• 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 Chelsea OMT***

thfcsteff said:
You're living in alternate 'realities' and past events. Again, we nearly equalized in the 92nd minute. Think about that. 'Epitome of Spurs bottling it', oh come on, if you want to conflate that bizarro match with history, then have fun?
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well mate, i came away feeling pride in the way we kept trying to play and as you say we could have equalised. brick happens and it sure did last night. Anyone who REALLY believe that we bottled that game needs to have a word with themselves.
 
I've probably not been paying enough attention but how long has the offside rule allowed a non interfering player standing in an offside position to then be involved if the ball goes to another player first? I mean the scenario where they beat the offside trap and Jackson was standing offside but then still scores later in the move. It didn't used to be like that a few years back did it?. Back in the day the flag would go up once he got involved right?
 
dingdongo said:
I've probably not been paying enough attention but how long has the offside rule allowed a non interfering player standing in an offside position to then be involved if the ball goes to another player first? I mean the scenario where they beat the offside trap and Jackson was standing offside but then still scores later in the move. It didn't used to be like that a few years back did it?. Back in the day the flag would go up once he got involved right?
Click to expand...
It's been like that for years, different phases of play...
 
DubSpur said:
It's been like that for years, different phases of play...
Click to expand...

Yeah, thought it might have been a long time by now. Still seemed weird seeing it first hand though. Just standing there well off then once they beat the trap we had to chase to catch him up. Seemed like an unfair advantage
 
dingdongo said:
I've probably not been paying enough attention but how long has the offside rule allowed a non interfering player standing in an offside position to then be involved if the ball goes to another player first? I mean the scenario where they beat the offside trap and Jackson was standing offside but then still scores later in the move. It didn't used to be like that a few years back did it?. Back in the day the flag would go up once he got involved right?
Click to expand...
Back in the day, 20+years ago, the flag would have gone up as soon as the ball was played forward, even though it didn't initially go to Jackson. It's good that rule changes have favoured attackers but I don't like this particular interpretation. He was in an offside position when the pass was played, then ran towards the goal, was always ahead of the last defender and scored from Sterling's pass. Should be offside IMO but currently isn't.
 
jaysea67 said:
Back in the day, 20+years ago, the flag would have gone up as soon as the ball was played forward, even though it didn't initially go to Jackson. It's good that rule changes have favoured attackers but I don't like this particular interpretation. He was in an offside position when the pass was played, then ran towards the goal, was always ahead of the last defender and scored from Sterling's pass. Should be offside IMO but currently isn't.
Click to expand...
Agree. with this set up you could basically stand offside in the opponents box. They pass to a wide player and he is ahead of the defenders from the get go. I also thought that pass, from a defenders mind could be meant for Jackson. So they think they are playing him off and pushing up.

I think Henry used to do this a lot for L'arse. from a wide left position.
 
JerusalemMan said:
It was a mediocre Chelsea side.
That very nearly did not beat 9 men playing with passion and a plan.
Click to expand...
With our high line. We was playing with fire. One off the line, some close offsides. It finally caught us out. There will be a very split thought pattern on that game from outsiders. We was brave ( naïve? ) but brave. Players put in a total shift, commentators I was listening to were almost with us because of what had happened.

Im still torn with it. With 10 men and VDV I would have liked seeing what we did.
With 9 and back up CB's I think with a low block they would not have scored and we could have dug out a point.

Like I said, Im torn. Im kind of down with this lets go for it approach after all the conte, Nuno, Jose crap. But also. I did think the tactics that Liverpool employed were perfect and we should have done the same.
 
Baleforce said:
we've been really good, all season, against some ok teams. we've just been hammered by a really fudging brick one, through our own abject fudging stupidity

I'm annoyed by that
Click to expand...
Chelsea aren't as brick as their table position. Performance wise they're top 6. And we weren't hammered. When you're chasing a goal with 9 men you're extremely open to getting countered. Goals 3 and 4 for them were just that. They make the result look more of a whupping than it actually was. If Dier's goal stands, or if Benta makes good contact with his header and equalizes this game finishes 2-2 and then everyone is singing a completely different tune. Fine margins. But nowhere near a hammering.
 
Sandman said:
With our high line. We was playing with fire. One off the line, some close offsides. It finally caught us out. There will be a very split thought pattern on that game from outsiders. We was brave ( naïve? ) but brave. Players put in a total shift, commentators I was listening to were almost with us because of what had happened.

Im still torn with it. With 10 men and VDV I would have liked seeing what we did.
With 9 and back up CB's I think with a low block they would not have scored and we could have dug out a point.

Like I said, Im torn. Im kind of down with this lets go for it approach after all the conte, Nuno, Jose crap. But also. I did think the tactics that Liverpool employed were perfect and we should have done the same.
Click to expand...

The best we would have got is a point out of it

My concern is mentally it gives the players an "excuse", a point where for the right circumstances you revert to the "old"

Ange has made it clear, we play brave regardless
 
alekaras said:
Chelsea aren't as brick as their table position. Performance wise they're top 6. And we weren't hammered. When you're chasing a goal with 9 men you're extremely open to getting countered. Goals 3 and 4 for them were just that. They make the result look more of a whupping than it actually was. If Dier's goal stands, or if Benta makes good contact with his header and equalizes this game finishes 2-2 and then everyone is singing a completely different tune. Fine margins. But nowhere near a hammering.
Click to expand...

