Mauricio Pochettino - Sacked

[Robspur12]

I love Bentaleb but don't really get it with mason. Find it difficult to understand what all the fuss is about. I know a lot of players do and it really annoys the hell out of me but that chipped floaty pass he played yesterday to I think it was walker that should have just been a firm pass along the ground WTF!!! Why do they do that? A miss control, a slide tackle and nearly a broken ankle all because they think they are zidane!


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

I very much agree with this. I think that Mason will be the one to make way for our upgraded defensive midfielder (hopefully schneiderlin). I also agree with Steff, I can see a big future for Nabil.

 

[NWND]

Personally I thought that Pochettino got schooled tactically by Monk (just as he also did by Warnock a week ago). Yes we won the game, but it was daylight robbery really with us being second best to Swansea for all but the first 20 minutes and last 5 to 10 minutes of the game. We worked hard and kept going which was pleasing, but overall I did not think it was a good performance at all.

You say that you could see Poch's style of play whenever our full backs got forward but it is all too easy for the opposition to stop that happening. Monk did exactly what Warnock did to us last weekend and played two wingers. This kept our fullbacks pinned back and ensured that we had no width when attacking. Their two proper wingers also led to our fullbacks having to take a very wide defensive position that resulted in huge gaps between them and our centre halves and also a large gap between our two centre halves. Swansea were able to capitalise on our stretched defence on numerous occasions with huge space for their creative players to thread the ball through to Bony, who played right on the edge of that 'offside' line and got in behind us a number of times. In the second half it looked as though Pochettino at least tried to counter this by getting Davies to play a bit more narrow but this then opened up acres of space for Routledge.

I didn't see much 'nice passing' from us in the final third'. There was Davies ball into Ericksen in the last minute that I thought was very good from both players (but this was a situation that came about simply due to a poor decision/clearance from Swansea). There was also one very nice attacking break from Spurs in the second half where our players hunted in a pack, turned the ball over around the half way line and then went forward quickly with the ball giving us a three on three against them and almost resulted in a chance being created for us.

I have seen a few people criticising Bentaleb and/or Mason but they are getting completely outumbered in the midfield. The opposition push their fullbacks up (as they don't have to worry about any pace and width from our two wide midfielders) this leaves our two in the midfield outnumbered against the opposition's three. We can counter this by pulling Kane deeper to make up the numbers, but then we have no attacking outlet at all if we win the ball back.

The biggest positive I took out of that game was that it is another away game that we have won where we deserved to get beaten.... Perhaps there is something to that old Napolean quote of "Don't bring me good generals, bring me lucky generals". It seems that perhaps we finally have a lucky general at the helm.... I think I would prefer to have a general who was more 'good' than 'lucky' however.

You see, this is where I think you're wrong. If anything, what you said shows that it was Pochettino who tactically schooled Monk.

The fact that we started fast and got 1-0 in front, then kept going when they were knackered and got the winner shows that our players were focussed and followed instructions from the start and then kept going with superior fitness and won, whereas Monk was just relying on having a settled, solid team that he inherited, doing what they always do, keeping the ball well and attacking with their pacey forwards.

In terms of luck, its a perception. There are plenty of games where Pochettino's team has not got the result they deserved. Ultimately, over the course of a season, a team ends up where its play deserves.

 

[Finney Is Back]

You see, this is where I think you're wrong. If anything, what you said shows that it was Pochettino who tactically schooled Monk.

The fact that we started fast and got 1-0 in front, then kept going when they were knackered and got the winner shows that our players were focussed and followed instructions from the start and then kept going with superior fitness and won, whereas Monk was just relying on having a settled, solid team that he inherited, doing what they always do, keeping the ball well and attacking with their pacey forwards.

In terms of luck, its a perception. There are plenty of games where Pochettino's team has not got the result they deserved. Ultimately, over the course of a season, a team ends up where its play deserves.

I would agree with you if we had looked dangerous on the break at times while Swansea were dominating the game, but we didn't. We couldn't get forward at all. Our fullbacks were penned in and our midfield was overrun. That was a lucky win not a well crafted one. Swansea nullified any attacking threat we had for almost the entire game, while they got into goalscoring positions in our penalty area on numerous occasions. If you think a game where that happens is Pochettino tactically schooling the opposition manager then I dread what will happen when he doesn't outsmart the opposition's manager.

