• 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

OMT ** Tottenham Hotspur v AZ 13.03.2025 **

Pirate55 said:
Talking about players playing in the wrong part of the pitch, I can't understand for the life of me why Son is in our penalty area defending corners and free-kicks. He is an absolute liability defensively. If he were deployed further up the pitch it would not only give us a potential out-ball but also it would take two to mark him thus nullifying the opponents threat in our own penalty area. It seems such a no-brainer to me.
Click to expand...

I have never understood why we do that, what use is a player who can't win headers or tackles defending set pieces?
 
Did we get lucky with the second Odebert goal, he must have been close to offside? (Not that it matters one jot, but it's good if we are finally getting some luck. Got to say though, that to play so open once we went ahead is insane. Parrot nearly scored, as did their other guy going for the rebound off Vic's save. I love Ange the philosopher but when you only have a one nil lead, in the closing minutes, why on earth leave the team so open to a counter? It's bonkers really........... can anyone on here defend that?
 
lurker of old said:
Did we get lucky with the second Odebert goal, he must have been close to offside? (Not that it matters one jot, but it's good if we are finally getting some luck. Got to say though, that to play so open once we went ahead is insane. Parrot nearly scored, as did their other guy going for the rebound off Vic's save. I love Ange the philosopher but when you only have a one nil lead, in the closing minutes, why on earth leave the team so open to a counter? It's bonkers really........... can anyone on here defend that?
Click to expand...

I understand but isn't the reverse you sit back and let them attack and we've always been very good at that.
 
lurker of old said:
Did we get lucky with the second Odebert goal, he must have been close to offside? (Not that it matters one jot, but it's good if we are finally getting some luck. Got to say though, that to play so open once we went ahead is insane. Parrot nearly scored, as did their other guy going for the rebound off Vic's save. I love Ange the philosopher but when you only have a one nil lead, in the closing minutes, why on earth leave the team so open to a counter? It's bonkers really........... can anyone on here defend that?
Click to expand...
The was their only attack in the half besides the one they scored from which was super lucky
 
lurker of old said:
But does it have to be so black and white? Can't we try and keep the ball in their half but still have some defenders back closer to goal and make sure the DM/number 6 is in our half and facing forward?
Click to expand...

I’d say the plan is something similar to that - though push high rather than drop deep. However, when a team is on the verge of being knocked out of a competition, they’re going to push forward and create chances. That’s inevitable. From memory, it was really only the last 15 mins when we conceded the main chances, and that was having made 2 changes at CB too.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, giving the ball back to them from long goal kicks every time didn’t help either.
 
tommysvr said:
I’d say the plan is something similar to that - though push high rather than drop deep. However, when a team is on the verge of being knocked out of a competition, they’re going to push forward and create chances. That’s inevitable. From memory, it was really only the last 15 mins when we conceded the main chances, and that was having made 2 changes at CB too.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, giving the ball back to them from long goal kicks every time didn’t help either.
Click to expand...
We really didn’t concede many chances
It was just fan felt pressure because a panic kinda sets in with fans (lack of control)
They had 2 shots in target including the goal
 
lurker of old said:
But does it have to be so black and white? Can't we try and keep the ball in their half but still have some defenders back closer to goal and make sure the DM/number 6 is in our half and facing forward?
Click to expand...
Depends how compact you are
That’s how it should be with inverted full backs
You should win the midfield
Our DM is nearly always facing forward.,, the issue is they don’t run back or they let the man run off them

Just focusing on the last goals we have conceded
Yesterday - the DM was clearing the ball and it hit his own player. That can and does happen to anyone
Bournemouth’s first goal… came from the full back making a woefully executed pass and his opposite number letting his man get inside (Spence’s man). DM doesnt stop that because of where the pass was made and the initial error
Second goal they played great football right through the middle and a DM (we didn’t know who was playing that role at that point) could have done something. Great goal though
Last Thursday - OG
City game - not stopping cross wide
There are obviously loads and I fully agree a real DM will be beneficial but the current knock on having a weaker player there isn’t huge. It’s an area of opportunity though
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Bournemouth’s first goal… came from the full back making a woefully executed pass and his opposite number letting his man get inside (Spence’s man). DM doesnt stop that because of where the pass was made and the initial error
Click to expand...

Yes, but if we had a holding midfielder, they would normally be sitting protecting the backline but a little biased to the side that we're attacking That is because the full-back on the other side would normally hold. For the first goal, Spence did actually stay at LB when Porro foraged which means Biss in a conventional system should be sitting tucked in on the right. He wasn't, as Ange wants these guys to go and find space. His starting position as we lost the ball was over the other side of the centre circle, much closer to LB than RB.

