Welcome Ange: To Dare is to Didgeridoo

[Mcfee]

My view is that there is/was a very fine line between winning 0-3 at Man U and losing 3-2 at Brighton. We’re still very brittle (or fragile as Ange might say) so the third goal we got at just the right time v Utd was the key to killing them off. Had we done the same just before HT v Brighton we’d be feeling a lot better - though maybe that would be a false perception as it’s clear that it doesn’t take much for our fragility to be exposed.

 

[glorygloryeze]

My view is that there is/was a very fine line between winning 0-3 at Man U and losing 3-2 at Brighton. We’re still very brittle (or fragile as Ange might say) so the third goal we got at just the right time v Utd was the key to killing them off. Had we done the same just before HT v Brighton we’d be feeling a lot better - though maybe that would be a false perception as it’s clear that it doesn’t take much for our fragility to be exposed.

A very good point. We are indeed very fragile and i think that stems from our never really looking solid defensively.
Until we are solid defensively OR have a striker with an xG better than prime R9, you feel we always will have fears in the back of our minds that a collapse can happen at any time.

The least Spurzy periods of recent times have always coincided to when we had solid defences/defenders and a coach that would be comfortable being defensive when needed

 

[Bishop]

My view is that there is/was a very fine line between winning 0-3 at Man U and losing 3-2 at Brighton. We’re still very brittle (or fragile as Ange might say) so the third goal we got at just the right time v Utd was the key to killing them off. Had we done the same just before HT v Brighton we’d be feeling a lot better - though maybe that would be a false perception as it’s clear that it doesn’t take much for our fragility to be exposed.

It has been said for a while at least by me that it does feel like the way we are going to win is to pummel teams into submission and honestly I think that is the way it tends to play out with heavy possession sides.

You score so many the opposition gets demoralised before they get a chance to get going (this almost happened on Sunday) or the very real threat of more goals keeps them timid (didn't happen on Sunday ).

 

[braineclipse]

My view is that there is/was a very fine line between winning 0-3 at Man U and losing 3-2 at Brighton. We’re still very brittle (or fragile as Ange might say) so the third goal we got at just the right time v Utd was the key to killing them off. Had we done the same just before HT v Brighton we’d be feeling a lot better - though maybe that would be a false perception as it’s clear that it doesn’t take much for our fragility to be exposed.

Fully agreed. And it would have been a false perception for sure imo.

 

[braineclipse]

A very good point. We are indeed very fragile and i think that stems from our never really looking solid defensively.
Until we are solid defensively OR have a striker with an xG better than prime R9, you feel we always will have fears in the back of our minds that a collapse can happen at any time.

The least Spurzy periods of recent times have always coincided to when we had solid defences/defenders and a coach that would be comfortable being defensive when needed

Ange's path to defensive solidity seems to mostly be the path of high pressing, high line defending and risk taking on the ball. It's a difficult one to get right, but it is possible.

We have very much looked fragile at various times (most times) under coaches that have been comfortable defending in other ways.

At our best, at our least fragile, under Pochettino we definitely did want to press high, play a high line and play with risk/bravery imo. The vast majority of the time at least the way I see it.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Ange's path to defensive solidity seems to mostly be the path of high pressing, high line defending and risk taking on the ball. It's a difficult one to get right, but it is possible.

We have very much looked fragile at various times (most times) under coaches that have been comfortable defending in other ways.

At our best, at our least fragile, under Pochettino we definitely did want to press high, play a high line and play with risk/bravery imo. The vast majority of the time at least the way I see it.

My concerns are that, apart from teams/coaches who have far more resources than us (or at least spend far more), i can't think of a team that has been successful constantly playing this way. Pochettino was about high press, yes, but he had defensive solidity as the basis of his methods.
For example, he wouldn't ask the team to keep a high line AND high press when missing our CB pairing AND our fastest defenders if we'd gone down to 9 men...

 

[Lilbaz]

Let's face it. Whatever your opinion on ange. If we don't improve in the next few months. He'll be gone.

If that is right or wrong. Is up to you.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

My concerns are that, apart from teams/coaches who have far more resources than us (or at least spend far more), i can't think of a team that has been successful constantly playing this way. Pochettino was about high press, yes, but he had defensive solidity as the basis of his methods.
For example, he wouldn't ask the team to keep a high line AND high press when missing our CB pairing AND our fastest defenders if we'd gone down to 9 men...

No he would just lose limply
That is what most managers do

 

[glorygloryeze]

No he would just lose limply
That is what most managers do

Not neccesarily....you can be solid when down a man or two. Limply is all about perspective: was it limp of us to lose to Chelsea by giving them the only advantage they had in the game, i.e., pace in behind?

Chelsea were crap at everything else, poor bal control, decision making etc. The only thing they had was pace and that was only going to be of use if they had a lot of space to play in behind our defensive line...

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Not neccesarily....you can be solid when down a man or two. Limply is all about perspective: was it limp of us to lose to Chelsea by giving them the only advantage they had in the game, i.e., pace in behind?

