Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
Remember that Mourinho also got rid of Schurle because he couldn't be trusted to do his defensive job. I think Chadli would last about 5 minutes if Mourinho was manager.
-
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
Mauricio Pochettino - Sacked
- Thread starter DubaiSpur
- Start date
Gazzasrightboot
Pascal Chimbonda
Good point. The midfielders that they had/have is just ridiculous.
Yes, because he has the luxury of being able to go buy a 50M replacement, and if that guy doesn't work out, do it again.
Said it again and again, our challenge is how to make the players we can afford the most successful, and that for me is not trying to make Chadli into a defensive minded player (won't happen or happen consistently enough), the challenge is how to make the best of Chadli (and Eriksen) in a way that does expose the FB or defense.
SUIYHA
Scott Parker
Our biggest problem is very simple - and it has been our biggest problem for years. A complete lack of technical skill and pace from our attacking players.
Please - forget all this talk about systems, formations or whatever. Every system has its inherent strengths and weaknesses, and those strengths and weaknesses will be highlighted at certain times based around one thing - the quality and suitability of the players that occupy the XI.
It's perfectly fine to have "utility" players in the squad, that can help "do a job" alongside the star attackers. If Mason or Dembele were playing alongside Fabregas and Matic in midfield, they would look significantly better than they do now. Our team however, is full of these types of players, with far too many not even being at that level.
Imagine if Lamela had been playing for Leicester on the weekend instead of Mahrez. Vardy wins the flick on, Lamela is one-on-one with Vertonghen in the box...the likely result is he would have been tackled and we'd have won the game. Why on earth do people suddenly think he'll develop the technical skill to run at players like Mahrez can? He has never ever shown that, nor has Chadli. So why are we not prioritising getting in players who can do that sort of thing too? When Eriksen isn't playing, like he wasn't on the weekend, where is the service to Kane going to come from?
If you have a real top class attacking unit - it doesn't matter if you have one defensive midfielder (Dier) who isn't that good at passing because he can rely on keeping it simple and giving it to the more technically skilled attacking players (see Scott Parker in his first season here). It doesn't matter if the opposition surround your star centre-forward because your fast, skillful dribblers will tear them apart with all the empty space they've left. It doesn't matter if your defenders don't mark attackers as tightly because the opposition will naturally sit deeper and have less men forward. It also becomes less of an issue if your defence is completely prone to brain farts and getting caught out of position - as not only will you have to worry about these happening less often with the game being played more in the opponents half, but a lot of players naturally panic and choke in the bigger games against better opposition, which we can put into them with the fear factor.
A lot of what Poch has done is very good - we press better than we did under Sherwood, we move the ball around better than we did under him or AVB. We have a young squad of generally quite hard working players. He is generally good at handling the media. But until we sign attacking players of real techical quality - then none of this stuff matters.
I guarantee if we'd replaced Chadli and Lamela in the starting XI with Mahrez and Ayew over the summer we'd have taken at least five more points from our opening games, if not seven more.
Please - forget all this talk about systems, formations or whatever. Every system has its inherent strengths and weaknesses, and those strengths and weaknesses will be highlighted at certain times based around one thing - the quality and suitability of the players that occupy the XI.
It's perfectly fine to have "utility" players in the squad, that can help "do a job" alongside the star attackers. If Mason or Dembele were playing alongside Fabregas and Matic in midfield, they would look significantly better than they do now. Our team however, is full of these types of players, with far too many not even being at that level.
Imagine if Lamela had been playing for Leicester on the weekend instead of Mahrez. Vardy wins the flick on, Lamela is one-on-one with Vertonghen in the box...the likely result is he would have been tackled and we'd have won the game. Why on earth do people suddenly think he'll develop the technical skill to run at players like Mahrez can? He has never ever shown that, nor has Chadli. So why are we not prioritising getting in players who can do that sort of thing too? When Eriksen isn't playing, like he wasn't on the weekend, where is the service to Kane going to come from?
If you have a real top class attacking unit - it doesn't matter if you have one defensive midfielder (Dier) who isn't that good at passing because he can rely on keeping it simple and giving it to the more technically skilled attacking players (see Scott Parker in his first season here). It doesn't matter if the opposition surround your star centre-forward because your fast, skillful dribblers will tear them apart with all the empty space they've left. It doesn't matter if your defenders don't mark attackers as tightly because the opposition will naturally sit deeper and have less men forward. It also becomes less of an issue if your defence is completely prone to brain farts and getting caught out of position - as not only will you have to worry about these happening less often with the game being played more in the opponents half, but a lot of players naturally panic and choke in the bigger games against better opposition, which we can put into them with the fear factor.
A lot of what Poch has done is very good - we press better than we did under Sherwood, we move the ball around better than we did under him or AVB. We have a young squad of generally quite hard working players. He is generally good at handling the media. But until we sign attacking players of real techical quality - then none of this stuff matters.
I guarantee if we'd replaced Chadli and Lamela in the starting XI with Mahrez and Ayew over the summer we'd have taken at least five more points from our opening games, if not seven more.
Pace as issue = yes, technical skill = not sure I agree
Chadli has his place in the side (his contributions are there), Lamela no ... I'd argue Lennon would have got us a few more points last season and this vs. Lamela
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
Since when was Lennon a flair player? One of his main attributes over the years has been his hard work and defensive contribution.