Plenty of games where we didn't get what we deserved?.... I can only think of one game where we deserved a result and didn't get one (Sunderland away).

 

[Robspur12]

Personally I thought that Pochettino got schooled tactically by Monk (just as he also did by Warnock a week ago). Yes we won the game, but it was daylight robbery really with us being second best to Swansea for all but the first 20 minutes and last 5 to 10 minutes of the game. We worked hard and kept going which was pleasing, but overall I did not think it was a good performance at all.

You say that you could see Poch's style of play whenever our full backs got forward but it is all too easy for the opposition to stop that happening. Monk did exactly what Warnock did to us last weekend and played two wingers. This kept our fullbacks pinned back and ensured that we had no width when attacking. Their two proper wingers also led to our fullbacks having to take a very wide defensive position that resulted in huge gaps between them and our centre halves and also a large gap between our two centre halves. Swansea were able to capitalise on our stretched defence on numerous occasions with huge space for their creative players to thread the ball through to Bony, who played right on the edge of that 'offside' line and got in behind us a number of times. In the second half it looked as though Pochettino at least tried to counter this by getting Davies to play a bit more narrow but this then opened up acres of space for Routledge.

I didn't see much 'nice passing' from us in the final third'. There was Davies ball into Ericksen in the last minute that I thought was very good from both players (but this was a situation that came about simply due to a poor decision/clearance from Swansea). There was also one very nice attacking break from Spurs in the second half where our players hunted in a pack, turned the ball over around the half way line and then went forward quickly with the ball giving us a three on three against them and almost resulted in a chance being created for us.

I have seen a few people criticising Bentaleb and/or Mason but they are getting completely outumbered in the midfield. The opposition push their fullbacks up (as they don't have to worry about any pace and width from our two wide midfielders) this leaves our two in the midfield outnumbered against the opposition's three. We can counter this by pulling Kane deeper to make up the numbers, but then we have no attacking outlet at all if we win the ball back.

The biggest positive I took out of that game was that it is another away game that we have won where we deserved to get beaten.... Perhaps there is something to that old Napolean quote of "Don't bring me good generals, bring me lucky generals". It seems that perhaps we finally have a lucky general at the helm.... I think I would prefer to have a general who was more 'good' than 'lucky' however.

This was not lucky in the sense that we were given a break by the officials as in our other away games. We scored an early goal and Swansea were the home team so them having a lot of possession was expected. Also Soldado was having a bad day so nothing was sticking up front. We generally defended well and earned the right to be 1-1 in 86th minute. I agree in the first half our defence was more stretched leading to big gaps between our back 4 but this changed second half with the back 4 tighter. I also think Poch did very well with his substitutions. I liked seeing Dembele playing behind the striker rather than shoehorned into a defensive midfielder which largely renders him ineffective imo. We had a good number of chances our selves to score.

 

[DTA]

I think he is spot on.... Having Lamela in that team is giving us a majority of our problems. He is by a long way the player that least deserves his place in our team.

I think soldado maybe in with a shout as well.

 

[Finney Is Back]

This was not lucky in the sense that we were given a break by the officials as in our other away games. We scored an early goal and Swansea were the home team so them having a lot of possession was expected. Also Soldado was having a bad day so nothing was sticking up front. We generally defended well and earned the right to be 1-1 in 86th minute. I agree in the first half our defence was more stretched leading to big gaps between our back 4 but this changed second half with the back 4 tighter. I also think Poch did very well with his substitutions. I liked seeing Dembele playing behind the striker rather than shoehorned into a defensive midfielder which largely renders him ineffective imo. We had a good number of chances our selves to score.

I didn't care about Swansea's possession..... Possession doesn't necessarily win you games, look at our game against Chelsea the other week - Chelsea were more than content to let us have the ball but they had threat on the counter and we couldn't create a thing once they went into that defensive, counter attacking mode. Compare this to our lack of goal threat in the long period while Swansea were on top and the number of occasions that they got in behind us.

Two Kane headers from corners and a chance right at the end when Kane dispossessed Shelvey when Swansea had everyone up chasing an equaliser in injury time. I am struggling to think of other good chances to score?

 

[Finney Is Back]

I think soldado maybe in with a shout as well.

Agreed. He is the second player that needs to be replaced. A centre forward who gave us a goal threat would make a big difference I think, even more so one who was capable of getting in behind the opposition's defence.

