TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR VS CHELSEA - CAPITAL ONE CUP FINAL

[braineclipse]

Sometimes this season I have thought that watching us play is like watching paint dry, predictable and pedestrian, we get the ball into the final third and just stop, when we try and play the ball quicker we inevitably give it away and it comes straight back on our defence which gets caught with the fullbacks up the pitch, definitely needs tweaking, Chelsea did not need to carve us open time after time to win and they knew that, why didn't Dier get out quicker to close down Terry, why did Bentaleb not track Fabregas, small margins but to accept defeat without questioning why, never.

Of course our attacking play needs further work. The average age of our front 6 yesterday was 22.5, and other than Townsend none of those players have even two full seasons of PL experience. We're in our first season under our new manager and have had a grueling fixture list, having played the most games of any PL side so far this season, or very close to it. Of course our attacking play against hard working, well organized teams still needs work. Even more so against top class defensive sides like Chelsea.

You're nitpicking at small decisions made by Bentaleb and Dier, two 20 year old players. One who cost us £4m less than a year ago, one who we've produced ourselves. Yes they're not at the levels of Terry and Fabregas, not quite yet at least. I'm not saying that we should question why. All I'm asking for is some pespective.

We were mate. Dress it up however you like, Chelsea got their tactics spot on and as the game progressed they took more control.

Disagree wildly on the Walker thing. Yellow card or not having Dier there would have been preferable to Walker ambling around for periods and no doubt worsening his injury. It's down to the gaffer to tell Dier to be careful and not lunge in stupidly. Where on earth is this Yedlin kid? Or is he just an American mascot for the club?

Walker wasn't just ambling around. He looked fine in the second half despite struggling a bit. He was much better than Dier has been at right back earlier this season when he's played there.

There's room for 7 players on the bench. Realistically our backup right back at the moment is probably Vlad, but there's not enough room to have our direct backup for each position on the bench. Yedlin seems to have been brought in for the future, not sure what's hard to understand about that or why you think he would be ready for a LC final at this point in time.

 

[braineclipse]

Agreed mate. The lack of objectivity on here is breathtaking.

Yes, BE, if we had scored first the game MAY have been different. But then again if my Grandmother had balls........

Ok, objectivity...

We had 13 shots, they had 14. We had 2 on target, they had 3. We had 1 hit the woodwork, they had none. We had 57.9% possession. Both their goals were deflected in and had never gone in without the deflections.

If you don't get why the first goal in a cup final against a Mourinho side is likely to be decisive, or if you don't get why there was a clear element of luck to their opener and the fact that they got the opening goal we obviously view football very differently.

 

[Sandman]

There's room for 7 players on the bench. Realistically our backup right back at the moment is probably Vlad, but there's not enough room to have our direct backup for each position on the bench. Yedlin seems to have been brought in for the future, not sure what's hard to understand about that or why you think he would be ready for a LC final at this point in time.

We we need is someone ( not a centre back ) who can cover both positions at full back. Can Davies not play on the right? like Naughton used to play on the left. Our cover at right back will be Yedlin and maybe Fredericks in the coming seasons. But they are not ready yet

Personally Walker was ambliing around to get to half time. But after the break he looked fine and closed down at full speed.

 

[braineclipse]

We we need is someone ( not a centre back ) who can cover both positions at full back. Can Davies not play on the right? like Naughton used to play on the left. Our cover at right back will be Yedlin and maybe Fredericks in the coming seasons. But they are not ready yet

Personally Walker was ambliing around to get to half time. But after the break he looked fine and closed down at full speed.

Is this common amongst the top clubs? I know Chelsea have Azpilicueta, but up until last season I don't think many would have claimed that he would be particularly suited to playing as a left back. I think we're well stocked and if we bring in another full back him being able to play on both sides shouldn't be a priority imo.

 

[Spur of the moment]

We we need is someone ( not a centre back ) who can cover both positions at full back. Can Davies not play on the right? like Naughton used to play on the left. Our cover at right back will be Yedlin and maybe Fredericks in the coming seasons. But they are not ready yet

Personally Walker was ambliing around to get to half time. But after the break he looked fine and closed down at full speed.

But if you remember, Naughton mostly had a torrid time playing on the left. Wasn't until he got regular starts in his natural position on the right (for a short time anyway) that he began to look more comfortable. Not sure what's wrong with having CBs who can also play at either RB or LB tbh. For a time (a few years back tbf) Kaboul looked brilliant at RB, also didn't Campbell (wash my mouth out) start out as a FB?

 

[Sandman]

But if you remember, Naughton mostly had a torrid time playing on the left. Wasn't until he got regular starts in his natural position on the right (for a short time anyway) that he began to look more comfortable. Not sure what's wrong with having CBs who can also play at either RB or LB tbh. For a time (a few years back tbf) Kaboul looked brilliant at RB, also didn't Campbell (wash my mouth out) start out as a FB?

