• 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 Fulham FC ***

Re the starting 11 the only part that bothered me was seeing both PEH and Skipp in the middle. Swapping just one of those with Bissouma would’ve significantly improved the performance imo. As long as Bentancur is unavailable we’re very dependent on Bissouma.
 
I don't think it was the number of changes as much as who the 11 players we sent out there were. The pairings of Davies/Royal at FB, Skipp/Højbjerg in CM and Solomon/Perisic on the wings took away most of our creativity and quick passing and movement.
 
parklane1 said:
Had a nights sleep but i have still not changed my view, making that MANY chances was always playing into Fulhams hands. There really was no GOOD reason to have done that, a couple of changes would have been fine but we have all seen what happens when we have done that in the past.

Fulham are a decent side and with it also being a London derby you/we knew they would have been up for it and we/Ange played into their hands by naming the team he did. To be honest i did not expect Ange to do put that team out so i was surprised when i saw the line up.

For those who say it was a nothing game and does not mean much well i 100% disagree with that.
Click to expand...
Ange has given his reasons.
 
parklane1 said:
Had a nights sleep but i have still not changed my view, making that MANY chances was always playing into Fulhams hands. There really was no GOOD reason to have done that, a couple of changes would have been fine but we have all seen what happens when we have done that in the past.

Fulham are a decent side and with it also being a London derby you/we knew they would have been up for it and we/Ange played into their hands by naming the team he did. To be honest i did not expect Ange to do put that team out so i was surprised when i saw the line up.

For those who say it was a nothing game and does not mean much well i 100% disagree with that.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. This was a big game for us. Yes it's a tin pot cup but its still a cup and we should have been able to try to win this without jeopardising our league form.

Thought it was crazy to play Forster and just too many changes overall. Personally would have just made one change to the back 5 (Royal) and would have kept Sarr instead of Hojbjerg. Can always make early subs if someone needs a rest.

The idea we "need to give players a run out" is simply not true. We need to win & having drawn a PL side we needed to line-up with a strong side.

If we treat the FACup like this I'll be even more annoyed.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Ange has given his reasons.
Click to expand...

Of course and he did what he thought was right, however IF we had been playing a lower div side i could understand if he had made a few changes . However we were against a good Fulham team and that many changes were taking a BIG risk ( and we failed).

Do not get me wrong i think he has done well for us and i fully support him however he imo took/made a big risk and it now means we only have one game a week until the FA Cup starts. That is not going to help/give him a lot of time to judge his fringe players.
 
Eesh. I must admit to not having watched any of this match yet. On the face of things though, that was a pretty weak XI that Ange put out, against a Fulham side featuring half their 1st XI and a handful of others on the fringes.

Fulham are no mugs -- they gave Arsenal a scare at Highbury, after all, and were playing at home last night. I'd argue that this wasn't the game to make such wholesale changes, especially putting out a complete 2nd string trio at CM, but you can't say that Royal and Sanchez didn't deserve a run-out, and I've been wanting to see what Solomon could do.

With Scarlett on at half time, did we go to more of a conventional 4-4-2? Or did Perisic come central, with Richi going out wide? Until the cavalry came on later in the game, anyway.

At least Richarlison got a goal.

If we'd won, no matter how ugly, it would be a very different story. Such is life. We go again on Saturday.
 
Last edited:
FatBloke said:
Eesh. I must admit to not having watched any of this match yet. On the face of things though, that was a pretty weak XI that Ange put out, against a Fulham side featuring half their 1st XI and a handful of others on the fringes.

Fulham are no mugs -- they gave Arsenal a scare at Highbury, after all, and were playing at home last night. I'd argue that this wasn't the game to make such wholesale changes, especially putting out a complete 2nd string trio at CM, but you can't say that Royal and Sanchez didn't deserve a run-out, and I've been wanting to see what Solomon could do.

With Scarlett on at half time, did we go to more of a conventional 4-4-2? Or did Perisic come central, with Richi going out wide? Until the cavalry came on later in the game, anyway.

At least Richarlison got a goal.

