• 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 vs AFC Richmond/Crystal Palace - Sunday 27th October 14:00 ***

But you taken about us not being fresh..

Que? Moving goal posts onto a different point?

Some players were rotated, but not all. Maddison, Solanke, Moore etc

Personally I don’t see a huge difference to last season. If anything I would say we have improved. In fact I am certain we have. What is different?

We didn’t get the run of the green early on. Might have picked up a few more points with a bit more luck or fluidity up front. And playing in Europe. Brighton and Palace results both following Thursday night games. That is t anything new. We’ve been here before with different managers and systems.

We are still developing. For me the greatest issue is our shyness up front.
 
Que? Moving goal posts onto a different point?

Some players were rotated, but not all. Maddison, Solanke, Moore etc

Personally I don’t see a huge difference to last season. If anything I would say we have improved. In fact I am certain we have. What is different?

We didn’t get the run of the green early on. Might have picked up a few more points with a bit more luck or fluidity up front. And playing in Europe. Brighton and Palace results both following Thursday night games. That is t anything new. We’ve been here before with different managers and systems.

We are still developing. For me the greatest issue is our shyness up front.
Three players started this game that started mid week
3
We were fresh
We didn’t work hard enough in the right way
There is no player that leads thsi team
 
It's not really about being down on the manager or what anyone else would have done differently, at least imv of the context of the discussion, which was why we lost. Some thought the players weren't trying hard enough, I said I thought that they were/that wasn't the main problem, but that had been set up incorrectly/were not prepared for how to deal with Palaces game plan (of course this is with hindsight, it's my view podt game of how it played out?) - you yourself said you felt we were set up incorrectly - remind whose job it is to set the team up?

Yes I get your position. I’m simply asking what you’d do differently. Easy to criticise after a lost game. Who wouldn’t re-run the game again and tweak things!

One of the core abilities of mangers must be anticipating outcomes. After the first 5 mins today you could sense this outcome. But there is method in creating a stable way of playing. You don’t have to tinker as much and the team should develop more.

Today was disappointing but I’m not giving up on Ange so readily. It is work in progress.
 
Three players started thsi game that started mid week
3
We were fresh
We didn’t work hard enough in the right way
There is no player that leads thsi team

It wasnt work. It was fight. To stand up to the fouls, barrage of physicality. To the ref and the crowd. To not be dismayed and be extra driven to play around them and show them up. All credit to palace they were right in our faces and worked extremely hard. Maddison wasn’t fresh. Not was Solanke. And Moore after his first big adrenaline filled half on Thursday can’t have been fresh either.

In hindsight swapping out Maddison for Bentancur and having a more combative midfield, with Maddison coming on fresh might have been better. Or playing Maddison on the left instead of Moore. With Moore coming on fresh to run at them as they tired.

All that said, I thought we should have got at least a goal from our play. We had opportunities. And most concerning thing for me is the lack of determination and balls in our attack. We have forwards who seem scared.
 
It wasnt work. It was fight. To stand up to the fouls, barrage of physicality. To the ref and the crowd. To not be dismayed and be extra driven to play around them and show them up. All credit to palace they were right in our faces and worked extremely hard. Maddison wasn’t fresh. Not was Solanke. And Moore after his first big adrenaline filled half on Thursday can’t have been fresh either.

In hindsight swapping out Maddison for Bentancur and having a more combative midfield, with Maddison coming on fresh might have been better. Or playing Maddison on the left instead of Moore. With Moore coming on fresh to run at them as they tired.

All that said, I thought we should have got at least a goal from our play. We had opportunities. And most concerning thing for me is the lack of determination and balls in our attack. We have forwards who seem scared.
Why those options?
Why not start with the team that did the job last week vs West Ham?
Seemed an obvious call to me before the game
The forwards got no balls because we lost the midfield
We lost the midfield because they over that area moving in a CB and allow the others to press us. It was great tactically by palace and weak from us
 
Why those options?
Why not start with the team that did the job last week vs West Ham?
Seemed an obvious call to me before the game
The forwards got no balls because we lost the midfield
We lost the midfield because they over that area moving in a CB and allow the others to press us. It was great tactically by palace and weak from us

Ange did start the same side as against wham (bar Son), that was my point: most would have stuck with that side.

In hindsight we would all tweak it to add more steel in the middle.
 
I think our away form is maybe indicative of the managers lack of pragmatism - im wondering whether he takes much notice of who we are matched up against game to game versus trying to put out a team he thinks can best play 'our way', with the idea being that if we play our way well, then we will win no matter the opposition - this may work enough at home to keep things ticking over, but away from home even the best teams need to adapt from time to time
Exactly. We don’t have the personnel to play our way regardless of the oppo. But it seems like Ange will not change, not even for ten minutes to make the opponent guess what we might do. So if there is an aggressive high press, we keep trying to tippy tap it out, inevitably make a mistake and get punished. And then they sit back and we can’t make anything happen.
 
Ange did start the same side as against wham (bar Son), that was my point: most would have stuck with that side.

