a defender to my memory) and because Hazard was (obviously) around?

Other than the fact Chiedozie played way too many games, it was a balanced midfield. Ossie hardly played that season (84/85). Hoddle was often partnered by either Roberts or Mabbutt in midfield (Hazard often came into the team when Hoddle was injured). What we did lack though was a true top class forward. Falco did a great job that season though, and scored almost 30 goals. Galvin was also sensational that season.
 
Other than the fact Chiedozie played way too many games, it was a balanced midfield. Ossie hardly played that season (84/85). Hoddle was often partnered by either Roberts or Mabbutt in midfield (Hazard often came into the team when Hoddle was injured). What we did lack though was a true top class forward. Falco did a great job that season though, and scored almost 30 goals. Galvin was also sensational that season.

Good points. Chiedozie was an enigma to say the least. I do remember Robbo coming into midfield a fair few times but I suppose he remains a defender to me forever (despite that world class run in the 82 replay)...I agree re: Falco. He was actually always very under-valued by supporters (no surprises!) yet always scored a decent amount of goals. I do wonder what would've happened with an Allen in that side. TG did very very well to come back into form IMO...that assault in 82 by Souness was criminal. I did a piece in Hotspur with him once and he told me that had that happened in the modern game he'd have been out for weeks, that it nearly snapped his leg and he played on that day with great pain but that it set him back a bit...but with both these sides, happy memories all round to be fair. I suppose for me, the 81-82 side was the one simply because they got so close to so much. I remember that winning the cup that season was a relief and not one ounce more.
 
Back