Welcome Ange: To Dare is to Didgeridoo

[glorygloryeze]

But what he is saying does stand to some reason, unless everyone raises their game back up to the level required then the outcome is highly likely the same sub or no sub

Coventry worked absolutely but the variables there are likely the gulf in quality of those subs that came on, the same can't be said about what was on the pitch and what was coming on.....or the oppo.

Ok, even if i take that theory, why then was the double-sub of Bissouma and Sarr eventually made on 79 minutes? Is that because by that time everyone had raised their game again to the level required?

 

[Grays_1890]

Ok....so...what made him decide to actually bring on the subs after all then?

Also, if the game was a cup knockout game, would that be the same approach, i.e. don't on a sub because they are so bad no subs will change anything?

And then, what about vs Coventry, when for much longer before we went a goal down we were playing FAR WORSE than on Sunday?

Just doesn't stack up for me at all..

But what he os saying does stand to se reason, unless everyone raises their game back up to the level required then the outcome is highly likely the same sub or no sub

Coventry worked absolutely but the variables there are likely the gulf in quality of those subs that came on, the same can't be said about what was on the pitch and what was coming on.....

I'm not saying tiredness wasn't a factor by the third goal, but with all due respect to the schedules, the first two goals came within 60 mins, one was a slice and one was sheer last defending, I don't think it was fatigue at that point.

Ange could have reacted earlier, absolutely, but there are no guarantees there is an impact, which I think is short is my overall point, I also agree with his view that it takes the team in its entirety to pull themselves out of these holes, not just subs which are the roll of the dice.

Anyway the games a bad memory now hahahah onwards and all that stuff...

COYS

 

[glorygloryeze]

It's quite simple, you're guessing that the players were tired - Ange has the data to know this and I really doubt he is keeping tired players on the pitch, he's often commented on subbing a player because of fatigue. Ange has demonstrated previously he makes subs if he believes will change the game, on this occasion he didn't think that to be the case until later on. Sometimes subs have an impact, sometimes they make things worse - it's really not worth dwelling on it to the extent that you are....

Yes, Ange has indeed demonstrated that he makes subs if he feels it will change the game, he eventually made subs in this very game...so the very fair question is/was - why not earlier?

 

[Grays_1890]

Ok, even if i take that theory, why then was the double-sub of Bissouma and Sarr eventually made on 79 minutes? Is that because by that time everyone had raised their game again to the level required?

I assume its because they didn't and he gave the side, the strongest side the chance to dig out of it. I think there is merit in that approach even if its not agreed with.

As been alluded to alot by many and a theory I massively subscribe to, the mess on Sunday given the timings of the goals ws a lack of character and leaders more than a lack of reaction, its a long standing story with us and it needs to change as much as managers.

Anyway pal, good debate all fair in love and Spurs

 

[Muttley]

Ange has access to the same set of tools that every other manager has. He doesn't have to play in one single formation all of the time. He doesn't have to utilise his full-backs the same way when he has 2-0 leads. He doesn't need to play with 2 AM's and 1 DM when we're away from home and take a 2 goal lead in at half time. As a fan, I won't judge him on the silly expectations he has set on us. He will be measured on the expectations that I put on every manager based on having a full armoury of tactics, formations, players etc to work with.

I find it quite audacious of him that he talks in pressers about a lack of competitiveness from the eleven on the pitch but doesn't change it until the 79th minute. That is, with our most competitive and senior player Bissouma sitting on the bench. A 28 year old with tonnes of experience, that even used to play for the club we're playing against. I mean, what more motive to do you need as a player. Does Ange not have it in him to call his senior player over, tell him what he's seeing and ask him to get out there and get some guys around him fired up again? It seems not.

What another PL manager might have done. Moved to 4-4-1-1. Moved Kulu and Johnson to narrow LM and RM with Madds and Solanke ahead. Removed Werner and set up the Biss, Bents double axis. Told the full-backs to stay wider in the new shape.

What another PL manager might have done. Brought Dragu on as the 3rd centre half and got the full-backs to become wing-backs. Fight fire with fire by pushing Mitoma and Estupinan back into their own half by getting more bodies in that area of the pitch.