Disagree, for the first 15-20 minutes they were one of the worse sides I've seen us play at home this season, they were completely disorganized and rattled. Even vs. 11, their tactic was long ball to runner (which while makes sense with our disadvantage and high line, they should have been able to pass/play around us and force us back)

With 11 v 11, it could have been a thumping for them.
 
Raziel said:
The best we would have got is a point out of it

My concern is mentally it gives the players an "excuse", a point where for the right circumstances you revert to the "old"

Ange has made it clear, we play brave regardless
Click to expand...
yeah I am not disagreeing. When we did it v Luton. all good. only one man down and with VDV.

I think last night possibly should have been an exception to his thinking. We not only lost two players. But 3/4 of our starting defence and the two with pace. And we had no cover on the bench. But I am not going to get all upset about it and I think, in general I'm down with what he decided. Just I a part of me thinks this was a total clusterF**k of a game.

if we had lost lets say, Biss and Kulu. And down to 9. But with our starting Defence. Then sure. But with Romero, VDV and Udogie off the pitch. we played with fire. Im just discussing it. Not saying we should have.
 
Sandman said:
With our high line. We was playing with fire. One off the line, some close offsides. It finally caught us out. There will be a very split thought pattern on that game from outsiders. We was brave ( naïve? ) but brave. Players put in a total shift, commentators I was listening to were almost with us because of what had happened.

Im still torn with it. With 10 men and VDV I would have liked seeing what we did.
With 9 and back up CB's I think with a low block they would not have scored and we could have dug out a point.

Like I said, Im torn. Im kind of down with this lets go for it approach after all the conte, Nuno, Jose crap. But also. I did think the tactics that Liverpool employed were perfect and we should have done the same.
Click to expand...
They got the same out of that game as we got last night. Nothing.

I detest Chelsea and hate losing to them. When it happens, I'm usually insufferable for the week. But, as disappointed as I was with the result last night, I came out of that stadium proud of our club, proud of our fans, proud of our players (the ones who stayed on the pitch) and proud of our manager. Look at Deki's post above - you can bet the players all feel that.

I wouldn't have done what Ange did last night. It was crazy, kamikaze stuff. But it was brave. And it's generated a feeling around our club that is very hard to do when you get beat. The fans left that stadium last night feeling closer to the squad than when they walked in. I'm not sure I'd risk that for the very miniscule chance of a point if we camped in our own box.

Audere est Facere - it finally feels real again.
 
DeanoAustin said:
They got the same out of that game as we got last night. Nothing.

I detest Chelsea and hate losing to them. When it happens, I'm usually insufferable for the week. But, as disappointed as I was with the result last night, I came out of that stadium proud of our club, proud of our fans, proud of our players (the ones who stayed on the pitch) and proud of our manager. Look at Deki's post above - you can bet the players all feel that.

I wouldn't have done what Ange did last night. It was crazy, kamikaze stuff. But it was brave. And it's generated a feeling around our club that is very hard to do when you get beat. The fans left that stadium last night feeling closer to the squad than when they walked in. I'm not sure I'd risk that for the very miniscule chance of a point if we camped in our own box.

Audere est Facere - it finally feels real again.
Click to expand...

Amen brother.
 
Hotshot-Tottenham said:
I totally get all of that and I’m 100% behind Ange - but I do just think there has to be a balance between the core philosophy and being able to execute a plan b.

At some stage some nous, some pragmatism surely has to come into play? Especially in an exceptional circumstance where we’re down to 9.

You can still play your football, keep it, be brave on the ball - but you don’t necessarily have to try to do that defending the halfway line.

Making an adjustment to the circumstances isn’t equal to abandoning the way we want to play.

We’ve all seen managers come undone because they stick unfailingly to their philosophy - Roberto Martinez at both Wigan and Everton comes to mind. He was naive and stubborn and it caught him out.

Sure, no guarantee at all of a different outcome had we dropped deeper. But playing that high after losing your quickest CB seems questionable.

I wonder if we could have kept Johnson on and used his and Son’s pace on the break while sitting a bit deeper.
Click to expand...
I think it's OK to play the high line if VdV is still on the pitch, or if we're just one man down. At 2 players down, it might make more sense to retreat somewhat and go back to the high line if we need a goal. Can't say I didn't enjoy watching us go for it, though.
 
Raziel said:
Disagree, for the first 15-20 minutes they were one of the worse sides I've seen us play at home this season, they were completely disorganized and rattled. Even vs. 11, their tactic was long ball to runner (which while makes sense with our disadvantage and high line, they should have been able to pass/play around us and force us back)

With 11 v 11, it could have been a thumping for them.
Click to expand...
I agree
they really lack smart players
the fact they had more offsides than shots
they made more fouls than us
didnt have a huge possession upside either
a good team would have had that game won after the Udogie sendin* off very very quickly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back