• 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

Harry Winks

We have 5 players ahead of him to provide those, plus with the full backs it’s 7. Goals and assists are the least important thing in his current role/position in the side.

And yet they are also a facet of his game he can really improve (he has the ability) and it would take him to another level.

I dont think he needs to score a hatful regularly, but he does get himself in good positions to shoot a reasonable amount - would be nice if he could make them count more often.
 
So, who partners Winks next Wednesday? Stick with Sissoko, go with Wanyama or put Dier straight back in if he's fit?

Or with Kane out, will Poch do something completely different?
 
So, who partners Winks next Wednesday? Stick with Sissoko, go with Wanyama or put Dier straight back in if he's fit?

Or with Kane out, will Poch do something completely different?

Same team with son for Kane and Moura for son.
Aurier back for Trippier would be good but I don't he will be ready.
 
I thought Trippier was really good yesterday.
Maybe he's refound his mojo.
Maybe just wants to beat the club that rejected him.
Either way, I'd trust him.

I agree, but I think serge would be a better pick for the away game.
His pace would deal with sane, who I expected to play, better.
 
I thought Trippier was really good yesterday.
Maybe he's refound his mojo.
Maybe just wants to beat the club that rejected him.
Either way, I'd trust him.
It was strange. He gave Sterling so much space and yet it seemed to work. Same with Sane when he came on. Maybe it was a deliberate ploy to not be too tight on them.

Or it might be that the Sissoko/Trippier/Toby left side combination is gelling.
 
Well he has had some time off recently so may have got over some of his injuries
This is the thing people are glossing over about Trippier. I'd been told some time ago by someone who knows people at the club he's not fully at it because of injuries and he came out himself and said so not long ago and that he wasnt happy with his form because of it. I'd give him a World Cup free summer with rest and recuperation to see how he does before writing him off and selling him...
 
It was strange. He gave Sterling so much space and yet it seemed to work. Same with Sane when he came on. Maybe it was a deliberate ploy to not be too tight on them.

Or it might be that the Sissoko/Trippier/Toby left side combination is gelling.
I think it's the best way to play sterling, when he has to make a decision he always hesitates. Give him no time to think and he's trouble.
 
I think it's the best way to play sterling, when he has to make a decision he always hesitates. Give him no time to think and he's trouble.

It’s what separates great players grim the very best

Keane was another who playing instinctively was miles better than he was the he had time
 
Serge isn’t that quick
He is quicker than trippier but then so is pretty much anyone
Trippier was very good yesterday and his crosses are always a threat
I'm not a Trippier hater, I just think for that game serge would be a better pick.
Horses for courses, and Trippier has played a lot of games recently.
Last night was closer to the player we know he can be, he's just had a dip in form.
 
It was strange. He gave Sterling so much space and yet it seemed to work. Same with Sane when he came on. Maybe it was a deliberate ploy to not be too tight on them.

It's absolutely the best way to play instinctive players who have poor decision-making. van Dyke did it to Sissoko the other day too - block the thing they'd do instinctively and they'll likely screw up other choices.
 
It's absolutely the best way to play instinctive players who have poor decision-making. van Dyke did it to Sissoko the other day too - block the thing they'd do instinctively and they'll likely screw up other choices.
Van Dijk just did the basics last week and as usual it got hyped to the hills

He jockeyed one player and went square on the other

Whatever he did it could have cost him and he was lucky it was sissoko on the ball
 
Van Dijk just did the basics last week and as usual it got hyped to the hills

He jockeyed one player and went square on the other

Whatever he did it could have cost him and he was lucky it was sissoko on the ball

Most defenders would have blocked the shot. In that split second he knew letting Sissoko shoot was less dangerous than leaving the pass on.
 
Another nice piece from Seb Stafford-Bloor, this time on Winks & Sissoko. He's on the money with much of what he says.

https://www.football365.com/news/f365s-early-winners-the-sissoko-and-winks-non-partnership

This combination shouldn’t work. We know it does, because Tottenham have depended on it all the way through the winter, but the spread of attributes just isn’t right: between Harry Winks and Moussa Sissoko, there’s no static and reassuring ball-winner, neither are renowned for their positional discipline and, collectively, they don’t possess the metronomic authority assumed to be a prerequisite in the Champions League.

