Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
Totally disagree. Don't think you could be more wrong. West ham won every battle in every corner of the field. We were totally bested yesterday.
-
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
What went wrong today?
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
Totally disagree. Don't think you could be more wrong. West ham won every battle in every corner of the field. We were totally bested yesterday.
It's too easy to say we were poor, West Ham were excellent yesterday and the game was played out in good spirit, if Defoe had lifted the ball over the keeper when he had his chance it could have been different, small margins.
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
I said West Ham were better than us everywhere. They outfought us, out thought us and out scored us. They were excellent and we were poor. What would halve happened if they had converted their two first half chances - especially the cute Nolan free kick routine. Then what? There were no small margins yesterday. We were awful.
I was agreeing with you, if Defoe had scored it would have made them come out and change tactics a little, but that is the problem Defoe hardly ever scores that first important goal, Soldado would have started for me, I would not say they outfought us just gave us no room and we had too little width, Ericksen was the big let down for me, a couple of times now he has started brightly and then disappears, we do have a new team and it needs time to settle.
From 5 October
“At the moment we have found extreme comfort in playing one striker rather than two like last season.
“What Ade will give us is that possibility, that link-up play he does so well with somebody else. At the moment we continue to play with one striker. We scored so many goals and we don’t suffer, so it looks like the way forward for us.
“All three of them will be in competition for that place.”
http://www.london24.com/sport/avb_hopes_adebayor_can_follow_example_of_spurs_skipper_1_2850986
Three strikers? What does that say to Harry Kane?
Will he change his mind about 1 striker?
“At the moment we have found extreme comfort in playing one striker rather than two like last season.
“What Ade will give us is that possibility, that link-up play he does so well with somebody else. At the moment we continue to play with one striker. We scored so many goals and we don’t suffer, so it looks like the way forward for us.
“All three of them will be in competition for that place.”
http://www.london24.com/sport/avb_hopes_adebayor_can_follow_example_of_spurs_skipper_1_2850986
Three strikers? What does that say to Harry Kane?
Will he change his mind about 1 striker?
For those who think that AVB was out thought yesterday;
"Pack the middle with 11 men behind the ball, hoof it on the break and chase after it" is not a tactic, it's an absence of tactics. It's what's left when you take all the football out of football.
It's also incredibly difficult to play against, that's why weak teams with uninspired, English-style anti-football managers play it. It's percentage football - hoof it upfield 30 times, you're bound to get on the end of 5 of them. If the other team is pushing forward you've got a good chance of scoring one of your 5 (or all 3 of your 3 if flukey rebounds are on your side). If you defend well enough, you probably won't lose - West Ham defended very well and got a lot of luck on the break.
We used to be very good at this under Redknapp - not 11 behind the ball, but very compact and central. We then had a couple of players who were explosive on the break and enough talent to see a few of the chances in.
"Pack the middle with 11 men behind the ball, hoof it on the break and chase after it" is not a tactic, it's an absence of tactics. It's what's left when you take all the football out of football.
It's also incredibly difficult to play against, that's why weak teams with uninspired, English-style anti-football managers play it. It's percentage football - hoof it upfield 30 times, you're bound to get on the end of 5 of them. If the other team is pushing forward you've got a good chance of scoring one of your 5 (or all 3 of your 3 if flukey rebounds are on your side). If you defend well enough, you probably won't lose - West Ham defended very well and got a lot of luck on the break.
We used to be very good at this under Redknapp - not 11 behind the ball, but very compact and central. We then had a couple of players who were explosive on the break and enough talent to see a few of the chances in.
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
Highly confusing comment from AVB.
How often did we start with two strikers last season? Unless he considers Bale one of them?
Then he talks about Ade's link up play, presumably with another striker. But then says three of them competing for one position?
Also, at home I gather we have only scored 33 in 23 PL games under AVB. I hardly would say that is "so many goals we don't suffer" .
Translation anyone ?
Last edited:
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
Very much agree.
All of this 'Allardyce cleverly realised the space between our back 4 and midfield was there to be exploited' and 'cleverly narrowed the pitch to force us out wide' is nothing miraculous. I am certain he cannot believe his luck at how well it went yesterday. He would have been delighted with a draw and admitted as such in the quotes I read today.
Many times we will break down the highly defensive teams that visit us. We were awful yesterday and therefore not only failed to break them down but looked so bad that we let them slice right through us when they did get the ball. But I can't see that happening often. Our players are too good to let it.
sc25
Banned
I'm starting to wonder if just about every team we play this season is 'very good'.