 

[glasgowspur]

I've yet to see a centre forward be a goal threat if he doesn't get the ball and yesterday we just didn't get forward.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[Raziel]

I've yet to see a centre forward be a goal threat if he doesn't get the ball and yesterday we just didn't get forward.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

This, people are going after Soldado, but even for Kane, there was a huge gap between the goal and the next set of chances at the end of game (see my how are we serving Strikers thread)

 

[NWND]

I would agree with you if we had looked dangerous on the break at times while Swansea were dominating the game, but we didn't. We couldn't get forward at all. Our fullbacks were penned in and our midfield was overrun. That was a lucky win not a well crafted one. Swansea nullified any attacking threat we had for almost the entire game, while they got into goalscoring positions in our penalty area on numerous occasions. If you think a game where that happens is Pochettino tactically schooling the opposition manager then I dread what will happen when he doesn't outsmart the opposition's manager.

Plenty of games where we didn't get what we deserved?.... I can only think of one game where we deserved a result and didn't get one (Sunderland away).

I'd say that was a bit like claiming the Iraqi army had nullified any threat posed by ISIS.

 

[Sandman]

The apologitsts for Soldado just amaze me. He has scored 1 goal from open play this season. To go with his amazing tally of 2 last season. When he does get chances he wastes them without even testing the keeper or hitting the target. When he does not get any service its the all the midfieds fault. Yet Kane is many peoples man on the match! why? did he get better service? no of course not. But he worked hard, and made something for himself. Soldado offered us nothing, not even a pivot to play off. Look how Bony worked our centre halves with his running and positional play.

Soldado is yet another passenger at this point, Along with Lamela ( still have hope for him though ). Cant wait for the day we get rid of nogoaldado.

 

[harr1984]

Cant wait to see the back of this buzz word 'apologists.'...

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I would agree with you if we had looked dangerous on the break at times while Swansea were dominating the game, but we didn't. We couldn't get forward at all. Our fullbacks were penned in and our midfield was overrun. That was a lucky win not a well crafted one. Swansea nullified any attacking threat we had for almost the entire game, while they got into goalscoring positions in our penalty area on numerous occasions. If you think a game where that happens is Pochettino tactically schooling the opposition manager then I dread what will happen when he doesn't outsmart the opposition's manager.

Plenty of games where we didn't get what we deserved?.... I can only think of one game where we deserved a result and didn't get one (Sunderland away).

Isn't it a bit of a gross over-simplification to say that the way to stop our system working is simply to 'play wingers'.

It only pins our full backs into their own half if they can get the ball in dangerous areas. They were able to do that because Swansea are a good side, especially at home, with a lot of good passers. It was a tough game but they didn't beat us.

We got the goal not just because of a mistake from one of their players, but because even in the final minute we were pressing with the intensity to force them into that mistake. And again, it's just so simplistic to say the way to counter a team playing attacking full backs (which most pretty much all top 8 if not top 10 teams will do) is simply to 'play wingers'.

 

[Raziel]

Isn't it a bit of a gross over-simplification to say that the way to stop our system working is simply to 'play wingers'.

It only pins our full backs into their own half if they can get the ball in dangerous areas. They were able to do that because Swansea are a good side, especially at home, with a lot of good passers. It was a tough game but they didn't beat us.

We got the goal not just because of a mistake from one of their players, but because even in the final minute we were pressing with the intensity to force them into that mistake. And again, it's just so simplistic to say the way to counter a team playing attacking full backs (which most pretty much all top 8 if not top 10 teams will do) is simply to 'play wingers'.

To some extent yes, but in reality

- first goal was a set piece goal
- second goal was all due to Eriksen (shot first), then turnover -> back to Eriksen who scored on 2nd shot

Huge argument could be made that Poch is not using Eriksen properly and it's only at the end of games when Eriksen abandons being left that he suddenly influences our game more.

 

[braineclipse]

To some extent yes, but in reality

- first goal was a set piece goal
- second goal was all due to Eriksen (shot first), then turnover -> back to Eriksen who scored on 2nd shot

Huge argument could be made that Poch is not using Eriksen properly and it's only at the end of games when Eriksen abandons being left that he suddenly influences our game more.

You also had the theory that we only scored because Kane and Eriksen abandoned Poch's plans and did what they felt like, right?

And now it's that Eriksen only influences the game when he abandons his position towards the end of games?

