• 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 vs ASTON VILLA - OMT

vkn17 said:
Clearly it did not work. Not if you weren't settling for a draw. How freaking difficult can it be? Bale on the LEFT. LEFT LEFT LEFT. Lennon on the right. RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT. Villa werent going anywhere, Parker substitution was pointless. Something needed to change, a fresh injection up front with more attacking options.

All I know is that I would have rather thrown in 3 strikers and gone for the win than settling for a draw. Getting 3rd now is a long shot sadly and we gave it away no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

Are you of the opinion that you can and should discuss these things based only on results and not the performance?
 
braineclipse said:
Are you of the opinion that you can and should discuss these things based only on results and not the performance?
Click to expand...

If we don't score, it's not working. If we need a goal, something needs to change so that we can give ourselves a better opportunity to score that goal.
I dont care if they all played the best game of their careers. We did not win and that is what matters at the end.

Does that answer your question?
 
SubZero said:
We dominated one of the poorest teams in the league who clearly didn't show up to play football. A team refusing to move the line out of their own box. We failed to capitalize on that, as we often (nearly always) do when we aren't able to create our own space through fast-paced passing and counter. We have very little creativity up top, and that fact has been hidden for years behind more than a few brilliant one-man performances and some one-off wonder goals, or even pure luck. When we haven't got much intelligent movement, what do we need a hold-up man like Adebayor for? This is nothing new, we lacked distinct intelligent movement with Crouch on top, we lacked it with Pav on top, and we lack it with Defoe on top. We haven't had consistent intelligent movement since Berbatov lead our front line, who even made Keane look smart rather than instinctual (if that is even a word). IMHO again.

This is where tactics come in, and what some more or less cautiously have proposed for some time that Harry may fall somewhat short on. We have come this far much thanks to having perhaps the best, most pacey and creative midfield we've ever had, who has covered for our shortcomings in forwards or lack of distinct tactical instructions. Our chance to goal ratio reflects this quite clear IMO. Our lack of composure in the final third can be embarrasing. Get rid of Les Ferdinand, if he commands any wage of some sort at all.

I'm as thrilled as the next man with our current position, make no mistake, but we could have done so much better with (relatively speaking) so little more systematics and tactical nous. For one, what is the point of playing long ball towards a target man, when no-one follows (the thought of Crouch trying to pull off keepy uppies surrounded by players still makes me cringe), or playing the heaviest marked man? And what is the point of moving 3 players into the box if the man in possession has no intention of using them? What is the point of gaining 15-20 corners a game if they either cannot clear the first man, or when it does very few players actually attacks the ball? It's much if not all about tactics, instructions and not just "running about a bit" (which I seriously don't believe Harry means). Roaming full-backs can do whatever the hell they want by me, but whatever you do, don't tinkle the ball when the team is off balance. Harry is a master in making players do what they like best looking pretty in the process, but falls a tiny bit short in making them do something else if that fails.

Still one cannot defend what went down today, there are no excuses. We were simply not good enough, we cannot blame Villa for how they played or what they are (which are a bunch I'd be happy to see relegated, miserable anti-football sods), how much we dominated, what substitutions were made, that we played with 10 men etc etc. They played for a point and got it. We've met teams playing like that before, and will most certainly do it again. It was overall a good effort, but a poor performance.

Disclaimer: this may or may not be reflected in disappointment in us being so very very close but still so far away. But I'm infinately more grateful for having such minor gripes rather than discussing whether we will finish in the top or bottom half of the table.
Click to expand...

=D>

Precisely the points Ive been trying to make since last summer.
 
vkn17 said:
If we don't score, it's not working. If we need a goal, something needs to change so that we can give ourselves a better opportunity to score that goal.
I dont care if they all played the best game of their careers. We did not win and that is what matters at the end.

Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No one is saying we should have won 100%, but you have to make changes to afford yourself the best chance possible.
 
vkn17 said:
If we don't score, it's not working. If we need a goal, something needs to change so that we can give ourselves a better opportunity to score that goal.
I dont care if they all played the best game of their careers. We did not win and that is what matters at the end.

Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

Yes. We clearly fundamentally disagree on this, I think there are a lot of coincidences as well as quite a bit of luck in football that decides the outcome of individual games (and thus seasons). I believe in trying to evaluate a performance based on more than just the result.

If you would like to discuss this fundamental point I think it could be an interesting discussion, but this is clearly not the right time for it.
 
braineclipse said:
Yes. We clearly fundamentally disagree on this, I think there are a lot of coincidences as well as quite a bit of luck in football that decides the outcome of individual games (and thus seasons). I believe in trying to evaluate a performance based on more than just the result.

If you would like to discuss this fundamental point I think it could be an interesting discussion, but this is clearly not the right time for it.
Click to expand...