You must have a short memory. When Lennon first arrived he was one of the most thrilling players around. A buzz went around the ground every time he got the ball. He took players on and went past them with speed and trickery. I was on the edge of my seat every time.
Fast forward to the AVB and Poch eras and Lennon became an ineffective impotent attacking threat. As you say he just became known for his work rate and defensive contribution. The perfect example of a flair player neutered by our rigid system. Lamela and Townsend ditto. I just hope Nige doesn't go the same way.
My memory is fine - Lennon is not and has never been a flair player and defensive contribution has always been a big part of his game, even when he was at his best in an attacking sense.
Lennon excelled when teams were liable to attack us more meaning he had more space to run in to, or when Redknapp had a strong attacking line up meaning teams had to defend on both flanks and through the middle all at once, again meaning he had space to drive in to - when teams sit back and defend in numbers that space is not afforded to him so his threat gets neutralised, that and he's just tailing off as he gets older, like so many speed based attacking players before him.
Last edited:
Just no ... go back to his England debut, go back to the pre Bale era when he was a big part of our attacking threat
Lennon's contribution has tailed off once we got into this slow/possession nonsense, give him a FB that can work with him, and a CM that will pass him the ball early (and sometimes directly) and see what you get.
Im not saying he wasn't an attacking threat, just that he wasn't a flair player - he was direct and pacy.
And that the idea that his attacking threat is being curtailed because of defensive responsibilities is complete and utter nonsense as it is something that has always been a part of his game for us - he's just not given the space any more to use his pace in an attacking sense
Fair .. and yes, his attacking threat is curtailed because of FB's not understanding how to use him (Charlie was the last good one for us with that), and a team that in general dallies on the ball too long. (not because of him tracking back)
Gazzasrightboot
Pascal Chimbonda
I'm sorry I just don't agree that the system is responsible for Lennon's ineffectiveness. He was ineffective under Sherwood as well remember, and he hardly regained that form for Everton either. The fact is that his form has just tailed off. He always had the pace and skill to get past a player but didn't do it enough and his final ball was invariably poor. I'm sure if people look hard enough on this forum, there will be plenty of posts about how brick he was. Whilst I don't think he's brick, I also know that he's not part of our future.
Myth of the final ball poor ... can we leave that alone mate, we don't get people into the box to make use of crosses, so most times the crosser looks poor (Trippier put a dozen crosses in good places in pre-season, most of the time = nobody home)
Again, I saw him for Everton, he was much more effective, he played as last man up at times, got 2 goals, believe he won a couple of penalties as well. And for those who seem to want to downplay his Everton time, there were 14 PL games he was eligible for during his loan time there, he started 12, subbed on in 2 ... guess his manager thought he was brick ...
If we are willing to spend 15M on Bolasie .. I have no fudging idea why we wouldn't keep/use Lennon
Well this Lennon talk is hypothetical because he's clearly tinkled on some important chips at WHL and is not in the reckoning because of it
Gazzasrightboot
Pascal Chimbonda
Sorry Raz, I don't believe it is a myth. I've seen it with my own eyes! If he had a better end product be it cross or goals, he would have been a Bale that we would have sold for fortunes.
Lennon was one of my favourite players. At his best he was exciting and induced panic in the most highly rated defences, but then it all kind of disappeared. I don't know if it was Charlie going who he had a good understanding with, or what, but even under Sherwood he just didn't excite as much. He became more known for his industry rather than taking on a player. For whatever reason he's not willing to take on a player, even at Everton. I will always be grateful for his service to the club and I am a little upset that it has come to this, but he's no longer part of the club and not many clubs are beating down our door to get a hold of him. Whereever he goes, I will wish him well.
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
Nige is also supposed to be direct and pacy. Let's see if he is asked to play as an inverted winger and also perform defensive tracking back duties as well and if so whether this neutralises him over time. Time will tell.
I don't really understand this tracking back angle you're running with lately - most teams ask their attacking players to get back and pitch in defensively these days, i can't really think of many who let their wide players shirk the defensive side of the game - well no more than we appear to allow Chadli to do so. Redknapp/Jol both had wide players who pitched in defensively and they were two of our more attack minded managers
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
I draw a distinction from pressing high and defending from the front as opposed to tracking back and covering your full back. In a 4231 formation, we have two, not one but two Defensive midfielders. It is their job to track runners and cover our back four. If you ask our two wide AMs to do that role as well, we have 8 defensive minded players , leaving (at best) two attacking players. IMO it is the worst of all worlds. You are asking full backs ( ie defenders ) to provide the width and get forward, while asking the AMs ( ie attackers ) to both play inverted and at the same time cover the full backs defensively. It leads to massive confusion and fudge ups and doesn't get the best out of either type of player.
I don't think that describes how we play at all tbh with you - if anytjing the problem is we push too many players forward leaving our CBs exposed and the forward areas congested, meaning we get caught out on the break - when the full backs attack the wing the wing forward tends to drop in to space inside to provide an out ball, they don't drop back in to the full backs position to cover them as you seem to be suggesting, unless im reading it wrong?
milo
Jack L. Jones
My understand behind getting attacking players pressing is that a high number of chances are created by turnover high up the pitch. So, if you can harry defenders into making a mistake, there is a good chance that you can create a scoring opportunity from it. In this sense, it is an attacking tactic as well as a defensive one.
Unless im reading Pirate wrong he seems to be conplaining about our wide AMs having to cover for the FBs as opposed to the high press we (sometimes manage to) deploy - which is something i don't think really happens all that much