Yet Eriksen has actually seemed more disciplined under Pochettino, is getting praised for upping his work rate and chose to praise the fitness levels instilled by Poch for our late goals after his Swansea winner: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2874549/Christian-Eriksen-believes-Tottenham-Hotspur-s-new-fitness-levels-helped-score-late-winners.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

But ok, I'll bite. Make your huge argument.

 

[harr1984]

Cant wait to see the back of this buzz word 'apologists.'...

Oh, so thats what an Eastern imperial eagle is....

 

[Robspur12]

I didn't care about Swansea's possession..... Possession doesn't necessarily win you games, look at our game against Chelsea the other week - Chelsea were more than content to let us have the ball but they had threat on the counter and we couldn't create a thing once they went into that defensive, counter attacking mode. Compare this to our lack of goal threat in the long period while Swansea were on top and the number of occasions that they got in behind us.

Two Kane headers from corners and a chance right at the end when Kane dispossessed Shelvey when Swansea had everyone up chasing an equaliser in injury time. I am struggling to think of other good chances to score?

The stats below from the official site suggest it wasn't as one sided as you say mate.

There are more detailed stats on the sky sports site which unfortunately I cannot copy across. But some interesting points.

Our passing accuracy in the opposition half was significantly better. We had 9 corners to their 7, they made 35 clearances to our 33. They made significantly more effective tackles than us.

It,s unfair to compare ourselves to Chelsea whose manager is the master of shutting up shop to win games. We are not trying to do this. For a start Chelsea have a significantly more expensive squad with world class players. We had 2 players performing below par, Lamela and soldado which put more pressure on us. Although Lamela worked hard he tended to give the ball away a lot.

First half Fazio was "owned" by bony but in the second half Fazio was much better when he and Vertonghen played closer together. Through his substitutions poch gradually wrested control back from Swansea. Why didn't he do those sooner? I can only suppose that he is looking to rotate the squad effectively to enable us to compete on several fronts.

The winning goal did not come about due to luck but we made it through good play. We have now beaten 3 good ball playing teams in Everton, Swansea and Southampton and we played well against the gooners. Where we struggle is against the teams that put men behind the ball and obviously against City and Chelsea although we played ok against them. There has got to be more about Poch than just being "a lucky general" If that is your only opinion of Poch then I think you are as mistaken on that as those posters claiming we were rudderless under Sherwood. I think Poch is going in the right direction but there are still several issues to iron out. Some of these will only be sorted with a change of some of our playing personnel.

 

[glasgowspur]

If Swansea hadn't played the ball towards bony he wouldn't have had the chance to own anybody. We didn't do that. In fact we haven't been doing that for ages.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[BrainOfLevy]

To some extent yes, but in reality

- first goal was a set piece goal
- second goal was all due to Eriksen (shot first), then turnover -> back to Eriksen who scored on 2nd shot

Huge argument could be made that Poch is not using Eriksen properly and it's only at the end of games when Eriksen abandons being left that he suddenly influences our game more.

If you want to say the first goal doesn't count because it's a set piece goal then can I say Harry Kane's shot in injury time does count because it was the result of him still being energetic enough to rob the ball high up the pitch, ride the challenges that came his way and get a good shot away?

On the second goal, you slyly stick 'turnover' in the middle of that sentence as if it's inconsequential. If we weren't pressing that high, we couldn't have forced their defender into that mistake and we wouldn't have been able to get the ball to Eriksen as quickly as we did, so that he had the time and space to pick his shot and score.

 

[Robspur12]

To some extent yes, but in reality

- first goal was a set piece goal
- second goal was all due to Eriksen (shot first), then turnover -> back to Eriksen who scored on 2nd shot

Huge argument could be made that Poch is not using Eriksen properly and it's only at the end of games when Eriksen abandons being left that he suddenly influences our game more.

You really are clutching at straws to justify your dislike of Poch. First goal was a brilliant header by Kane who has looked a different player under Poch. Second goal was not "all about Eriksen." He obviously had a big part but so did Kane who pressed the Swansea defender into a hurried clearance and then a great pass to Eriksen by Ben Davies. When you talk about a goal being "all about a player" perhaps you should look back at some of Bale's goals in the 12/13 season.

As for eriksen being not used effectively he already has 6 goals to his name in the PL whereas he scored 7 in the whole of last season. After a shaky start he is playing very well even tracking back something we never saw from him last season. He is out on the left where many posters believe is his best position because we want a strong, (as in physical), spine to the team.