• 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

*** Tottenham Hotspur v South Coast Big Club ***

braineclipse said:
One central midfielder?

Second half against Southampton with them playing with 10 men, sure, maybe. Most other games and game states, no for me.

You mentioned the first half yesterday as something a battering ram striker would improve on. Would you have seen us start the game like this yesterday?

Have you ever seen Conte played a 3-3-4/3-3-3-1? Who have you seen play like this? I feel like that answer is Bielsa at some point? But even him I'm not sure.

If your solution is to buy a player with a plan to play a formation and style that Conte just doesn't play that's not a solution imo.
Click to expand...

Horses for courses.

Wouldnt necessarily suggest this formation against the top teams.

However, when teams come with a defensive game plan, why start with 8 defensive players in a 3-5-2? Seems daft to me to only have two outright attacking players. It virtually ensures we give up control relying solely on counter attacks.

A new CF also allows rotation of our strikers. We simply have no replacement for Kane or to a lesser extent a currently out of form Son. It allows us a variety of different attacking options, something we are sadly lacking at the moment.
 
Pirate55 said:
Horses for courses.

Wouldnt necessarily suggest this formation against the top teams.

However, when teams come with a defensive game plan, why start with 8 defensive players in a 3-5-2? Seems daft to me to only have two outright attacking players. It virtually ensures we give up control relying solely on counter attacks.

A new CF also allows rotation of our strikers. We simply have no replacement for Kane or to a lesser extent a currently out of form Son. It allows us a variety of different attacking options, something we are sadly lacking at the moment.
Click to expand...

Which courses have this particular horse (3-3-X) been successful at?

Rotation, sure, we need another striker, sure. Just not sure it has to be a battering ram. It has to someone that fits the system that's good enough.

We don't play with 8 defensive players at all. I honestly don't even know where to start with that one. We must be seeing the games very differently.

Conte has been extremely successful with this system, repeatedly. His start here with this system has been transformative.

Bin that for a system with a lone central midfielder, a system I'm still waiting for you to point me towards a successful example of being used? No thanks.
 
Pirate55 said:
For teams which sit back or have 10 men, we don’t need two holding midfielders with three centr backs. So I would like to see:

……………………. New CF………………….

Son…….,,……..,,Kane……………….Moura

Reggie……………Skipp/PEH………….Royal

Davies……………Dier………..Sanchez

………………….. Lloris…………………..

Totally balanced. Two left footed defenders/Wingbacks and two right footed defenders/ wingbacks. Keeps three at the back. Offers width through the wingbacks and wide forwards. Offers strength and hold up through the new cf and guile and passing from Kane. Goals aplenty in that team and formation. Ideal for breaking down teams intent on only defending against us.
Click to expand...
5-1-4 formation?

Even Saudi Sportswashing Machine would batter us.
 
scaramanga said:
So then we give up the left side? Or play Kane wide left?

None of these options are sounding particularly thought through.
Click to expand...
Lost me….
We have the full backs still who can push on
We have up the left side by playing a right footed wing back who had to turn in
We played against 10 men who offered nothing in attack once down to 10
You can give up parts of the pitch if they ain’t doing anything there quite easily
At varying points yesterday we had Sanchez and Dier in attack on the edge of their area
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Lost me….
We have the full backs still who can push on
We have up the left side by playing a right footed wing back who had to turn in
We played against 10 men who offered nothing in attack once down to 10
You can give up parts of the pitch if they ain’t doing anything there quite easily
At varying points yesterday we had Sanchez and Dier in attack on the edge of their area
Click to expand...
If Son is currently our LWF and we swap him out for a CF, then we have nobody on the left.

Someone has to fill that hole, otherwise you just make it really easy for the defenders to be compact in the middle.

You can push further back players forward, but then the opposition can just Liverpool it into the corner all game and have a free player.
 
braineclipse said:
Which courses have this particular horse (3-3-X) been successful at?

Rotation, sure, we need another striker, sure. Just not sure it has to be a battering ram. It has to someone that fits the system that's good enough.

We don't play with 8 defensive players at all. I honestly don't even know where to start with that one. We must be seeing the games very differently.