There might be a point in discussing a performance on more then the result. But there is little point in discussing the Table based on more then results.

We may have been the prettiest team, or the dirtiest team, or the luckiest team. But what matters in the end is where we end up.


Today we were not good enough to win. Therefore we did not win.
 
braineclipse said:
Yes. We clearly fundamentally disagree on this, I think there are a lot of coincidences as well as quite a bit of luck in football that decides the outcome of individual games (and thus seasons). I believe in trying to evaluate a performance based on more than just the result.

If you would like to discuss this fundamental point I think it could be an interesting discussion, but this is clearly not the right time for it.
Click to expand...

If the manager had any tactical sense whatsoever, he would have increased our chances of luck and coincidence today.

To me, if the results aren't there for 2 months, how can you justify it as a good performance? How can winning on the road once in 2012 be justified as a good performance?

But I guess we'll agree to disagree. It would be an interesting discussion, as soon as the emotions calm down a bit.
 
Spursalot said:
There might be a point in discussing a performance on more then the result. But there is little point in discussing the Table based on more then results.

We may have been the prettiest team, or the dirtiest team, or the luckiest team. But what matters in the end is where we end up.


Today we were not good enough to win. Therefore we did not win.
Click to expand...

The table in large strokes, yes. Clearly. You wouldn't see a team perform like City throughout a season and be in the relegation zone. The table when it's close between two teams and as little as one goal leading to a different result in one game would change that table luck and coincidence must surely play a part if it plays a part in individual games.

Armchair Expert said:
You keep overlooking the fact that we didn't look like scoring.
Click to expand...

No. I just didn't find that situation all that surprising. Have you been watching us away from home against compact defensive teams this season? We rarely create massive goalscoring chances, and we're far from the only team in the league with that problem. We've seen that with Defoe on the pitch and without him on the pitch. I just don't see why bringing him on would necessarily make us look more like scoring.
 
braineclipse said:
The table in large strokes, yes. Clearly. You wouldn't see a team perform like City throughout a season and be in the relegation zone. The table when it's close between two teams and as little as one goal leading to a different result in one game would change that table luck and coincidence must surely play a part if it plays a part in individual games.
Click to expand...

One goal would lead to a different result in the majority of games. So you were not good enough in the games you lost, or drew.


In a results based industry that is all that really matters in the end.
 
I didn't see the game as I was at work. One of my mates was keeping me updated with game. From the sounds of it, Rose made a stupid, braineless tackle, Redknapp settled for a point by taking off VDV and bringing on Parker and we had plenty of shots as usual and couldn't score. Is that a good summary of what happened?
 
No. I just didn't find that situation all that surprising. Have you been watching us away from home against compact defensive teams this season? We rarely create massive goalscoring chances, and we're far from the only team in the league with that problem. We've seen that with Defoe on the pitch and without him on the pitch. I just don't see why bringing him on would necessarily make us look more like scoring.[/QUOTE]

Well whose short coming is that then?
 
Jurgen the German said:
I didn't see the game as I was at work. One of my mates was keeping me updated with game. From the sounds of it, Rose made a stupid, braineless tackle, Redknapp settled for a point by taking off VDV and bringing on Parker and we had plenty of shots as usual and couldn't score. Is that a good summary of what happened?
Click to expand...

We sort of had lots of pressure, but never really looked like scoring
 
Spursalot said:
One goal would lead to a different result in the majority of games. So you were not good enough in the games you lost, or drew.


In a results based industry that is all that really matters in the end.
Click to expand...

You accept that luck and coincidence can play a part in one game? If you do I don't see how you can argue that it won't influence league standings after 38 games.

Say a team has played 36 games and for whatever reason their luck and coincidences have lined up so that they have gotten exactly the amount of points and the goal difference they deserved based on point. They find themselves less than 3 points ahead of teams behind them and less than 3 points behind teams ahead of them. They then play another game, and luck or coincidence influences their result one way or another and as a result of that their league position is changed.
 
braineclipse said:
Does it have to be someone's short coming? Can it not just be the result of other teams also being pretty good at playing football?
Click to expand...

No. Good teams break down defensive teams and score against them. We have enough players available to us that we shouldn't see the recurring pattern of us not being able to manufacture goal scoring opportunities.
 
I thought Parker - VDV substitution was dead on. VDV is not 100% fit, has not been the whole season. He was too tired. We had to keep the ball to win and therefor hold the middle with 10 men. Dont see why some people here think otherwise. I thought it was a good performance, Rose was very stupid but we coped well. The only thing I??m very annoyed with is t onhe fact that we had 18 cornerkicks and did not threaten the goal from them, and also, why on earth was Bale not glued to the wing!?

anyway, not happy but not unhappy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back