Some people were even talking up Palace and Cardiff after we played them.
If WH are in, or close to, the relegation zone come Dec then surely they aren't very good.
It just means, at best, that they were very good against us. Now, that could be because they were well up for it, and raised their game, etc. (even though we should have known and been prepared for that going in).
If however we are slow, sideways, boring, and the rest, in upcoming games too, well...
Some people were even talking up Palace and Cardiff after we played them.
If WH are in, or close to, the relegation zone come Dec then surely they aren't very good.
It just means, at best, that they were very good against us. Now, that could be because they were well up for it, and raised their game, etc. (even though we should have known and been prepared for that going in).
If however we are slow, sideways, boring, and the rest, in upcoming games too, well...
Last edited:
El Guepardo
Rafael Van Der Vaart
I'm happy here that no one in this site has a bad day at the office. After all, if we did, it would mean that we were **** at our job, right?....
One bad game doesn't equal a bad season. We've shown solidity in our squad, defensive ability and were crowing about how good we were before the game. Let's give it a bit longer before we start talking about how **** we are....
Carry on my Spurs supporting sons, there'll be glory when we are done. Lay your weary head to rest, don't you cry no more.
One bad game doesn't equal a bad season. We've shown solidity in our squad, defensive ability and were crowing about how good we were before the game. Let's give it a bit longer before we start talking about how **** we are....
Carry on my Spurs supporting sons, there'll be glory when we are done. Lay your weary head to rest, don't you cry no more.
Spurs7891
Jermaine Jenas
Film Focus: How West Ham Shut Down Christian Eriksen, Tottenham Hotspur
BY DAN TALINTYRE (FEATURED COLUMNIST) ON OCTOBER 7, 2013
Tottenham Hotspur—after their incredible summer spending spree—were heralded by many as potential Premier League title challengers and top-four certainties.
Their first five games showed that to be the case.
Even with a narrow defeat to Arsenal at the Emirates, Spurs found themselves in a strong position with four wins from five and only one goal against. They were back playing European football with the start of the Europa League and appeared to be every bit the contender that many heralded them as.
Yet then the slump started. First, the draw against Chelsea.
Then, the loss this weekend to West Ham United.
Despite dominating possession and most of the attacking chances, Spurs were unable to get past their opponents in the first half—and they paid for it. The Hammers counterattacked beautifully in the second half, and ran out with a somewhat incredible 3-0 victory as a result.
The biggest question that many had after seeing the score (and perhaps the game) at White Hart Lane was as to how they stopped their London rivals.
And not only stopped them, but completely destroyed them.
The answer is perhaps two-fold, and it starts with Tottenham's Europa League commitments during the week when they played (and beat) Anzhi Makhachkala.
Last year, Tottenham had great success in the Europa League before being eliminated by FC Basel. However, it's also worth noting that they suffered some shocking Premier League results as a result of that focus—results that may well have cost them a top-four finish. Here's some result that came following a Europa League match.
West Ham clearly knew this. They had done their homework and were prepared to let Tottenham attack in the knowledge that they could very well tire later on.
The Hammers were strong across the back and allowed Spurs to dominate possession. Spurs did a lot of work, but didn't gain any real potency in the attacking third.
Paulinho threatened once or twice, as did Gylfi Sigurdsson, but neither offered any real threat for West Ham to deal with in the opening minutes.
Thus while Spurs attacked, they tired themselves out substantially—which showed in the second half when the Hammers attacked.
Spurs struggled to get going in the attacking third.
Tottenham's defense simply wasn't as fresh as West Ham's attack was, and it showed most clearly when Jan Vertonghen couldn't run down Ravel Morrison.
That said, it's also important to note that this "tiring out" of Tottenham per se, was only possible courtesy of West Ham's first-half defense. Had they given Tottenham space and allowed their playmakers the opportunity to hurt them with solid running lanes, they most likely would not have been able to attack them with the same vigor they did in the second half.
With Roberto Soldado benched, their biggest task was stopping Christian Eriksen—the man who's accounted for 22 domestic goals and 47 assists since 2011.
As we can see in the first image below, West Ham looked to try and keep a man tight to Eriksen early on. Yet as they soon learned, that's not always enough, and the Danish international can hurt defenders when the men assigned with stopping him get caught watching the ball.
Kevin Nolan and Mohamed Diame give him far too much space here, and it's little surprise that Eriksen quickly breaks after this—almost creating a goal-scoring opportunity for Jermain Defoe or Sigurdsson, who were positioned ahead of him on the field. Fortunately, though, West Ham would learn from this mistake, and soon start playing much tighter on Tottenham's playmaker.
