Lemonade Money
Les Medley
Was more visible than Johnson.
-
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
Mikey Moore
- Thread starter mjc23
- Start date
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
I think it’s because with Maddison receiving the ball we always end up going left
Been a problem with the way he plays for some time
He never plays it right and it means we use half a pitch
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
After Thursday's performance there was nobody saying he should not start against a team that had amassed 3 points after 8 matches. Not one person criticised Ange for starting him before kick off, now the "experts" are complaining that It was a bad decision.
People who were complaining that Werner should not start for us anymore are now bitching because he did not start. Hindsight is 20/20.
People who were complaining that Werner should not start for us anymore are now bitching because he did not start. Hindsight is 20/20.
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
The issue was the midfield not the wide players
Muttley
Nico Claesen
What I find frustrating is that with Son and Odobert unavailable the fans now just assume that we needed to play Werner or Moore.
The harsh reality is that we didn't need to play any of them. With a flexible manager we could have played something like this
Venom
Romero, Dragusin, VDV
Porro, Bents, Biss, Udogie
Madd, Kulu
Solanke
Or this....
Venom
Porro, Romero, VDV, Udogie
Sarr, Bents, Biss, Kulu
Johnson, Solanke
Or this.....
Venom
Porro, Romero, VDV, Udogie
Bents, Biss
Johnson, Madds, Kulu
Solanke
I think you get the point I'm trying to make. It's Ange's inflexibility on tactical systems that is a major factor. He needs to respect the opposition more and stop falling flat on his face in these games.
The harsh reality is that we didn't need to play any of them. With a flexible manager we could have played something like this
Venom
Romero, Dragusin, VDV
Porro, Bents, Biss, Udogie
Madd, Kulu
Solanke
Or this....
Venom
Porro, Romero, VDV, Udogie
Sarr, Bents, Biss, Kulu
Johnson, Solanke
Or this.....
Venom
Porro, Romero, VDV, Udogie
Bents, Biss
Johnson, Madds, Kulu
Solanke
I think you get the point I'm trying to make. It's Ange's inflexibility on tactical systems that is a major factor. He needs to respect the opposition more and stop falling flat on his face in these games.
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
Agreed
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
No manager changes their system though so early in their tenure
It’s even about 60 games so far
Pep evolve over time with aquisitions
Arteta has too buying more and more Cbs
But that takes fine
Then the other extreme is the next spurs manager Iraola who just drilled it more and more and is getting some rewards within the limitations
We have okayed a variety of systems and I do think some more freshness in the wide options would have been helpful for sure but I don’t think going to 3 at the back would work for Ange for example
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
Do you have some insider information?
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
Nah
But he basically Poch Mk 2
And Ange is Redknapp
All just my opinion of course although I do have some info that we really like what he is doing via other sources
What that means though is nothing of course
I have been saying though, for some time, that this squad is being created with the next guy in mind
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Did well enough when he got the ball. Didn't look out of place.
Think he had done enough to deserve the start. Was excited to see what he could do. Seemingly so were some of the other players and they forgot about what they were supposed to do (that's a joke).
Think he had done enough to deserve the start. Was excited to see what he could do. Seemingly so were some of the other players and they forgot about what they were supposed to do (that's a joke).
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I don't think two starts in quick succession is an issue really. Cumulatively over time we should be careful, and have been. With selecting games and when to play him Ange should be considered and I think he has been.
The problem with this one was that the rest of the team didn't play nearly as well as we (and I'm assuming Ange) hoped for.
Bishop
John Lacy
Johnson rarely touches the ball and doesn't really get involved in the buildup especially not in an effective way. He has recently been scoring, but the rest of his game is still as troubling as ever for me. I would still want a better RWF to come in if we want to get to the next level.
Bishop
John Lacy
On the topic of starting Moore I don't really see the issue. He was relatively speaking pretty decent, as I said earlier in this thread he would have been my man of the first half. I get that he didn't have a barnstormer, but people are talking as if the game would have caused him some harm. Why?
Hes going to play games where he does well, hes going to play games where he's brick and he wasn't even brick in this match. There's no point hiding from these moments, these moments are what are going to build his character and as I said he wasn't even bad in the first half, he was our brightest spark. So what's the issue exactly? Do we only want him to play games that are easy and games we can't lose? He'll never get any minutes in that case.
No, belief in youth is giving them minutes, letting them sink or swim and trying again with them when they fail. Do we want there to be a pathway to the first team or not? Because if at the first hint of Moore not being the direct reincarnation of Pele, people are speaking of starting flipping Werner or even Richy i'm baffled. It's like you don't actually believe in the quality of the youth and the process necessary to graduate them.
Hes going to play games where he does well, hes going to play games where he's brick and he wasn't even brick in this match. There's no point hiding from these moments, these moments are what are going to build his character and as I said he wasn't even bad in the first half, he was our brightest spark. So what's the issue exactly? Do we only want him to play games that are easy and games we can't lose? He'll never get any minutes in that case.
No, belief in youth is giving them minutes, letting them sink or swim and trying again with them when they fail. Do we want there to be a pathway to the first team or not? Because if at the first hint of Moore not being the direct reincarnation of Pele, people are speaking of starting flipping Werner or even Richy i'm baffled. It's like you don't actually believe in the quality of the youth and the process necessary to graduate them.