No I believe that Campbell started out as a midfielder, not sure actually. You are right about Naughton. But I think Chiriches, Dier etc dont look that great at full back. I just feel that a modern day full back should be able to play both positions. One not so well of course but still.

 

[markysimmo]

Sky’s player ratings hahahahah !!!
Fabregas 8 and Bentaleb 6
Chelsea: Cech 7; Cahill 7, Terry 9, Zouma 7 Ivanovic 7; Ramires 6, Fabregas 8, Azpilicueta 6; Willian 6, Hazard 7; Costa 8
Subs used: Oscar 6, Cuadrado 6, Drogba 6
Tottenham: Lloris 7; Walker 6, Dier 6, Vertonghen 6, Rose 6; Mason 6, Bentaleb 6; Townsend 5, Eriksen 6, Chadli 5; Kane 6

 

[indianspur]

i remember watching Twuntball play left back on quite a few occasions early in his career

 

[scaramanga]

I'm not a big fan of Townsend but I think he's getting some unfair stick for yesterday. Chelsea doubled up on the wings giving him little options. When he did beat his man and make some space for a cross there was no one in the box or if they were they were hugely out numbered.

Then putting in a cross was a bad choice.

 

[NWND]

Ok, objectivity...

We had 13 shots, they had 14. We had 2 on target, they had 3. We had 1 hit the woodwork, they had none. We had 57.9% possession. Both their goals were deflected in and had never gone in without the deflections.

If you don't get why the first goal in a cup final against a Mourinho side is likely to be decisive, or if you don't get why there was a clear element of luck to their opener and the fact that they got the opening goal we obviously view football very differently.

Exactly, you need luck to be on your side against Chelsea. People forgot about the league game we beat them in that they took the lead and for about 10-15 minutes totally di**ed all over us until Kane scored out of nowhere and totally transformed the match, particularly because Rose scored soon afterwards. Suddenly they were chasing the game and we could hit on the counter.

Basically, Chelsea going a goal ahead against you is the worst thing that can happen, as they can put into full effect their game-killing Mourinho tactics which pretty much every team in the world have trouble dealing with, which is why Mourinho is so successful. He is the master at coming up with plans that kill games and nullify all the oppositions threats. To beat Mourinho you have to have to take the lead or you are relying on a massive slice of good fortune (which you probably will need even if you take the lead against his teams).

 

[Jimmy-g]

Agreed mate. The lack of objectivity on here is breathtaking.

Yes, BE, if we had scored first the game MAY have been different. But then again if my Grandmother had balls........

Not being fractious but according to certain people we are not allowed to win a final until we are clearly the best team in the Prem and to lose while performing reasonably is justified, I just don't see it like that, I have said before that we could do with a couple of older heads in the side and we have nobody resembling a leader, I also acknowledge that we have a young side with potential but really will these players get much better ? we had a chance to win a final and showed the same ineptness with our cutting edge that we have all season, MP seems to set the team up to blindly follow a pattern with no innovation, as I have also said is it this the system we play or are our players are not good enough ? once again imo we never looked like scoring yesterday.
next season will be interesting.

 

[glasgowspur]

Then putting in a cross was a bad choice.

But he didn't always cross it, got crowded out and lost the ball. Not the same as running into a dead end.

 

[scaramanga]

But he didn't always cross it, got crowded out and lost the ball. Not the same as running into a dead end.

I think you missed the point.

I was responding to the point that Townsend's crosses failed because we were outnumbered heavily in the box or that we had nobody in the box. The suggestion was that the cross coming in was some kind of unalterable, predetermined future event. That the cross was coming in no matter what and failure to be on the end of it was to be blamed on the rest of the players.

My point is that the cross isn't a predetermined future event, and if there aren't enough players in the box, or if they're outnumbered/well marked then do something other than just lump the ball in at them.

 

[sc25]

Basically, Chelsea going a goal ahead against you is the worst thing that can happen, To beat Mourinho you have to have to take the lead or you are relying on a massive slice of good fortune (which you probably will need even if you take the lead against his teams).

Agreed, but I'd have thought most everyone is aware of that (including Poch) and would have known about it going in to the game. As such, and given that the possibility/likelihood existed, I assume we had a Plan B in the event that we did fall behind. As in at half-time..."Well, we are a goal down which is obviously not what we wanted, and as we all knew would make things more difficult for us against them. However, here's what we are now going to change and do in the 2nd half to combat and counter that, since they are likely to now sit back more...".

Now obviously thats much easier said than done, for any team against them, but I assume we had some plans for the eventuality.

 

[Lilywhite]

This is aimed at fans of all teams - not just ours in here, but I've noticed it alot lately - fans always mention how if the opposition didn't score the first goal it would have been a totally different game when the opposition score, but neglect to ever mention it when we've won a match after scoring first (rare it is admittedly!). Amuses me, and shows the inherent bias fans have in football.