Just a couple of tactical changes from the manager playbooks that we've come accustomed to from many managers over the years. Why is the Ange THFC not allowed to adopt any of these other playbooks. It's not that it turns us back to a Jose or Conte team. Quite the opposite. I say this over and over again, but I'm enjoying the transformation we're seeing under Ange, but I also know that it is the man himself that is making it slightly sub-optimal compared to where it could be. He could eventually lose his job over it, but that is a way out still.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Ange has access to the same set of tools that every other manager has. He doesn't have to play in one single formation all of the time. He doesn't have to utilise his full-backs the same way when he has 2-0 leads. He doesn't need to play with 2 AM's and 1 DM when we're away from home and take a 2 goal lead in at half time. As a fan, I won't judge him on the silly expectations he has set on us. He will be measured on the expectations that I put on every manager based on having a full armoury of tactics, formations, players etc to work with.

I find it quite audacious of him that he talks in pressers about a lack of competitiveness from the eleven on the pitch but doesn't change it until the 79th minute. That is, with our most competitive and senior player Bissouma sitting on the bench. A 28 year old with tonnes of experience, that even used to play for the club we're playing against. I mean, what more motive to do you need as a player. Does Ange not have it in him to call his senior player over, tell him what he's seeing and ask him to get out there and get some guys around him fired up again? It seems not.

What another PL manager might have done. Moved to 4-4-1-1. Moved Kulu and Johnson to narrow LM and RM with Madds and Solanke ahead. Removed Werner and set up the Biss, Bents double axis. Told the full-backs to stay wider in the new shape.

What another PL manager might have done. Brought Dragu on as the 3rd centre half and got the full-backs to become wing-backs. Fight fire with fire by pushing Mitoma and Estupinan back into their own half by getting more bodies in that area of the pitch.

Just a couple of tactical changes from the manager playbooks that we've come accustomed to from many managers over the years. Why is the Ange THFC not allowed to adopt any of these other playbooks. It's not that it turns us back to a Jose or Conte team. Quite the opposite. I say this over and over again, but I'm enjoying the transformation we're seeing under Ange, but I also know that it is the man himself that is making it slightly sub-optimal compared to where it could be. He could eventually lose his job over it, but that is a way out still.

The bigger issue was, why was the team that was so dominant not doing the basics they did so well
Pressing and passing. The latter could be because they changed, the former was effort. That could be tiredness but it didn’t look like that and the timing was weird for that collapse

 

[Muttley]

The bigger issue was, why was the team that was so dominant not doing the basics they did so well
Pressing and passing. The latter could be because they changed, the former was effort. That could be tiredness but it didn’t look like that and the timing was weird for that collapse

The other question is what happens when players do use their smarts and change things around in Ange's system? Are they discouraged from that and just programmed to follow the playbook. That doesn't work when the opposition disrupt you and shuffle things especially in those early exchanges after half time.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

The other question is what happens when players do use their smarts and change things around in Ange's system? Are they discouraged from that and just programmed to follow the playbook. That doesn't work when the opposition disrupt you and shuffle things especially in those early exchanges after half time.

Not seen it yet to know
The opposition shuffle was a new left back and okaying higher up
If we pressed as we did previously we would have been fine
We didn’t. It was grim. We left holes everywhere like they did first half but much worse
And then we had some very capable players switch off frequently

 

[braineclipse]

I think also, the more I listen to the overall point, Ange is saying that unless those on thr pitch improve with or without subs that the same outcome happens, unless everyone improves and raises up they just drag the subs into the same fight the original line up found themselves in

Absolutely. And those comments from Ange aren't crazy at all.

Particularly with younger players like Moore, Bergvall and Gray that's not a great situation to come on in.

Perhaps Bissouma, Sarr or Spence could have helped change that with an earlier sub. Perhaps not. For me Sarr and Bissouma haven't typically been players who get others to up their game.

It was a game state where we actually missed having PEH on the bench. Or a Lamela type player.

But the most important thing isn't what happened, it's how the players react and respond. Still a learning process.

 

[braineclipse]

Ok, even if i take that theory, why then was the double-sub of Bissouma and Sarr eventually made on 79 minutes? Is that because by that time everyone had raised their game again to the level required?

At that point surely tiredness is more of a factor meaning that the subs make more sense. (Or even more sense).

Ange has access to the same set of tools that every other manager has. He doesn't have to play in one single formation all of the time. He doesn't have to utilise his full-backs the same way when he has 2-0 leads. He doesn't need to play with 2 AM's and 1 DM when we're away from home and take a 2 goal lead in at half time. As a fan, I won't judge him on the silly expectations he has set on us. He will be measured on the expectations that I put on every manager based on having a full armoury of tactics, formations, players etc to work with.