Conte has been extremely successful with this system, repeatedly. His start here with this system has been transformative.

Bin that for a system with a lone central midfielder, a system I'm still waiting for you to point me towards a successful example of being used? No thanks.
Click to expand...

What do you call

Lloris, Sanchez, Dier, Davies, PEH, Skipp, Reggie and Royal if not principally defensive players? I make that 8, leaving only room for three primarily attack minded players on the field.

To my mind that is woefully insufficient against teams which are set up to defend in numbers.

We can then rotate the four other first teamers ( Kane, Son, Moura and new CF) into any number of different combinations depending upon the strengths/ weaknesses of the opposition). If the situation calls for it, we play all of them and drop a DM. It really isn't changing the fundamental Conte system, just tinkering with it as circumstances dictate.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
If Son is currently our LWF and we swap him out for a CF, then we have nobody on the left.

Someone has to fill that hole, otherwise you just make it really easy for the defenders to be compact in the middle.

You can push further back players forward, but then the opposition can just Liverpool it into the corner all game and have a free player.
Click to expand...
Son didn’t play LWF
We played 2 up top and then in theory 3
Our width was the wing backs
Son was on the edge of the area controlling the ball like a bomb
We know son struggles against deep defences too of course
And they had no out all all game
You need options in attack with players occupying the CBS not allowing them time to clear like we did
 
Pirate55 said:
What do you call

Lloris, Sanchez, Dier, Davies, PEH, Skipp, Reggie and Royal if not principally defensive players? I make that 8, leaving only room for three primarily attack minded players on the field.

To my mind that is woefully insufficient against teams which are set up to defend in numbers.

We can then rotate the four other first teamers ( Kane, Son, Moura and new CF) into any number of different combinations depending upon the strengths/ weaknesses of the opposition). If the situation calls for it, we play all of them and drop a DM. It really isn't changing the fundamental Conte system, just tinkering with it as circumstances dictate.
Click to expand...

That's a no then on examples of teams being successful playing 3-3-x? Hopefully someone will try it out at some point.

General concept for me. Attack with 5 players or in 5 channels.

Front three plus wing backs (sometimes a midfielder instead of a wing back. Or front two, wing backs and a midfielder (Alli so far).

We're getting significantly more players forward than we did under Nuno.

Struggling to break down a team that sits deep in numbers isn't a problem specific for us or this system. It's just difficult. Particularly with injuries, short turnover between games, an unbalanced squad and a manager still relatively early on instilling a new system.

Personally I don't think Emerson is quite up for the task in attack, I would like a more attacking option. Reguilon is a bit hit and miss. Both get forward a lot and even push onto midfield quite a bit when defending.

I would rather see Conte take the time to properly drill his players in his system, playing his style, as he's clearly doing. And rather successfully so. Particularly if the alternative is to play with one central midfielder.
 
Pirate55 said:
What do you call

Lloris, Sanchez, Dier, Davies, PEH, Skipp, Reggie and Royal if not principally defensive players? I make that 8, leaving only room for three primarily attack minded players on the field.

To my mind that is woefully insufficient against teams which are set up to defend in numbers.

We can then rotate the four other first teamers ( Kane, Son, Moura and new CF) into any number of different combinations depending upon the strengths/ weaknesses of the opposition). If the
situation calls for it, we play all of them and drop a DM. It really isn't changing the fundamental Conte system, just tinkering with it as circumstances dictate.
Click to expand...
It's an over simplification to split players into attacking or defensive.
WBs aren't primarily defensive players. WBs are equally attacking as they are defensive.
PEH isn't supposed to be a primarily defensive player, that's Skipps role. PEH is more box to box.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Son didn’t play LWF
We played 2 up top and then in theory 3
Our width was the wing backs
Son was on the edge of the area controlling the ball like a bomb
We know son struggles against deep defences too of course
And they had no out all all game
You need options in attack with players occupying the CBS not allowing them time to clear like we did
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the heat maps, but I remember Son picking up the ball towards the left quite a bit.
 
Pirate55 said:
And that, gentlemen, in a single game sums up precisely why we need a bullying centre forward. We were frankly abysmal in the first half. Every time it went up to Kane and Son , it came straight back at us. No hold up play.