Me personally I like to take a more balanced view of matches, even those involving my beloved Spurs. We didn't score the first goal yesterday, so stop all this 'if we did doe...'. Remember, Chelsea scored first against us at the Lane and we ended up hitting five past them.

 

[Robspur12]

Agreed, but I'd have thought most everyone is aware of that (including Poch) and would have known about it going in to the game. As such, and given that the possibility/likelihood existed, I assume we had a Plan B in the event that we did fall behind. As in at half-time..."Well, we are a goal down which is obviously not what we wanted, and as we all knew would make things more difficult for us against them. However, here's what we are now going to change and do in the 2nd half to combat and counter that, since they are likely to now sit back more...".

Now obviously thats much easier said than done, for any team against them, but I assume we had some plans for the eventuality.

How many coaches have developed an effective plan B against Mourinho? Tbh at Spurs it's been a challenge over the years having an effective plan A!

 

[thfcsteff]

A few things a day later...

1) Townsend...we can discuss on the ball forever, my issue was that neither he or Chadli were offering enough OFF the ball in terms of smart movement. We really needed one of those (or preferably both) to be smarter in this regard and work with Eriksen and Kane to continually revolve/interchange like that 4 has been doing for the last three months. Say what you like about Lamela, he offered presence, strength and purpose when he came on.

2) Some of the 'ratings' of Bentaleb in the media have been laughable. He was excellent.

3) If we had won the match 2-0 in the same fashion, would Jose have said we came to 'park the bus and not play football' (5 defenders starting), would he have said we got two lucky breaks, would he have claimed at least one-man should've been sent off, and would he have claimed that only one team came to try and play football? I think so. What is most frustrating about yesterday os that they actually weren't very good, and had we been a bit smarter in our initial team selection and performance during the game (I felt we looked too pure and white as our shirts sometime, even when fouling it was obvious) we'd have won.

 

[braineclipse]

This is aimed at fans of all teams - not just ours in here, but I've noticed it alot lately - fans always mention how if the opposition didn't score the first goal it would have been a totally different game when the opposition score, but neglect to ever mention it when we've won a match after scoring first (rare it is admittedly!). Amuses me, and shows the inherent bias fans have in football.

Me personally I like to take a more balanced view of matches, even those involving my beloved Spurs. We didn't score the first goal yesterday, so stop all this 'if we did doe...'. Remember, Chelsea scored first against us at the Lane and we ended up hitting five past them.

I do bring it up when we score first too, particularly if I thought it was lucky or at a time when the game was evenly balanced.

I brought it up now because the game up until then had been close with few chances, and with us actually hitting the bar once before that. In a final like that it's not out of line to bring up the importance of the first goal scored. There's a reason why managers like Mourinho go into games like this with the kind of caution he showed against us yesterday.

We did turn it around against them at home in the league. But it took a fantastic effort from Kane to do just that. Yesterday that magical moment didn't happen. Similarly in the away league game against them they got the lead after we had been the better team for the opening 15-20 minutes.

To claim to present a balanced view, but ignoring the effect the opener has on a game of football is to me a bit of an oxymoron.

 

[Pirate55]

I do bring it up when we score first too, particularly if I thought it was lucky or at a time when the game was evenly balanced.

I brought it up now because the game up until then had been close with few chances, and with us actually hitting the bar once before that. In a final like that it's not out of line to bring up the importance of the first goal scored. There's a reason why managers like Mourinho go into games like this with the kind of caution he showed against us yesterday.

We did turn it around against them at home in the league. But it took a fantastic effort from Kane to do just that. Yesterday that magical moment didn't happen. Similarly in the away league game against them they got the lead after we had been the better team for the opening 15-20 minutes.

To claim to present a balanced view, but ignoring the effect the opener has on a game of football is to me a bit of an oxymoron.

Of course the first goal is important. No one said it wasn't. But it needn't be the end of the contest. We have done well from losing positions this season. Chelsea's game plan yesterday was to stop us scoring. They knew they had enough firepower up front to get goals either through their goal machine or from a set piece. And so it proved. I said early on during the game that we must stop giving away cheap free kicks. It was only a question of time before they made one count. We are not equipped to deal with Terry, Cahill, Zouma, Costa and Ivanovich in the air. At one point, I think it was Mason detailed to pick up Zouma!

I think a more prescient question to be posed is - "would we have stopped Chelsea scoring if we had scored first". I doubt anyone on here really believes we could keep a clean sheet against them at the moment. I agree with Steff that Chadli and Townsend needed to have big games both on and off the ball. Unfortunately, they didn't and as a result we looked relatively toothless. These areas need to be addressed urgently in the summer. We need someone who can provide a spark. We can't keep relying on just Eriksen and Kane. There is a massive lack of pace in our attack and hence we don't have a plan B.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think the biggest factors about their opener was

a) it was in the 45th minute
b) it was a lucky, scrappy goal