Chelsea were crap at everything else, poor bal control, decision making etc. The only thing they had was pace and that was only going to be of use if they had a lot of space to play in behind our defensive line...

Liverpool tried to oaky defensive against us and lost
Don’t forget who was left playing for us in that Chelsea game

 

[glorygloryeze]

Liverpool tried to oaky defensive against us and lost
Don’t forget who was left playing for us in that Chelsea game

They lost by a last-minute own goal after we toiled and toiled playing into their hands quite stupidly most of the time by always trying to attack through the centre and by crossing high into the box for the giant CBs to lap up. I was impressed with Liverpool in that game. Chalk and cheese how they played with 9 men vs how we did, no comparison excpet one last by a last minute own-goal and the other lost by getting ultimately smashed and gifting the space to Chelsea's brick forwards.

I indeed haven't forgotten who we were missing in the Chelsea game after the sending-offs and injuries, yet we played as though nothing had changed...

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

My view is that there is/was a very fine line between winning 0-3 at Man U and losing 3-2 at Brighton. We’re still very brittle (or fragile as Ange might say) so the third goal we got at just the right time v Utd was the key to killing them off. Had we done the same just before HT v Brighton we’d be feeling a lot better - though maybe that would be a false perception as it’s clear that it doesn’t take much for our fragility to be exposed.

I think I agree....the variety of potential outcomes does appear to linger throughout many (most) of our matches.

 

[thfcsteff]

Ange's path to defensive solidity seems to mostly be the path of high pressing, high line defending and risk taking on the ball. It's a difficult one to get right, but it is possible.

We have very much looked fragile at various times (most times) under coaches that have been comfortable defending in other ways.

At our best, at our least fragile, under Pochettino we definitely did want to press high, play a high line and play with risk/bravery imo. The vast majority of the time at least the way I see it.

I think it all underlines even more that if we want to progress with this system, we need to scour and spend big money/wages on an elite elite number 6. I (along with others I know) have been saying this for a year now (my first doubts about Biss happened approximately this time ladt year, give or take a few weeks) and whilst I understand these players are rare, we need to be prepared to pay for it if we want to progress with this football. Sadly, Rodri's injury means City will doubtless be looking hard already for January (I do not believe they will try to muddle through the season)...but for me, it is imperative we do this.

 

[thfcsteff]

Not neccesarily....you can be solid when down a man or two. Limply is all about perspective: was it limp of us to lose to Chelsea by giving them the only advantage they had in the game, i.e., pace in behind?

Chelsea were crap at everything else, poor bal control, decision making etc. The only thing they had was pace and that was only going to be of use if they had a lot of space to play in behind our defensive line...

We lost that game in added minutes. Dier was robbed of a fantastic equalizer by the narrowest of margins. That game was an important statement IMO; of course, the statement was only worth it if everyone believed!

 

[Mrs Vert]

For me to get over the diabolical 2nd half performance and having to wait 2 weeks to get a new result. Spurs better beat West Ham and knock City out at the bare minimum

 

[Bedfordspurs]

They lost by a last-minute own goal after we toiled and toiled playing into their hands quite stupidly most of the time by always trying to attack through the centre and by crossing high into the box for the giant CBs to lap up. I was impressed with Liverpool in that game. Chalk and cheese how they played with 9 men vs how we did, no comparison excpet one last by a last minute own-goal and the other lost by getting ultimately smashed and gifting the space to Chelsea's brick forwards.

I indeed haven't forgotten who we were missing in the Chelsea game after the sending-offs and injuries, yet we played as though nothing had changed...

Pool had 5 centre back on in their nine
We lost 3 of the 4 starting defenders be had no centre backs available
Very different and we could have won if too

 

[Bedfordspurs]

We lost that game in added minutes. Dier was robbed of a fantastic equalizer by the narrowest of margins. That game was an important statement IMO; of course, the statement was only worth it if everyone believed!

Some fans will never believe
All that matters is the players do

 

[thfcsteff]

Some fans will never believe
All that matters is the playwrs do

Absolutely.

 

[braineclipse]

I think it all underlines even more that if we want to progress with this system, we need to scour and spend big money/wages on an elite elite number 6. I (along with others I know) have been saying this for a year now (my first doubts about Biss happened approximately this time ladt year, give or take a few weeks) and whilst I understand these players are rare, we need to be prepared to pay for it if we want to progress with this football. Sadly, Rodri's injury means City will doubtless be looking hard already for January (I do not believe they will try to muddle through the season)...but for me, it is imperative we do this.

Ideally someone who's also a good leader. Not going to be easy to find, but would make a big difference for sure.

 

[Bishop]

Pool had 5 centre back on in their nine
We lost 3 of the 4 starting defenders be had no centre backs available
Very different and we could have won if too

Liverpool could and probably would have won also if their goal wasn't incorrectly ruled offside whilst they had 10 men.