In the second half when we were forced to put in plenty of crosses, no one to win the ball in the air.

A game of two halves - both pointing up the desperate need for a different type of centre forward to what we currently have.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that I completely agree with that. Southampton played an extremely high press where they went up against us man for man like a completely fit Biesla Leeds team, this meant that any balls into our forwards (or anyone else) were played with an opponent directly behind them and challenging them. Despite that there were three occasions in the first half where Kane managed to keep the ball, turn and have a ball on to put us in one on one against the keeper only for him to overhit each pass. That is on top of the occasion when Winks put Son in where we won the penalty. Four occasions such as these should've probably have resulted in two goals really. In the second half we also actually created quite a few chances against a team with 10 men behind the ball. I'm not sure a bullying centre forward would've made much difference to be honest, especially as Southampton are quite a big, aggressive team at the back.
 
One thing this match reminds me is that there is really little love for Spurs in the media. The ridiculous decisions in key games when in our favour are overlooked or brushed aside. Those not in our favour turn out to be 'overshouted' in the media.

I am moving on from the Southampton game and filing that for a future revenge beating on the Saints.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I'm not sure that I completely agree with that. Southampton played an extremely high press where they went up against us man for man like a completely fit Biesla Leeds team, this meant that any balls into our forwards (or anyone else) were played with an opponent directly behind them and challenging them. Despite that there were three occasions in the first half where Kane managed to keep the ball, turn and have a ball on to put us in one on one against the keeper only for him to overhit each pass. That is on top of the occasion when Winks put Son in where we won the penalty. Four occasions such as these should've probably have resulted in two goals really. In the second half we also actually created quite a few chances against a team with 10 men behind the ball. I'm not sure a bullying centre forward would've made much difference to be honest, especially as Southampton are quite a big, aggressive team at the back.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There's also the effect of having a target man leading to more long balls and crossing.

Now, a top coach like Conte should be able to prevent that from more of a style or psychological point. But assuming a target man isn't as good at everything else as a non target man that will influence what we can and cannot do as a team.

I think Vlahovic would be very good BTW. But I don't see him as primarily a target man, certainly not a "battering ram". Wouldn't expect him to bully PL level centre backs on a consistent level. But he seems to have a good mix of qualities where height any physical presence is part of it.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I'm not sure that I completely agree with that. Southampton played an extremely high press where they went up against us man for man like a completely fit Biesla Leeds team, this meant that any balls into our forwards (or anyone else) were played with an opponent directly behind them and challenging them. Despite that there were three occasions in the first half where Kane managed to keep the ball, turn and have a ball on to put us in one on one against the keeper only for him to overhit each pass. That is on top of the occasion when Winks put Son in where we won the penalty. Four occasions such as these should've probably have resulted in two goals really. In the second half we also actually created quite a few chances against a team with 10 men behind the ball. I'm not sure a bullying centre forward would've made much difference to be honest, especially as Southampton are quite a big, aggressive team at the back.
Click to expand...
We would have beaten them with 11 men
It felt like last seasons game to me where they started full of energy and died
 
scaramanga said:
Looks like a LWF who took part in some short corners on the right to me:
View attachment 13400
Click to expand...
How are you judging short corners?
He is the corner taker and we rarely passed back to him on corners
The balls on the right where form out attack in the second half where he stayed out there kinda as an extra body as he knew he would have no impact against 8 defenders in the area
 
braineclipse said:
Agreed.

There's also the effect of having a target man leading to more long balls and crossing.

Now, a top coach like Conte should be able to prevent that from more of a style or psychological point. But assuming a target man isn't as good at everything else as a non target man that will influence what we can and cannot do as a team.

I think Vlahovic would be very good BTW. But I don't see him as primarily a target man, certainly not a "battering ram". Wouldn't expect him to bully PL level centre backs on a consistent level. But he seems to have a good mix of qualities where height any physical presence is part of it.
Click to expand...
He is not a battering ram even though he is big
He plays quite similar to lukaku especially as they are both left footed. I’d also liken him to van nistelroy which may sound like a contrast but there very much one touch forwards not battering fans despite their size
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back