• 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

***Official Match Thread Tottenham Hotspur v Saudi Sportswashing Machine 8:15pm Tuesday 2nd Dec. ***

SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I think we have that philosophy, but it’s probably to do it in the last 15 minutes of the first half and the last 30 of the second. At least that’s what I saw last night where pass and move looked a lot better.

I think a lot of Frank’s philosophy (piecing together his points around competing on all fronts, solidity, rotation etc) are about only raising the intensity at certain moments of the match. In comparison to Ange’s all go all the time. And I’d class passing and moving as a marker of intensity. If we’re looking to contain, we’re keeping to our positions a lot more.

I liked last night because we actually raised our intensity when we planned to. In contract to the Arsenal and Chelsea games where we never got close to it. Actually thinking back, against United we also raised intensity when we needed to.
Click to expand...

It's definitely interesting how these cycles work. You're right in that Ange was just all out press at times. Then he was "park the bus" when we won the EL. He never found the balance between the two and some would argue he may have done in season 3. In some ways, it's quite comforting to know that Frank is at least trying to play in this more pragmatic way. It would be great to think we can change tactics and gears in the 90 mins. I know that was what Jose was all about even though he never achieved it. Conte definitely had some "rope-a-dope" about his tactics. There was no doubt about that.

It is early days for Frank, and I guess these things take time. It's not that one template works either. When we're at home against the lower sides ideally we would be the aggressor at the start of games. It will be interesting to see whether actually we are. Obviously in other tough away games he might just choose to throw in the 3rd centre half and keep it tight.

Well worth keeping an eye on this aspect of Frank's management.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I think we have that philosophy, but it’s probably to do it in the last 15 minutes of the first half and the last 30 of the second. At least that’s what I saw last night where pass and move looked a lot better.

I think a lot of Frank’s philosophy (piecing together his points around competing on all fronts, solidity, rotation etc) are about only raising the intensity at certain moments of the match. In comparison to Ange’s all go all the time. And I’d class passing and moving as a marker of intensity. If we’re looking to contain, we’re keeping to our positions a lot more.

I liked last night because we actually raised our intensity when we planned to. In contract to the Arsenal and Chelsea games where we never got close to it. Actually thinking back, against United we also raised intensity when we needed to.
Click to expand...
Changing the intensity seems really important.

But being so clearly second best and non threatening in attack for half of games (first 30 of the first half, first 15 of the second) is imo not a good strategy.

Part of the benefit of defending, ceeding possession, is getting to counter attack which is typically easier than breaking down a settled opponent. Had we played like that first 30 minutes against Saudi Sportswashing Machine, but looked threatening on the break a handful of times I would be more positive.
 
glasgowspur said:
Burn and Bentancur are almost at the back post, it's almost impossible for them to see the ball, why would they be looking at a stationary ball when the man you are marking is moving.
While you watch the ball the opposition score, how many times has a goal been scored when a defender has been accused of ball watching.
It was a terrible decision made by someone who does not understand the game.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree and I'm sure the Saudi Sportswashing Machine defenders did it in their box and weren't penalised. And of course Joelinton gets away with being a thug in every game. But the rule is explained as followed:-

Players who only focus on an opponent and pay no attention to challenging for the ball and have
a material impact, should be penalised
-Where both players are involved in simultaneous and similar actions (mutual holding), play should be allowed to continue
-Where one player clearly holds an opponent and this action clearly impacts the opponent’s movement and/or the ability to play or challenge for the ball (material impact), this action should be penalised
-Where one player solely focuses on an opponent and makes a clear non-footballing action that clearly impacts the progress of the opponent, this action should be penalised

Holding while focusing solely on the opponent and paying no attention to challenging for the ball is usually an offence.

So by the letter of the law the decision was correct. But it is not consistently applied.
 
Robspur12 said:
I don't disagree and I'm sure the Saudi Sportswashing Machine defenders did it in their box and weren't penalised. And of course Joelinton gets away with being a thug in every game. But the rule is explained as followed:-

Players who only focus on an opponent and pay no attention to challenging for the ball and have
a material impact, should be penalised
-Where both players are involved in simultaneous and similar actions (mutual holding), play should be allowed to continue
-Where one player clearly holds an opponent and this action clearly impacts the opponent’s movement and/or the ability to play or challenge for the ball (material impact), this action should be penalised
-Where one player solely focuses on an opponent and makes a clear non-footballing action that clearly impacts the progress of the opponent, this action should be penalised

Holding while focusing solely on the opponent and paying no attention to challenging for the ball is usually an offence.

So by the letter of the law the decision was correct. But it is not consistently applied.
Click to expand...

You missed the most important part though.
 
Robspur12 said:
It's is open to the interpretation of who suffers the biggest infringement. My issue is that it is just not consistently applied.
Click to expand...

I'd say there aren't many decisions in football that aren't open to interpretation. But if that wasn't holding from both players then I'm deadset not here
 
Robspur12 said:
I don't disagree and I'm sure the Saudi Sportswashing Machine defenders did it in their box and weren't penalised. And of course Joelinton gets away with being a thug in every game. But the rule is explained as followed:-

Players who only focus on an opponent and pay no attention to challenging for the ball and have
a material impact, should be penalised
-Where both players are involved in simultaneous and similar actions (mutual holding), play should be allowed to continue
-Where one player clearly holds an opponent and this action clearly impacts the opponent’s movement and/or the ability to play or challenge for the ball (material impact), this action should be penalised
-Where one player solely focuses on an opponent and makes a clear non-footballing action that clearly impacts the progress of the opponent, this action should be penalised

Holding while focusing solely on the opponent and paying no attention to challenging for the ball is usually an offence.

So by the letter of the law the decision was correct. But it is not consistently applied.
Click to expand...

As I previously said, Spurs need to fight fire with fire with this PGMOL inconsistent nonsense. We need to hire a professional and get them to assess the officials against the laws of the game. If the denominator was the amount of decisions the officials were expected to make in the game and the numerator was the amount they got right, then a huge light would be shown on them. I mean absolutely every decision as well, even the ones they don't give. When the game has that metric they will see just how bad these referees are at following the laws.

So I'm with you that if we apply the laws of the game, then there is a strong case for a Saudi Sportswashing Machine penalty. When Romero gets man-handled and thrown by one of their players into their net then that makes the referee's score 50% across those 2 incidents. Add in the Livramento yellow card not given and that scores them at 33% across 3 incidents. You can just imagine across the entire 90 mins that the referees would do well to get north of 80% across all required decisions even though some decisions like throw-ins are just an easy gift to this referee's scoring system.

The standards just aren't good enough. Nobody ever gave any referee in the entire history of football any empowerment to ignore the laws of the game. It is why they are on the pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back