When in an advanced position, West Ham would look to plug up the middle of the field with their midfielders and ensure that Eriksen couldn't get the ball.
When he dropped back centrally, they'd play much tighter than they had earlier, and it was little surprise to see Eriksen post some woeful first-half numbers.
Fifteen attempted passes, just eight completed. No successful take-ons.
Eriksen—since his arrival to White Hart Lane—has been very important to Villas-Boas' side, but his tendency to go missing in big games continues to be a big problem. West Ham were able to shut him out here, and in doing so, killed off any chance Tottenham had to dominate.
They still needed to hold great shape at the back and work very hard in midfield (which shouldn't be underestimated). But at the same time, it was also very easy.
At least that's how it looked. And for a team that boasts as much attacking talent as Tottenham do, shutting down their attack should never look that easy.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...wn-christian-eriksen-tottenham-hotspur-in-win
-----------------------------------
I think we have to be more worried about Eriksen's form than the demoralising defeat to West Ham. IMO, he has been poor since that outstanding performance against Norwich in his first match for us. Our attacks relies almost entirely on Eriksen's creativity. We will be in trouble if Eriksen has another poor match like against West Ham.
BY DAN TALINTYRE (FEATURED COLUMNIST) ON OCTOBER 7, 2013
Tottenham Hotspur—after their incredible summer spending spree—were heralded by many as potential Premier League title challengers and top-four certainties.
Their first five games showed that to be the case.
Even with a narrow defeat to Arsenal at the Emirates, Spurs found themselves in a strong position with four wins from five and only one goal against. They were back playing European football with the start of the Europa League and appeared to be every bit the contender that many heralded them as.
Yet then the slump started. First, the draw against Chelsea.
Then, the loss this weekend to West Ham United.
Despite dominating possession and most of the attacking chances, Spurs were unable to get past their opponents in the first half—and they paid for it. The Hammers counterattacked beautifully in the second half, and ran out with a somewhat incredible 3-0 victory as a result.
The biggest question that many had after seeing the score (and perhaps the game) at White Hart Lane was as to how they stopped their London rivals.
And not only stopped them, but completely destroyed them.
The answer is perhaps two-fold, and it starts with Tottenham's Europa League commitments during the week when they played (and beat) Anzhi Makhachkala.
Last year, Tottenham had great success in the Europa League before being eliminated by FC Basel. However, it's also worth noting that they suffered some shocking Premier League results as a result of that focus—results that may well have cost them a top-four finish. Here's some result that came following a Europa League match.
West Ham clearly knew this. They had done their homework and were prepared to let Tottenham attack in the knowledge that they could very well tire later on.
The Hammers were strong across the back and allowed Spurs to dominate possession. Spurs did a lot of work, but didn't gain any real potency in the attacking third.
Paulinho threatened once or twice, as did Gylfi Sigurdsson, but neither offered any real threat for West Ham to deal with in the opening minutes.
Thus while Spurs attacked, they tired themselves out substantially—which showed in the second half when the Hammers attacked.
Spurs struggled to get going in the attacking third.
Tottenham's defense simply wasn't as fresh as West Ham's attack was, and it showed most clearly when Jan Vertonghen couldn't run down Ravel Morrison.
That said, it's also important to note that this "tiring out" of Tottenham per se, was only possible courtesy of West Ham's first-half defense. Had they given Tottenham space and allowed their playmakers the opportunity to hurt them with solid running lanes, they most likely would not have been able to attack them with the same vigor they did in the second half.
With Roberto Soldado benched, their biggest task was stopping Christian Eriksen—the man who's accounted for 22 domestic goals and 47 assists since 2011.
As we can see in the first image below, West Ham looked to try and keep a man tight to Eriksen early on. Yet as they soon learned, that's not always enough, and the Danish international can hurt defenders when the men assigned with stopping him get caught watching the ball.
Kevin Nolan and Mohamed Diame give him far too much space here, and it's little surprise that Eriksen quickly breaks after this—almost creating a goal-scoring opportunity for Jermain Defoe or Sigurdsson, who were positioned ahead of him on the field. Fortunately, though, West Ham would learn from this mistake, and soon start playing much tighter on Tottenham's playmaker.
When in an advanced position, West Ham would look to plug up the middle of the field with their midfielders and ensure that Eriksen couldn't get the ball.
When he dropped back centrally, they'd play much tighter than they had earlier, and it was little surprise to see Eriksen post some woeful first-half numbers.