In hindsight we would all tweak it to add more steel in the middle.
I mean he made that tweak last week and it worked
So why not stick with it
Odd
 
Vicario’s interview seems a bit of a red flag to me, and Ange looks devoid of any energy in his MOTD one - and pretty snippy too.

4 losses in 9 league games so far this season. A lot of people said they’d judge where we sat after 10 games…lose to Villa and it’ll be a 50% loss rate for the season at that stage.

It already feels like the next two games are huge in the context of the season.

See that since the Chavski loss last 37 games ago

Won:16 Drawn:5 Lost:16

Hopefully the gaffer can get things back on track soon or we’ve got a couple of January signings lined up who’ll hit the ground running (like Kulusevski and Bentancur did) so that he doesn’t have to compromise on his ideology.
 
Yes
And it dint work did t work first half
The damage was done when we had an extra deeper midfield passing quicker and more room in attack to attack

Okay I get you. And the same played out today. Tbf to Maddison he’s played 3 games in a week and being taken off at HT is not going to save you a great deal. My point is: it is hard to isolate the key variables. We always look for one thing to explain a loss. But the truth is always there are a number of details. However, I agree, we lacked some grunt in the base of midfield. Not just to stand up to palace but to pass around them. In theory the more technical Maddison and Kulu should be able pass through a press better than most. But our lack of physicality (in midfield) today was stark. We needed more power and strength in the middle. Sarr seems next in line. But I’d have opted for Bentancur for his composure on the ball and to help us pass out - in hindsight.
 
I thought we looked incredibly unbalanced from the off. With Moore, Maddison, Udogie and Johnson, Kulusevski, Porro all too close to each other leaving us very weak defensively in midfield. Something like this.

spurs v palace.png

I thought after our second-half display against West Ham, something like the below would have been better (particularly away) with Sarr/Bissouma breaking play up and playing forward quickly. The fact Ange didn't change to that, after doing it at West Ham is odd.

spurs v palace v2.png
 
We were out fought. Not necessarily that we didn't fight, but we were fought out of our quality. Palace pressed really well and subsequently dropped deep very well when we were able to progress. But the amount of times we lost the ball, the amount of times we were unable to properly play through the press. We lost our quality in the fight.

Particularly the midfield struggled a lot. I don't think Sarr would have been the answer.

Players need to find that quality and composure within themselves even when things are difficult, when we're not finding flow as such.
 
It's not really about being down on the manager or what anyone else would have done differently, at least imv of the context of the discussion, which was why we lost. Some thought the players weren't trying hard enough, I said I thought that they were/that wasn't the main problem, but that we had been set up incorrectly/were not prepared for how to deal with Palace's game plan (of course this is with hindsight btw, it's my view post game of how it played out?) - you yourself said you felt we were set up incorrectly - remind whose job it is to set the team up?
I agree that we seemed to be trying. We really struggled with their high press. Lost the ball a massive amount.

Having our best ball playing midfielders on the pitch along with our best ball playing defenders on the pitch seems like the way to deal with said high press. It's what we've been successful with in the past.

We were sloppy though. A lot of inaccurate passes, miscontrols. We looked flustered, rushed. And, like before, unable to shake out of that. We know these players are capable on their day of playing way better against a high pressing team. I don't think it's wrong for Ange to assume that they can or set them up like that.

This is part of what the players have to learn to deal with.
 
It’s actually very good for us
View attachment 17904

IMG_3612.png

I think Ange’s overall is actually around 62%, but that’s skewed somewhat by our first 10 results under him. A rate of 50% is historically towards the low side for us. We don’t tend to draw many under him either, which obviously has an impact too.

Anyway, hopefully we’ll beat Villa and 50% won’t come to pass.
 
Having our best ball playing midfielders on the pitch along with our best ball playing defenders on the pitch seems like the way to deal with said high press. It's what we've been successful with in the past.

We were sloppy though. A lot of inaccurate passes, miscontrols. We looked flustered, rushed. And, like before, unable to shake out of that. We know these players are capable on their day of playing way better against a high pressing team. I don't think it's wrong for Ange to assume that they can or set them up like that.

This is part of what the players have to learn to deal with.
I think part of the issue is whilst the base technical level of our players is at a historically good standard, it's not actually high enough for what Ange demands. The quality of the first touch and the press resistance isn't where it needs to be, nor the range and quality of the pass into players under pressure.

If Ange is unwilling to adapt he's going to need the backing of the board to purchase him ever more suitable players or he's going to keeping coming unstuck, because what's he's trying to do here isn't anything new or even innovative. I've watched many teams over the years and across leagues attempt to play this way and at its core it requires a level of technical ability and tactical versatility that I just don't see enough of across the range of players in our squad.

So we are going to have to wait and hope that Ange is the right man to invest in. I generally like his plan and I appreciate the style he has implemented but I'm not so strong on his lack of adaptability. I'm not calling for wholesale changes but I think he could be a little more flexible or at least as you've mentioned have a little more direct game planning versus the opposition. We simply aren't that good that we can ignore what they bring to the table and just "play our way".
 
Back