If we'd won, no matter how ugly, it would be a very different story. Such is life. We go again on Saturday.
Click to expand...
And Ange and the board get to see how our squad is under competitive circumstances.
 
parklane1 said:
Had a nights sleep but i have still not changed my view, making that MANY chances was always playing into Fulhams hands. There really was no GOOD reason to have done that, a couple of changes would have been fine but we have all seen what happens when we have done that in the past.

Fulham are a decent side and with it also being a London derby you/we knew they would have been up for it and we/Ange played into their hands by naming the team he did. To be honest i did not expect Ange to do put that team out so i was surprised when i saw the line up.

For those who say it was a nothing game and does not mean much well i 100% disagree with that.
Click to expand...

Fulham themselves made 7 changes. Most PL teams will change 6-11 players. In hindsight, it’s proved the wrong decision to change 9 by the narrowest of margins. That’s not a reason to hammer Ange (not that you are) or the club, IMO. It’s disappointing but it’s not a catastrophe and I’m sure Ange will have learned a lot from it.
 
parklane1 said:
Of course and he did what he thought was right, however IF we had been playing a lower div side i could understand if he had made a few changes . However we were against a good Fulham team and that many changes were taking a BIG risk ( and we failed).

Do not get me wrong i think he has done well for us and i fully support him however he imo took/made a big risk and it now means we only have one game a week until the FA Cup starts. That is not going to help/give him a lot of time to judge his fringe players.
Click to expand...

We didn’t lose. And only drew to an unlucky OG. Yes the performance was brick. But we have a squad of players, many of our second string internationals. The only way Postecoglou will ever truly find out who he can rely on is by playing them. A player like Sanchez is probably decent in training (and in a friendly against Barca). But in a high pressure game he falls apart more often than not.

We could have played a stronger side with the same result.


FWIW I thought our back 4 was our greatest weakness. When you play out from the back they set the tempo and start all moves. VDV has been our least fluid passing defender and is only 3 games in, but suddenly he’s the most senior player in the back line, trying to keep up some tempo. Sanchez always dallied, looked one way, came back and slowed our build up. Lacks conviction and confidence. Royal similar. He is a brilliant defender but never a midfielder. Porro would have hit the target with that free shot on the edge of the box at the end. Davies I can fault too. Doesn’t have the pace to worry anyone but at least he had conviction and tried the right things.

With that 4 playing the ball out our play struggled. Many fans underrate Romeros ball control and speed. We need another CB with his ability on the ball. Royal and Davies are grafters and are okay cover - more suited to bring on to see out a game though. Neither is suited Anges system when we are in possession as neither should be playing midfield! I’d almost prefer Skipp or PEH playing at full back.
 
DeanoAustin said:
Fulham themselves made 7 changes. Most PL teams will change 6-11 players. In hindsight, it’s proved the wrong decision to change 9 by the narrowest of margins. That’s not a reason to hammer Ange (not that you are) or the club, IMO. It’s disappointing but it’s not a catastrophe and I’m sure Ange will have learned a lot from it.
Click to expand...
Did they make 7 changes
I made it 5 and they started players who all played at the weekend
 
Jordinho said:
The pairings of Davies/Royal at FB, Skipp/Højbjerg in CM.
Click to expand...
Agreed, when Davies and Royal join the central midfield, we had 4 of our worst passers, with Davinson Sanchez trying to feed them!
Fulham seemed to have at least 12 men in midfield, starving our midfield of space and thus our front 3 were unused.

As always when Sanchez plays, teams just let him have the ball, because he is one of the worst footballers in the Premiership IMO.
 
I see Poch is trying hard to lose to AFC Wimbledon tonight, after making more than a few changes to the team

  • 1Sánchez
  • 48Humphreys
  • 2Disasi
  • 26Colwill
  • 3Cucurella
  • 23Gallagher
  • 16Ugochukwu
  • 11Madueke
  • 29Maatsen
  • 43da Silva Moreira
  • 37Burstow
Substitutes
  • 6Thiago Silva
  • 8Fernández
  • 15Jackson
  • 21Chilwell
  • 25Caicedo
  • 27Gusto
  • 28Petrovic
  • 47Bergström
  • 53Samuels-Smith
 
Slightly off topic but carabao related. Just checked the score in the Forest v Burnley tie and it shows on the BBC sport site that Burnley have made 6 subs. Is that right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back