Fifteen attempted passes, just eight completed. No successful take-ons.
Eriksen—since his arrival to White Hart Lane—has been very important to Villas-Boas' side, but his tendency to go missing in big games continues to be a big problem. West Ham were able to shut him out here, and in doing so, killed off any chance Tottenham had to dominate.
They still needed to hold great shape at the back and work very hard in midfield (which shouldn't be underestimated). But at the same time, it was also very easy.
At least that's how it looked. And for a team that boasts as much attacking talent as Tottenham do, shutting down their attack should never look that easy.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...wn-christian-eriksen-tottenham-hotspur-in-win
-----------------------------------
I think we have to be more worried about Eriksen's form than the demoralising defeat to West Ham. IMO, he has been poor since that outstanding performance against Norwich in his first match for us. Our attacks relies almost entirely on Eriksen's creativity. We will be in trouble if Eriksen has another poor match like against West Ham.
Last edited:
El Guepardo
Rafael Van Der Vaart
And yet, like the other signings, he needs time to adapt to the Premiership.
I'd be tempted to play Holtby, instead of Eriksen, in our next fixture. Eriksen can come off the bench if things are going well. It's the cameo appearances which can help him adjust, rather than expecting too much, too soon.
I'd be tempted to play Holtby, instead of Eriksen, in our next fixture. Eriksen can come off the bench if things are going well. It's the cameo appearances which can help him adjust, rather than expecting too much, too soon.
Jurgen the German
Willie Hall
Do you actually think we deserved anything from the game? When one of the worst teams in the league has more shots on goal than a potential top 4 side AWAY FROM HOME, I fail to see how our performance deserved a draw. Especially when their keeper only had 1 save to make worth speaking of. We didn't defend well, we didn't creat chances, we looked toothless up front, what exactly did WE do right? Townsend was the only bright spot.
Jurgen the German
Willie Hall
I discussed this same topic with a poster yesterday, why does it have to be a case of Holtby or Eriksen? Is Eriksen going to be subbed like Van Der Vaart was every time he looks a bit quiet? He is supposed to be our creative fulcrum of the side, I don't the idea of subbing him and now people want him benched? Just seems like a lazy option, Holbty for Eriksen, reminds me of when Wenger always used to sub Bergkamp and bring on Wiltord, you could call it every game and you would be proved right. There are going to be times when he is quiet, but he can also pop up out of nowhere like he did against Chelsea and set up a goal.
We have to get him the ball for him to be effective and I don't think we did that enough yesterday.
I'm not sure if you've quoted the right post because none of what you said relates to any of what I said.
In answer to your question though, we didn't do much right at all. Unlike our other matches this season we didn't look like breaking down a compact team. I'd put that partly down to tiredness (always a bad idea to play your first team in insignificant cups) and partly down to it being West Ham's cup final. Their keeper could have thrown a net over his entire outfield team for most if the match and they defended solidly like their lives depended on it.
Mulletperm
Mauricio Taricco
Nonsense. People's ratings always tend to correctly reflect a players performance.
We were awful, simple as.
Jurgen the German
Willie Hall
:ross: Yep totally quoted the wrong post sorry.
What really gets to me is that people seem happy to just put this down to "one of those things".
We needed to show character yesterday and we didn't, we needed to play at a high tempo and we didn't, we needed to score and we didn't, we needed to show that we have what it takes to win these tough battles and we didn't.
The most alarming thing is the lack of movement, this for me seems to be "the tactic", it seems to be avb's thing - I don't get it! you need pace and power in the prem - this is what made Bale the most expensive footballer in the world.
Why doesn't avb know this? If he does why are we playing slow predictable football?
We needed to show character yesterday and we didn't, we needed to play at a high tempo and we didn't, we needed to score and we didn't, we needed to show that we have what it takes to win these tough battles and we didn't.
The most alarming thing is the lack of movement, this for me seems to be "the tactic", it seems to be avb's thing - I don't get it! you need pace and power in the prem - this is what made Bale the most expensive footballer in the world.
Why doesn't avb know this? If he does why are we playing slow predictable football?
par_18
Stephen Kelly
Furious that Defoe started yesterday. Soldado is class, no doubts about it. He'd have buried that chance at start of second half. Cant believe 26m striker get dropped after not scoring in 3 games (one, Cardiff, very unlucky not to score). Anyone knocking him is mad. Let the team gel and he'll get more and more chances. How many since Van Persie has scored now? Im sure hes not getting dropped anytime soon.