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
It was the right call starting MooreOn the topic of starting Moore I don't really see the issue. He was relatively speaking pretty decent, as I said earlier in this thread he would have been my man of the first half. I get that he didn't have a barnstormer, but people are talking as if the game would have caused him some harm. Why?
Hes going to play games where he does well, hes going to play games where he's brick and he wasn't even brick in this match. There's no point hiding from these moments, these moments are what are going to build his character and as I said he wasn't even bad in the first half, he was our brightest spark. So what's the issue exactly? Do we only want him to play games that are easy and games we can't lose? He'll never get any minutes in that case.
No, belief in youth is giving them minutes, letting them sink or swim and trying again with them when they fail. Do we want there to be a pathway to the first team or not? Because if at the first hint of Moore not being the direct reincarnation of Pele, people are speaking of starting flipping Werner or even Richy i'm baffled. It's like you don't actually believe in the quality of the youth and the process necessary to graduate them.
But… the set up behind him was wrong
Moore wasn’t effective but who was …
It was poor all round an no one is suggesting it was because of him (luckily)
Bishop
John Lacy
I agree, but if you read this and the match thread some are actually saying they think Werner would have been a better option and I can only ask better option for what exactly?
The problems we had were with midfield and the playing out of the back and into that midfield. Luis Figo, Bale and Ginola wouldn't have made any difference to the effectiveness of the left and again for me Moore was fine. It was the rest of the team that was brick.
Muttley
Nico Claesen
What's interesting is that you can't just ignore what players have learned from boy to man. Dragu, VDV and Romero all joined Spurs from 3 at the back systems. So did Udogie, and Porro has plenty of "wing-back" experience. Similarly, the boys ahead of them have also played in that system. So I'm never convinced that you can't be disruptive by playing one-half or one-game of football in an alternative system as you get to stability in season 2. Time should be dedicated to these plan B systems at this stage.
I'm not even a massive fan of 3-5-2, but do know it has it's uses.
We've discussed this but not playing the double pivot midfield cost us. Our full-backs being way too narrow cost us. Johnson and Moore were totally negated and that also cost us. That didn't need to happen if we tweaked ourselves into the solid 4-2-3-1 for this tough away game. It's quite close to the 4-3-3 we play anyway. Also, shifting to 4-4-2 at half time would have made so much sense. Negating the Chalobah-Munoz and Guehi-Mitchell pairings would have made a massive difference to this game.
I know what you say about managers just drilling one system until every last detail is understood by players, but ultimately I still think this is where we keep coming undone. We always will, because PL managers are so smart. It used to happen to Poch when Walker and Rose were targeted and couldn't push them back. We used to see Dembele and Eriksen just totally negated in these games so our entire platform was disrupted.
Of course we can talk tactics and formations all day, but it was still 11 vs 11. There was something about yesterday's game where our boys just weren't up for it as much as Glasner's. Another reason for changing things might have been that some of our tougher boys were on the bench.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I agree with the point you're making. But mostly I think people are just saying perhaps it would be better for him and us to have started Werner (or Richalison). Let them do their thing for an hour, then bring Moore on as opponents are starting to tire.On the topic of starting Moore I don't really see the issue. He was relatively speaking pretty decent, as I said earlier in this thread he would have been my man of the first half. I get that he didn't have a barnstormer, but people are talking as if the game would have caused him some harm. Why?
Hes going to play games where he does well, hes going to play games where he's brick and he wasn't even brick in this match. There's no point hiding from these moments, these moments are what are going to build his character and as I said he wasn't even bad in the first half, he was our brightest spark. So what's the issue exactly? Do we only want him to play games that are easy and games we can't lose? He'll never get any minutes in that case.
No, belief in youth is giving them minutes, letting them sink or swim and trying again with them when they fail. Do we want there to be a pathway to the first team or not? Because if at the first hint of Moore not being the direct reincarnation of Pele, people are speaking of starting flipping Werner or even Richy i'm baffled. It's like you don't actually believe in the quality of the youth and the process necessary to graduate them.
I agree that he did well enough. Wasn't the problem. Didn't look out of place.
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
The way we approached yesterday was so much about mentality as much tactical, but I do agree there were some easy fixes tactically
The sarr for Maddison or Kulu one was a no brainer to me.
Poch changed too after a few years to play 3 at the back and also have the CM drop into defence. But it was after a much longer period of time
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I don't think we weren't up for it. We seemed to work hard. We pressed well enough (though they usually just launched it at the first hint of being under pressure). We seemed to get stuck in in duels etc.
I think we got frustrated. Frustrated with their time wasting, rough challenges and the ref letting quite a bit go (it happens, we have to deal with it, not an excuse). And frustrated that we weren't able to play our game.
The players weren't able to use or deal with those frustrations in a useful manner.
Our main issue was not being able to play through their press. Get into positions from that where Moore and others could do their thing.
I don't think different formations or other players starting is or was the answer. A top level ball playing, deep playmaker type central midfielder could have been, but we don't have that player in our squad.
That is why i would like Porro there, with djed as RB.
I think Djed is a slightly better defender.