Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach
I watched the match in my local today and this game for me proved that there is little tactically/coaching-wise that TS is inputting into this team, for the following reasons:
1) Again we start a game sluggishly; please don't tell me it's because of Europe now - this has been happening when we've also had 7 to 10 days rest and time on the training pitch (in fact we often start even worse the more time we've had between matches!). We seem to come into a match with no actual gameplan, hence the opposition impose theirs and we look so poor at the start.
2) The individual mistakes are happening much more now because of a lack of strategy in terms of movement, positioning etc imo. EVERYTHING we do is reactive and panic sets in with the most minimal of situations when the opposition press us near our defence. Everything ends up like a pin-ball machine at the back now and that leads to hesitancy, hoofs, ricochets etc. The first goal was perhaps unlucky because it could be that the sun was in Naughton's eyes and he hesitated instead of heading the ball away. The second goal was again a product of hesitancy that we are suffering as a whole when put under pressure. Often the defence has no-one from midfield showing for an easy pass or the positions taken up by the CBs is wrong (Naughton should not have been the main defender in that position when the ball was punted back imo). Again, this has not been the case in the last 3/4 years and I put it down to a lack of coaching of a strategy/style, where players more often act and take positions in a way that suggests they know what they should be doing.
3) We have no attacking pattern or strategy. Our method of attack is simply getting it wide and putting it in the mixer. There were no overlapping runs, no one-twos or little pass-and-move attempts in the final 3rd. In fact, generally, we often just seem to run towards the ball and then the players try and do little triangles and one-twos when they are effectively crowding each other out, which leads to more pin-ball effects as mentioned above and a greater likelihood of possession being conceded. This actually happens a lot just outside our own penalty area. Even against Dnipro when playing against 10 men and when trying to play keep-ball we often had scares that came from too much crowding by ourselves around the ball, whilst trying to play the ball out of danger by playing to each other. We gave ourselves several heart in mouths moments in the last 15/20 mins of that game and yet we had a man advantage!
4) Where TS is good is recognising that we are giving the opposition too much time on the ball and him coming down from the stands seemed to automatically signal to the players to close down and not pay them too much respect (actually we weren't showing too much respect they just had a plan and we didn't). I guess when you are losing this is the easy thing to do, especially against opposition that you feel you should be beating. Perhaps from the start if you don't feel like the underdog it wont be the first thing you will think of doing. In the absence of a plan perhaps closing down early and pressing is what we should do in every game from the start; though it may eventually cost us in terms of energy later in the game if it's our main/only strategy. TS said himself in an interview after the match that all we have to do is show the same commitment ("Passion") as the opposition and the fact that we have better players than most teams will mean we will more often than not. That says it all.
After the number of games in charge that TS has had we still have no strategy or plan of how we're playing and especially how we're attacking. Soldado is very strong physically from what I saw today, and held his own against some big centre-backs. It was ironic that he was the one person who laid a chance on a plate for one of his teammates (Eriksen's 2nd) and even that came from a Saint defender ****-up (though great chasing down by the Soldier boy). He is but 5 ft 9in; the fact that in the absence of Ade we still only use a tactic of getting it wide and slinging in high balls (or hoofing it from the back) says a lot.
With all the above I see nothing but a real pasting next week at Anfield. No matter what happens in the remaining games to me it's clear that TS is NOT the man for this job long-term, or nor should he be expected to be unless we want a further two years in upper mid-table finishes (it's his first job managing a first team after all and it's showing)..
It was a great comeback and finale, but we should not be fooled by the final result imo.
1. We started poorly, but I'm not sure we started particularly sluggishly. And while you and I mightn't think it's a good excuse, it is a fact that we've been poor after EL games for several seasons now, not just since Sherwood took over. The fact Sherwood was out of the stand and on the sideline screaming and shouting pretty early in the game shows our start wasn't what he'd planned either.
2. This sounds like every Spurs defence for the last 30 years to me! Not something that started 2 months ago.
On top of which, Sherwood put out a CB pairing of Sandro and Fryers (!) last week which shows how bad things are. Add in Verts' head being up his hole, Naughton having to play both sides at points this season, Dawson being crocked/not very good, Walker/Rose/Kaboul being injured for long stretches...to turn around and say somehow the shaky defence is uniquely down to some clownish training ground work by Sherwood isn't reasonable. It's about a season-long unsettled defence coupled with streaky individual performances and injuries.
Also, it has been mentioned by others previously: even during our good defensive run under AVB, a lot of the time we were flying by the seat of our pants. We were lucky not to concede more in that period. Indeed, the hammerings we took show that just beneath the surface with AVB's defensive set-up there were serious problems.
3. I most definitely saw an attacking pattern today.
First, Eriksen and Chadli (and in theory Lennon too, although he didn't do it very well) roamed all over the front of the midfield, swapping sides very often or popping up through the middle, such that they pulled the opposition defenders around the place and created chances or space. This was linked up by Soldado running all across the front line linking with those two via 1-2's, channel balls, crosses, assists etc. It was this part of the offence that lead to Eriksen's second goal, and also to his chance just before that off the little Soldado pass, and to Chadli's early break on the left from that other lovely Soldado lay off.
Add to that, when Eriksen and Chadli came inside, this left room for our FB's to get crosses in, several of which were dangerous and one of which lead to Eriksen's first goal. Ok, our FB's aren't Maldini and Alves, but the underlying instructions to them provided offensive opportunities.
Finally, our high line helped the midfield get up in support - the chalkboards from today show our rearmost midfielder was Bentaleb, and his average position was just in front of the half way line. It was in part this high line that allowed Siggy to be where he was for the winner.
So I think there was plenty of coherent attacking planning. And the proof is there - 3 goals.
4. Surely you're not saying there was no plan to press, and it was only when Sherwood came down and shouted at the players that it first occured to them to do so? That can't possibly be right. Clearly pressing is a central part of the high line they've been practising in training, and Sherwood came down because he was nuts that they weren't doing it. Just as he was when Arsenal got in behind so often early doors the other week.
Why aren't the players pressing until someone shouts at them? That is a good question and I'd like to know the answer as much as anyone.
