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

[Muttley]

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.

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.

 

[braineclipse]

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.

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.

 

[Robspur12]

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.

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.

 

[tommysvr]

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.

You missed the most important part though.

 

[Robspur12]

You missed the most important part though.

It's is open to the interpretation of who suffers the biggest infringement. My issue is that it is just not consistently applied.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

It's is open to the interpretation of who suffers the biggest infringement. My issue is that it is just not consistently applied.

I think its a pen, but its just not applied enough for it to feel fair

 

[tommysvr]

It's is open to the interpretation of who suffers the biggest infringement. My issue is that it is just not consistently applied.

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

 

[Muttley]

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.

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.

 

[Kane]

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.

Yep, good points.
The various antics at corners now are numerous, and are ever evolving, creatively and inventively. Which can, in turn, increase the challenge of policing them fairly. But yes, there is currently a lack of consistency in its application. (Which, I assume, they are aware of and are seeking to address.)

 

[Yiddo]

Can a referee reject the call to go to the monitor and say 'nah' before he goes over or does he have to go and see it if they recommend it?

The only time i have seen a referee go against VAR was coincidently against us (I’m not sure but it may have been against Southampton) but he went to the video, looked at it then said no. I think it was a foul before a goal or something along those lines. Var wanted to disallow Southamptons goal but the ref didn’t.

 

[Muttley]

Yep, good points.
The various antics at corners now are numerous, and are ever evolving, creatively and inventively. Which can, in turn, increase the challenge of policing them fairly. But yes, there is currently a lack of consistency in its application. (Which, I assume, they are aware of and are seeking to address.)

This is the thing. PGMOL aren't seeking to address them because they are in complete denial about the damage they are doing to the game. In fact they've moved further away from upholding the laws of the same in the switch from O'Riley to Webb. They've completely lost focus of who their customer is and have become untouchable. Hence why Liverpool and Arsenal had to remind them publicly and shake them up.

There is also a theory out there that referees don't want to be seen and not heard. Their path to generational wealth doesn't happen if they just follow the laws and quietly do their job well. They don't get the high paid jobs after their careers on the pitch if they do what the fans want them to do. They need to be infamous like Mike Dean. Everyone needs to know their name.

Now what we're seeing is the best referees getting passed up for the top jobs because they don't fit the profile. We end up with all the gobbricks at PGMOL whilst the better referees officiate lower down the pyramid.

 

[Dicko]

The only time i have seen a referee go against VAR was coincidently against us (I’m not sure but it may have been against Southampton) but he went to the video, looked at it then said no. I think it was a foul before a goal or something along those lines. Var wanted to disallow Southamptons goal but the ref didn’t.

Yeah uts definitely rare. I was just wondering if they can refuse to even go and take a look?

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Yeah uts definitely rare. I was just wondering if they can refuse to even go and take a look?

I don't know whether or not they can refuse, but I don't think they should. If the VAR thinks there is an error then it would be the height of arrogance to refuse to double check. But the on-field referee should feel empowered to stick by the original decision if they still believe it's correct. It seems nowadays that the expectation, and the reality, is that they will change their mind.
I wonder should they even have to listen to the VAR in their earpiece explaining why they think a mistake was made, or should they just review it from the various angles and make their own decision (again).
The whole process is mucked up. When it started the VAR made most of the contentious decisions and the ref was rarely sent to the monitor. Then people complained that the on-field ref was being bypassed too much and he should get the chance to review on the monitor more often. Now it just feels like the buck is being passed from referee to VAR and back to referee (but listening to VAR).
Is this how it works in other countries with VAR? Is it as contentious and widely ridiculed as it is here?

 

[Baleforce]

I don't know whether or not they can refuse, but I don't think they should. If the VAR thinks there is an error then it would be the height of arrogance to refuse to double check. But the on-field referee should feel empowered to stick by the original decision if they still believe it's correct. It seems nowadays that the expectation, and the reality, is that they will change their mind.
I wonder should they even have to listen to the VAR in their earpiece explaining why they think a mistake was made, or should they just review it from the various angles and make their own decision (again).
The whole process is mucked up. When it started the VAR made most of the contentious decisions and the ref was rarely sent to the monitor. Then people complained that the on-field ref was being bypassed too much and he should get the chance to review on the monitor more often. Now it just feels like the buck is being passed from referee to VAR and back to referee (but listening to VAR).
Is this how it works in other countries with VAR? Is it as contentious and widely ridiculed as it is here?

the thing is, if those with the replays are sure enough that something is worth another look, the ref probably did get it wrong

 

[Baleforce]

although, maybe they should mix it up, start sending the ref's over to watch a replay when they get it absolutely spot on

pat yourself on the back ref, you fudging nailed that one, how many replays you want?

 

[Glenda's Legs]

the thing is, if those with the replays are sure enough that something is worth another look, the ref probably did get it wrong

I'd like to think that is the case, but unless the official process is to hand the decision back to the referee (maybe it is and I've missed that somewhere), then it feels like buck-passing.
Also, we are still working to "clear and obvious error" as the benchmark for overturning a decision. So who should decide if something was a clear and obvious error- that's better for a third party (i.e. VAR) to adjudicate on shirley, rather the ref marking their own homework?

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

Wait, are some still trying to spin that VAR got this right?

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

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.

Yeah I don’t think the intention is to offer quite so…nothing in those moments we are defending. But at the very least, we did prevent good chances. And we raised the intensity when we needed to and created good chances ourselves. I’d class it as progress.

I would say that countering does tend to be an intense, energy sapping and potentially risky play depending on how it’s done. I’m sure Frank doesn’t want to get into a basketball game, but I do agree that we still have much room for improvement in all aspects.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

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.

I think that against Fulham, I felt like we were trying to be whatever passes for aggressive for the team at the moment, at the start, and it didn’t work at all. We seemed waaaaaay too open to a single direct pass and they had us running backwards on more than one occasion. It was odd how easy it was for them.

So I definitely agree that there is still balances to be achieved, both when defending we still need to be able to use the ball better, and when attacking we can’t be so utterly open.