I find it quite audacious of him that he talks in pressers about a lack of competitiveness from the eleven on the pitch but doesn't change it until the 79th minute. That is, with our most competitive and senior player Bissouma sitting on the bench. A 28 year old with tonnes of experience, that even used to play for the club we're playing against. I mean, what more motive to do you need as a player. Does Ange not have it in him to call his senior player over, tell him what he's seeing and ask him to get out there and get some guys around him fired up again? It seems not.

What another PL manager might have done. Moved to 4-4-1-1. Moved Kulu and Johnson to narrow LM and RM with Madds and Solanke ahead. Removed Werner and set up the Biss, Bents double axis. Told the full-backs to stay wider in the new shape.

What another PL manager might have done. Brought Dragu on as the 3rd centre half and got the full-backs to become wing-backs. Fight fire with fire by pushing Mitoma and Estupinan back into their own half by getting more bodies in that area of the pitch.

Just a couple of tactical changes from the manager playbooks that we've come accustomed to from many managers over the years. Why is the Ange THFC not allowed to adopt any of these other playbooks. It's not that it turns us back to a Jose or Conte team. Quite the opposite. I say this over and over again, but I'm enjoying the transformation we're seeing under Ange, but I also know that it is the man himself that is making it slightly sub-optimal compared to where it could be. He could eventually lose his job over it, but that is a way out still.

I'm of the opinion that a lot of different approaches can work, if executed well at least. A lot of managers would make changes like you suggest, that's true. But we've also seen managers fail with that kind of approach. Given away initiative, helped give the opposition more momentum. Lessen your own attacking threat.

I can't really remember Bissouma having that kind of "leadership impact", raise those around him. To me he's more of a "if we play well he plays well player". Wouldn't have been against him coming on, but also think there are solid rational reasons why Ange didn't in this instance.

Based on his post match comments Ange didn't seem to be of the opinion that his options on the bench would have impacted the performances of those around them in a significant manner. He may be wrong on that, but it's an understandable point of view.

I get the impression that Ange is often valuing looking further ahead higher rather than at changes that can impact the current or next game. This is all speculative, but a bit like the Chelsea game last season when we kept playing with a high line. I think he's looking to create a mentality improvement in the players and values that over whatever short term tactical changes that may improve things somewhat short term. Without improvements in mentality we won't succeed.

The players got us into this mess, their job to get us out of it. If they can't their job to learn from that so it doesn't happen again. If they can learn from that it may be worth more than the value of a tactical or personell change earlier in this particular game.

Personally, if that's part of the approach, I like it. And improving mentality isn't a quick fix, it's an ongoing process over time. The players need to learn that too, they may already "know", but they need to know on a deeper level. And they need to help each other with that, not just Ange doing a thing or the captain doing a thing. It has to be a collective thing.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

Perhaps Bissouma, Sarr or Spence could have helped change that with an earlier sub. Perhaps not.

That's one argument I keep hearing that I don't get. You never know if a substitution is going to turn a game around but that's certainly not a reason for not trying! On the other hand, I can't really think of a team who let a game slip from their grasp and turned things around on their own, without any tactical change or substitution.

If it were that simple, managers could just watch the game on TV. They wouldn't need to be there.

That reminds me of that European Cup final between Barcelona and AC Milan (in 94 maybe). Capello completely outsmarted Cruyff, who just watched his team being ran over. On the following day, he gave an interview and said: 'I didn't lose that game - the players did.' That's one way to look at it I guess and, again, different managers have different weaknesses but, as a fan, claiming that substitutions wouldn't make a difference - particularly when you can replace almost half the team now - seems a bit weird to me.

It's a matter of perspective but, for me, substitutions may or may not work, that's for sure, but keeping the same team on the pitched that just leaked in three goals in fifteen minutes will never amount to anything. It's only useful if you can afford to throw away a result or if you need your players to practice the system but more than a year into his tenure, we should be past that.

 

[braineclipse]

That's one argument I keep hearing that I don't get. You never know if a substitution is going to turn a game around but that's certainly not a reason for not trying! On the other hand, I can't really think of a team who let a game slip from their grasp and turned things around on their own, without any tactical change or substitution.

If it were that simple, managers could just watch the game on TV. They wouldn't need to be there.

That reminds me of that European Cup final between Barcelona and AC Milan (in 94 maybe). Capello completely outsmarted Cruyff, who just watched his team being ran over. On the following day, he gave an interview and said: 'I didn't lose that game - the players did.' That's one way to look at it I guess and, again, different managers have different weaknesses but, as a fan, claiming that substitutions wouldn't make a difference - particularly when you can replace almost half the team now - seems a bit weird to me.