Their success in the 1-0 win over Emirates Marketing Project partly depended on Pep Guardiola, who can add another botch to his Champions League record. City remain well within the tie, in fact they should still be considered favourites to advance, but Guardiola was very obviously – and incorrectly – determined to make this a physical contest. That was the real error, not the decision to leave out Kevin De Bruyne or Leroy Sane. Had City not brought such a belligerent attitude to north London – exhibited by their general demeanour and, most notably, by Fernandinho’s ludicrous double elbow on Harry Kane – then the game wouldn’t have been nearly as fractious.

But they did and it was, and that suited Spurs’ imperfect midfield. They would have wanted a back-and-forth game full of bite, because all of their strengths are most pertinent within transition. Winks’ reputation has been defined by his technique in receiving possession and his capacity to break lines with his progressive passing. Sissoko, clearly, isn’t equipped with that kind of finesse, but he too thrives in basketball-like conditions, because the more relevant his capacity to cover ground and carry possession becomes, the more effective he ultimately is. He wants – needs – a broken field to show his best.

Conversely, had this been a more typical City performance, in which they camped in their opponent’s half for long periods, knifing those subtle passes into the Tottenham penalty box, then Sissoko and Winks would not only have been more passive, but the weakness they share – vulnerability to sustained defensive examination – would have been targeted more effectively.

As it was, the emphasis was placed on what they do well. Tottenham like a war, they’ll drop the gloves and fight anybody, and those two were the real beneficiaries of another Guardiola over-think.

Winks was a great success. His temperament has always been his meal-ticket, particularly in this type of match. That he is not afraid to receive the ball under pressure and deep in his own half is a tremendous strength and, as Matt Stead pointed out in his 16 Conclusions, a common feature of his performances against some very strong opponents in the past.

He’s a brave footballer and that also manifests in his willingness to advance the play. Winks isn’t reckless in possession, but neither does he aimlessly recycle it: a lay-off to a full-back or centre-half is generally a last resort and, instead, his first instinct is to go forward. The best example of that last night may have had no relevance to the final score, but it provided a vivid a portrayal of what Winks’ core ability actually is: fourteen minutes in, Kyle Walker cut a cross back towards (but beyond) Sergio Aguero, only for Winks to intercept, cut three City players out of the game with an immediate vertical pass, and create a counter-attacking chance for Dele Alli.

That’s who he is; that’s the kind of optimism which allows him to prosper in this kind of game. Tottenham did not enjoy the bulk of possession, nor did they command any territorial advantage, but Winks offered the threat of turning those long periods of defence into something dangerous at the other end and, with Kane presumably now out of the second leg and Spurs reliant on counter-attacking pace from here on in, that was and will continue to be invaluable.

And Sissoko. What an oddity he is. And that’s meant with love. He’s not a cultured player, he could probably mis-control a medicine ball, but during this spell in midfield he has, at times, exerted an unreasonably broad influence. His literal athletic capacity means that he’s able to cover whole continents of space during games, and that was in evidence again.

He didn’t make many tackles, he didn’t finish the game with a bundle of interceptions, but he did get in the way, yapping at the heels of City’s artisans and generally being a big, big pain. It’s strange to watch, but it works. He’s like that big rock that chases Indiana Jones: his opponents can hear him rumbling towards them and, more often than not last night, that was enough to create a helpful sense of foreboding.

Pochettino has always taken grief over that transfer, because it was completed on his urging. For a long time, that criticism was valid, too, because the lack of a proper, permanent position magnified Sissoko’s flaws, turning him into an obvious villain. Now, he’s being asked to perform a role which is within his skillset: he can chase the play, he can win the ball and, when required, his straight-line running in possession offers Spurs an invaluable gear-change. Look back over Tottenham’s season and you’d be surprised: at the root of a couple of their most important goals has been one of Sissoko’s skittling surges.

Together, he and Winks don’t really belong. As if to make that point, they didn’t really give their side a platform against City. They weren’t a proper axis, they didn’t really hunt in a pair and, actually, as a Venn Diagram, they existed as two separate circles. But what they did provide was a particular energy which, enabled by another Guardiola psychosis in the Champions League, instructed a win which Tottenham thoroughly deserved.
 
Back