In most tactical systems Biss would have just sprinted over to Kirkez and been there as he crosses the half way line. Obviously, Ange knows best. We don't need a 6, 8 and 10. We need two 8's and a 10. Then these moments happen over and over.

Also, Spence was so lackadaisical about defending all game. There was no getting back, resting behind the ball and marking his player. He spent way too much time just ambling back. He was also the most likely out the 4 to keep them onside. I hope this stuff comes more naturally to him at RB. That shouldn't have been goal based on the manager and the players.

As I say, Ange knows best.
 
lurker of old said:
But does it have to be so black and white? Can't we try and keep the ball in their half but still have some defenders back closer to goal and make sure the DM/number 6 is in our half and facing forward?
Click to expand...
Ideally yes but neither Son or Johnson have shown the ability to keep possession and if our midfield have to keep playing sideways the ball eventually ends up back with our keeper and in our half, it's easy to keep possession when the other team sit back and the game slows down its an other story when they are desperate and pushing forward. I agree the defender should be more cautious in there positioning.
 
Muttley said:
Yes, but if we had a holding midfielder, they would normally be sitting protecting the backline but a little biased to the side that we're attacking That is because the full-back on the other side would normally hold. For the first goal, Spence did actually stay at LB when Porro foraged which means Biss in a conventional system should be sitting tucked in on the right. He wasn't, as Ange wants these guys to go and find space. His starting position as we lost the ball was over the other side of the centre circle, much closer to LB than RB.

In most tactical systems Biss would have just sprinted over to Kirkez and been there as he crosses the half way line. Obviously, Ange knows best. We don't need a 6, 8 and 10. We need two 8's and a 10. Then these moments happen over and over.

Also, Spence was so lackadaisical about defending all game. There was no getting back, resting behind the ball and marking his player. He spent way too much time just ambling back. He was also the most likely out the 4 to keep them onside. I hope this stuff comes more naturally to him at RB. That shouldn't have been goal based on the manager and the players.

As I say, Ange knows best.
Click to expand...
No DM covers that space that quick
It’s why even city conceded really when Rodri was there
If you play high risk, high reward football you run the chance of getting caught (we know that)
Then add in if a player fudges up on the mosh basic part of the game …. It’s worse
That’s not saying a proper 6 wouldn’t change some things but they, IMO, wouldn’t affect the recent goals like people may think
 
Bedfordspurs said:
No DM covers that space that quick
It’s why even city conceded really when Rodri was there
If you play high risk, high reward football you run the chance of getting caught (we know that)
Then add in if a player fudges up on the mosh basic part of the game …. It’s worse
That’s not saying a proper 6 wouldn’t change some things but they, IMO, wouldn’t affect the recent goals like people may think
Click to expand...

Nah, just not true in my mind. Kirkez actually picks that ball up about 7 or 8 yards from his own 18 yard box and crosses it about the same distance from our 18 yard box. A DM that is tucked on the right side of the centre circle has way less distance to run. Kirkez wouldn't get the freedom on that side or the lack of pressure on him to make that cross. Even if the DM becomes a centre half like Dier used to, and Romero goes over it's a different scenario. None of this can happen when your 6 is playing as an 8. This is on Ange.
 
Muttley said:
Nah, just not true in my mind. Kirkez actually picks that ball up about 7 or 8 yards from his own 18 yard box and crosses it about the same distance from our 18 yard box. A DM that is tucked on the right side of the centre circle has way less distance to run. Kirkez wouldn't get the freedom on that side or the lack of pressure on him to make that cross. Even if the DM becomes a centre half like Dier used to, and Romero goes over it's a different scenario. None of this can happen when your 6 is playing as an 8. This is on Ange.
Click to expand...
All on the full backs for me
Porro should execute a very basic pass
Spence should not lose his man
The cross then becomes redundant
 
Bedfordspurs said:
All on the full backs for me
Porro should execute a very basic pass
Spence should not lose his man
The cross then becomes redundant
Click to expand...

All that is also true by the way. Humans will be humans though. Passes will be misplaced by the very best players in the world. You have to have a system that caters for these things. I'm finding Ange's too idealistic and unrealistic at this incredibly high PL level. Let's face it, the chances of Ange being undone in that way by a Kirkez in the SPL is low. It was a sublime ball.
 
Muttley said:
All that is also true by the way. Humans will be humans though. Passes will be misplaced by the very best players in the world. You have to have a system that caters for these things. I'm finding Ange's too idealistic and unrealistic at this incredibly high PL level. Let's face it, the chances of Ange being undone in that way by a Kirkez in the SPL is low. It was a sublime ball.
Click to expand...
I agree
But it was a really really simple pass
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back