It's a matter of perspective but, for me, substitutions may or may not work, that's for sure, but keeping the same team on the pitched that just leaked in three goals in fifteen minutes will never amount to anything. It's only useful if you can afford to throw away a result or if you need your players to practice the system but more than a year into his tenure, we should be past that.

I see it differently. You don't know if a sub will work, you don't know if not making a sub will work. We've certainly seen momentum shifts in games. We've certainly seen us struggle for periods of games and then get back on top, with and without subs.

To put it differently. If that group of players that started that second half are incapable of learning how to prevent that kind of thing from happening and incapable of responding better when it happens we'll never be really successful. This to me is something they have to learn for us to be successful. They can't rely on Ange or any manager to bail them out every time. Could Ange have done things better, sure, maybe. But they still have to learn, it's 100% necessary.

I don't think it's that much about learning the system at this point. But the situation we were in at half time is a situation we haven't been in for almost a year now. A good run of results with mostly good performances and then half way into a game with a semi comfortable lead.

That's a different situation than we were in for the second half of last season and the start of this season. I'm rather confident that this kind of point already has been made to the players, that they need to keep their focus, keep their intensity and work rate. But those words only do so much. This kind of learning to me requires an experiental component.

In hindsight perhaps this had to happen. Overconfidence leading to complacency leading to a poor performance and utterly disappointing result. And then a chance to actually learn from that experience. If they will I don't know, but I think that's what Ange really wants. And I think that's part of what we need to take the next step.

I think Ange thought that lesson was sufficiently learned by now. I think that was part of his frustration post game.

 

[Gazza]

This is the main point, i know they are some fans who think he should have sorted our problems by now but we are still a work in progress. Lets see how we end up at the end of the season before we start think about another manager AGAIN.

Sure this is valid but what do you do when you see the same game management and patterns of goals conceded and not being addressed. Some managers are swift in implementing a change and making it count. So far it seems obvious that we don’t know how to see out a game and have such a leaky defence when we have some really good players that could make a difference. It’s not all down to Ange and it’s not all on the players, so something has to give if things are to change; I’m not talking about sacking the manager or dropping players … just thinking that perhaps a more cautious approach when we are winning could see us get a return on points rather than just playing hung ho for 90 mins

 

[braineclipse]

Sure this is valid but what do you do when you see the same game management and patterns of goals conceded and not being addressed. Some managers are swift in implementing a change and making it count. So far it seems obvious that we don’t know how to see out a game and have such a leaky defence when we have some really good players that could make a difference. It’s not all down to Ange and it’s not all on the players, so something has to give if things are to change; I’m not talking about sacking the manager or dropping players … just thinking that perhaps a more cautious approach when we are winning could see us get a return on points rather than just playing hung ho for 90 mins

We didn't play gunge ho for 90 minutes. We dropped off quite a bit towards the end of the first half (but still played reasonably well). We started the second half nothing close to gung ho.

With a manager like Ange who has a good track record elsewhere (be it in smaller leagues) and already has done so many things so well here I think it's fair to ask what is he trying to do and why in addition to suggesting other approaches.

I definitely think there's method and purpose to what some see as him being a bit mad.

 

[glasgowspur]

That's one argument I keep hearing that I don't get. You never know if a substitution is going to turn a game around but that's certainly not a reason for not trying! On the other hand, I can't really think of a team who let a game slip from their grasp and turned things around on their own, without any tactical change or substitution.

If it were that simple, managers could just watch the game on TV. They wouldn't need to be there.

That reminds me of that European Cup final between Barcelona and AC Milan (in 94 maybe). Capello completely outsmarted Cruyff, who just watched his team being ran over. On the following day, he gave an interview and said: 'I didn't lose that game - the players did.' That's one way to look at it I guess and, again, different managers have different weaknesses but, as a fan, claiming that substitutions wouldn't make a difference - particularly when you can replace almost half the team now - seems a bit weird to me.

It's a matter of perspective but, for me, substitutions may or may not work, that's for sure, but keeping the same team on the pitched that just leaked in three goals in fifteen minutes will never amount to anything. It's only useful if you can afford to throw away a result or if you need your players to practice the system but more than a year into his tenure, we should be past that.

The cruyff point is interesting, he is basically projecting his personality on the players.
He is saying if I was out on the pitch I would not have let that happen, the players chose to let it happen.
I suspect ange is the same, how can you see what is happening and not respond?
We know you can do it, you did less than 30 mins, so why have you not responded.

