• 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 Canning Town Caravan Club OMT ***

West Ham ... I don't know many hate them ... they are always good entertainment bwhahahahah
 
Couple of things stood out for me

Our plan to cross it high to their centre backs clearly didn't work... why do t we cross low and hard with pace (like we did to score from)

Also we are still fannying around playing left right football with no penetration - looks pretty but no product and reminds me of Arsenal

Lastly Payet is undoubtably a talented player but he was gash today and offered them
Nothing iMO. There really poor up front and it's why their struggling. And Zaza
 
Pirate55 said:
You really are nit picking. We went wide, we got in behind them, we got to the by line, we pulled the ball back. We scored three goals as a result. We didn't do any of that in the first half.
Click to expand...
Not nit picking because you're simply not describing what happened.

First goal, Rose had space because we had the opposite of width, we dragged them all into the centre to give Rose the space. He then dinks the ball in to Janssen inside the box and the goal comes from a deflected shot.

Second goal comes from a through ball into the box where Son beats a man and pulls it back for Kane.

Third is from a little through ball into the box where Son beats his man and wins a penalty.

None of these are the product of getting wide and putting in crosses (Rose's was the closest but still far from that tactic). If you want to try and claim that what we did is what you were calling for, fine - but u think most people know what getting wide and putting in crosses to the front two is and that wasn't it.
 
Getting wide/in behind is so important to open teams up, we did that well once Son was involved. He has the yard of pace and, just as important, makes the runs to get the ball in those areas.

Crossing the ball doesn't have to mean aimless hoofs in from the touchline imo, hitting the by-line and pulling it back into the box is great for us though. Encouraging that Winks got himself into the box, we need more of this.
 
milo said:
I've found the answer for you. These are the stats for this season so far.

Crosses per game..............................Shots per game.............................Goals per game

Crosses_per_game.png
Shots_per_game.png
Goals_per_game.png


https://www.whoscored.com/Regions/2...amStatistics/England-Premier-League-2016-2017
Click to expand...

So do "crosses produce goals" @Pirate55?
 
scaramanga said:
... u think most people know what getting wide and putting in crosses to the front two is and that wasn't it.
Click to expand...

I know crosses have a low rate of return. So does running into the centre of a packed defence, but they don't give stats for that. We need variation, and to pull defences around. It is too easy for a 3 man defence to just face up and repel our weak probes through the middle.

I believe "most people" want us to use the full width of the pitch i.e. somebody needs to get wide, so that their defence gets pulled around, gaps appear, they have to turn and run back to goal etc.

If we only have a full back wide, they struggle to beat the wide defenders, and end up coming back out or lofting it across. If we support them we get into interesting positions and pose difficult questions of the defence.

If we keep cutting inside and trying to poke it through the middle of a packed defence, it is frustrating.

I believe "most people" are not calling for lots of lofted crosses, they are calling for players to get wide, get in behind, use the width of the pitch and then play from there, whether it is a low cut back, a high cut back, a cross, a dribble, a pass... but not just staying 20 yards out and passing back and forth and probing at the centre of a packed defence.

Clearly Son got in down the left on the edge of the box. This turned the defence and pulled them out of position and caused chaos and goals.


Earlier I saw the Goons probing toothlessly all match, until they crossed it for Giroud to head in. I saw Dier rise and head it goalward, but the keeper saved it. I saw City probe and probe and score from out wide. It happens all the time. I don't want Spurs to focus on crossing, but I do want Spurs to use the width of the pitch and get runners wide to stretch defences. Is that clearer?
 
milo said:
So do "crosses produce goals" @Pirate55?
Click to expand...

Please define the word cross in these statistics. Does it (as I suspect) include any ball lumped into the penalty area from a wide position? As I said to Scara, this would then inevitably skew the statistics as balls aimlessly wafted in by relegation haunted clubs will also be counted in these stats and of course these do not lead to many goals being scored from them.

What would be much more interesting is if you could isolate the crosses from a wide area where a player gets to the byline and pulls the ball back - either in the air or on the ground? Do you have the stats for those "crosses"? I think those would result in a much higher percentage of goals scored.

Naturally the figure for shots has a higher propensity for goals as most people don't shoot unless there is a realistic chance of a goal!
 
Bullet said:
I know crosses have a low rate of return. So does running into the centre of a packed defence, but they don't give stats for that. We need variation, and to pull defences around. It is too easy for a 3 man defence to just face up and repel our weak probes through the middle.

I believe "most people" want us to use the full width of the pitch i.e. somebody needs to get wide, so that their defence gets pulled around, gaps appear, they have to turn and run back to goal etc.