 

[harr1984]

Sure this is valid but what do you do when you see the same game management and patterns of goals conceded and not being addressed. Some managers are swift in implementing a change and making it count. So far it seems obvious that we don’t know how to see out a game and have such a leaky defence when we have some really good players that could make a difference. It’s not all down to Ange and it’s not all on the players, so something has to give if things are to change; I’m not talking about sacking the manager or dropping players … just thinking that perhaps a more cautious approach when we are winning could see us get a return on points rather than just playing hung ho for 90 mins

That's fair, and I think it is more accurate to question our game management more than it is to look into why Ange didn't make subs. But, I personally think Ange's ethos will never have us seeing games out, whether that ends up being the right or wrong way some fans just don't want to accept it but I don't think he's going to change so I am not going to complain about it when we come unstuck because I certainly revel in it when it does come off.

It's about us learning to do what he wants better, we are still relatively early in his tenure - I'd rather see what he can do for a good period yet once further embedded his values and see how it all pans out rather than join the managerial merry go round for the umpteenth time believing someone else is the messiah until he gets here and we realise he's not. But that's just how I see it......

 

[Hashegotthesackyet?]

Not seen it yet to know
The opposition shuffle was a new left back and okaying higher up
If we pressed as we did previously we would have been fine
We didn’t. It was grim. We left holes everywhere like they did first half but much worse
And then we had some very capable players switch off frequently

I distinctly remember in the 2nd half when Dom went to press and turned around to see nobody else with him doing their bit and looked a bit bemused.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I distinctly remember in the 2nd half when Dom went to press and turned around to see nobody else with him doing their bit and looked a bit bemused.

Yep
I’ve shown that in the video I posted
Scary and worrying for me
That’s basics of how we play

 

[Mr Gogolak]

The cruyff point is interesting, he is basically projecting his personality on the players.
He is saying if I was out on the pitch I would not have let that happen, the players chose to let it happen.
I suspect ange is the same, how can you see what is happening and not respond?
We know you can do it, you did less than 30 mins, so why have you not responded.

I agree. I mentioned Cruyff because I feel there are some similarities, at least in terms of personalties and philosophies (different football eras, though). The major difference though is that Postecoglou will never have Cruyff's aura and mystique. In the 90s, everybody considered Cruyff a genius, a guy who had that ability to think out of the box and come up with new solutions. Whether Postecoglou will be able to imprint his personality on his squad the way he did remains to be seen.

 

[Mr Gogolak]

I see it differently. You don't know if a sub will work, you don't know if not making a sub will work. We've certainly seen momentum shifts in games. We've certainly seen us struggle for periods of games and then get back on top, with and without subs.

To put it differently. If that group of players that started that second half are incapable of learning how to prevent that kind of thing from happening and incapable of responding better when it happens we'll never be really successful. This to me is something they have to learn for us to be successful. They can't rely on Ange or any manager to bail them out every time. Could Ange have done things better, sure, maybe. But they still have to learn, it's 100% necessary.

I don't think it's that much about learning the system at this point. But the situation we were in at half time is a situation we haven't been in for almost a year now. A good run of results with mostly good performances and then half way into a game with a semi comfortable lead.

That's a different situation than we were in for the second half of last season and the start of this season. I'm rather confident that this kind of point already has been made to the players, that they need to keep their focus, keep their intensity and work rate. But those words only do so much. This kind of learning to me requires an experiental component.

In hindsight perhaps this had to happen. Overconfidence leading to complacency leading to a poor performance and utterly disappointing result. And then a chance to actually learn from that experience. If they will I don't know, but I think that's what Ange really wants. And I think that's part of what we need to take the next step.

I think Ange thought that lesson was sufficiently learned by now. I think that was part of his frustration post game.

I see where you're coming from but conceding the initiative and shipping in goal, after goal, after goal are two different propositions, I believe.

To take but a recent example, Bournemouth won 4-3 against Luton last season after going 0-3 at half-time but Iraola made two changes at half-time. Quite frankly, I don't remember a team going down the way we did and turning the tables again without making a change. I'm not having a go at Postecoglou (or at you, obviously). It's not even about the Brighton game, I just think that's a lesson that can't be learned because it goes against the tide of football.

Football has become increasingly tactical and relying on patterns of play. More often than not, even if you have a sound gameplan, the opposition will react to it and adapt. If they get it right, the momentum will swing and you have to adapt too. The approach you describe would have been ok 40 et 50 years ago but I really think it's completely outdated.

I'll be happy to be proved wrong (again) but I don't think any team is capable of that and even if the players could learn that lesson, I'm not sure it was worth breaking a winning/unbeaten run and the confidence that goes with it. I guess we'll see over the coming months (hopefully, years!) who was right and who was wrong.