If we only have a full back wide, they struggle to beat the wide defenders, and end up coming back out or lofting it across. If we support them we get into interesting positions and pose difficult questions of the defence.

If we keep cutting inside and trying to poke it through the middle of a packed defence, it is frustrating.

I believe "most people" are not calling for lots of lofted crosses, they are calling for players to get wide, get in behind, use the width of the pitch and then play from there, whether it is a low cut back, a high cut back, a cross, a dribble, a pass... but not just staying 20 yards out and passing back and forth and probing at the centre of a packed defence.

Clearly Son got in down the left on the edge of the box. This turned the defence and pulled them out of position and caused chaos and goals.


Earlier I saw the Goons probing toothlessly all match, until they crossed it for Giroud to head in. I saw Dier rise and head it goalward, but the keeper saved it. I saw City probe and probe and score from out wide. It happens all the time. I don't want Spurs to focus on crossing, but I do want Spurs to use the width of the pitch and get runners wide to stretch defences. Is that clearer?
Click to expand...

Well said @Bullet. It seems some people want to try and say the simplistic "crosses don't result in goals" ignore a major opportunity of creating chances. As you say, variation is the key. In that first half - and in too many of our recent games - we haven't had it.
 
Daisuk said:
When was the last time we turned a game around like that so late? Last I can remember was Wet Spam away in 2007. :p
Click to expand...

Wasn't the the last time the League Cup semi=final when we almost threw it away in the second leg and Eriksen scored with a free kick (oh happy days!!!!) right at the end to take us through.
 
Pirate55 said:
Please define the word cross in these statistics. Does it (as I suspect) include any ball lumped into the penalty area from a wide position? As I said to Scara, this would then inevitably skew the statistics as balls aimlessly wafted in by relegation haunted clubs will also be counted in these stats and of course these do not lead to many goals being scored from them.

What would be much more interesting is if you could isolate the crosses from a wide area where a player gets to the byline and pulls the ball back - either in the air or on the ground? Do you have the stats for those "crosses"? I think those would result in a much higher percentage of goals scored.

Naturally the figure for shots has a higher propensity for goals as most people don't shoot unless there is a realistic chance of a goal!
Click to expand...

You seem to have changed what you were saying since half time.

I would suspect that the stats count all balls from out wide. If you only included the good balls from out wide, then obviously the figures would be very different. If you are arguing that a specific type of play is more effective, I think that it is for you to find the evidence to support this. As it stands, I think that we can agree that crosses do not produce goals more than other means of attacking.
 
Pirate55 said:
Well said @Bullet. It seems some people want to try and say the simplistic "crosses don't result in goals" ignore a major opportunity of creating chances. As you say, variation is the key. In that first half - and in too many of our recent games - we haven't had it.
Click to expand...

It might be simplistic but that is precisely what you were arguing at half time.
 
milo said:
You seem to have changed what you were saying since half time.

I would suspect that the stats count all balls from out wide. If you only included the good balls from out wide, then obviously the figures would be very different. If you are arguing that a specific type of play is more effective, I think that it is for you to find the evidence to support this. As it stands, I think that we can agree that crosses do not produce goals more than other means of attacking.
Click to expand...

No, I have been entirely consistent. I was calling for us to go on the OUTSIDE of players at half time to get into dangerous positions and cross the ball from the byline. Rose did it = Goal 1. Son did it twice = Goal 2 and Penalty. I don't see how anyone can dispute that all these came from wide positions close to or at the byline.
 
milo said:
You seem to have changed what you were saying since half time.

I would suspect that the stats count all balls from out wide. If you only included the good balls from out wide, then obviously the figures would be very different. If you are arguing that a specific type of play is more effective, I think that it is for you to find the evidence to support this. As it stands, I think that we can agree that crosses do not produce goals more than other means of attacking.
Click to expand...

please explain what you mean by "other means of attacking"
 
Do cross stats take into account a ball played into the box which is then half-cleared, or a shot from a cross that rebounds back off the keeper and is then tapped in? If they don't take that into account, then the stat is worthless. Chaos can be very creative.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Couple of things stood out for me

Our plan to cross it high to their centre backs clearly didn't work... why do t we cross low and hard with pace (like we did to score from)

Also we are still fannying around playing left right football with no penetration - looks pretty but no product and reminds me of Arsenal

Lastly Payet is undoubtably a talented player but he was gash today and offered them
Nothing iMO. There really poor up front and it's why their struggling. And Zaza
Click to expand...
Yep we didn't try to run the channels with the early ball despite having 2 strikers up front either. Our crosses in the first half..... There was no one there. No anticipation no runs, as the cross comes in.

It looks we don't train or drill much in these areas. Very little instinct or understanding in attack.

Sent from my SM-T819Y using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back