• 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

Tactics Thread

parklane1 said:
To be honest i was a little surprised and dissapointed when we bought him, he never really struck me as a very good player at Brighton [ allthough others did] and at his age he imo was hardly going to get that much more consistant. I thought the same about Maddison as well and both have shown that we can not depend on them to be anything more then what they are.

I know our defense get a lot of stick for allowing so many chances to opposing teams but IMO a lot of that is down to our porus M/F.
Click to expand...
Agree on both. I see why they catch the eye, but like you, inconsistent.
 
SteveAWOL said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1871498320696529113
Click to expand...

Stuff like that bothers me, it lacks nuance, in that still

- Yes the route to Liverpool's LW is open, it's by design (every other pass is blocked/limited). Ever seen a boxer with one hand down and wonder why? it's giving the opponent a target area (things that are predictable are easier to defend against)
- The backline is holding the line, so the pass/run has to be good (offside trap is part of our game). you have 4 players covering, 3 of which have a shorter run back
- Perfect example of where a VDV who allow more protection by nature of his pace (yes, we should discuss if we adapt without him)

Now, what happens if Liverpool loses the ball in that still?
- One pass and 5 of their players are out of the game, ahead of the ball?
- On the bottom of the screen, there is a potential 3 on 2
- Through the middle there is 1v1

This is a lot about execution vs. "oh, look, I see a weakness" fatigue & quality made a big (predictable) difference.
 
Having proper experienced coaches who have coached at this level is probably a good start, seems its all amateurs in control of training.
 
Raziel said:
Stuff like that bothers me, it lacks nuance, in that still

- Yes the route to Liverpool's LW is open, it's by design (every other pass is blocked/limited). Ever seen a boxer with one hand down and wonder why? it's giving the opponent a target area (things that are predictable are easier to defend against)
- The backline is holding the line, so the pass/run has to be good (offside trap is part of our game). you have 4 players covering, 3 of which have a shorter run back
- Perfect example of where a VDV who allow more protection by nature of his pace (yes, we should discuss if we adapt without him)

Now, what happens if Liverpool loses the ball in that still?
- One pass and 5 of their players are out of the game, ahead of the ball?
- On the bottom of the screen, there is a potential 3 on 2
- Through the middle there is 1v1

This is a lot about execution vs. "oh, look, I see a weakness" fatigue & quality made a big (predictable) difference.
Click to expand...
Was the same against Chelsea, to begin with Palmer wasn't getting a sniff, Son then became lazy Son again and no one was close to him due to people picking up others. If Son does his job properly Chelsea would not have had that same pass over and over again to Palmer.
 
Raziel said:
Stuff like that bothers me, it lacks nuance, in that still

- Yes the route to Liverpool's LW is open, it's by design (every other pass is blocked/limited). Ever seen a boxer with one hand down and wonder why? it's giving the opponent a target area (things that are predictable are easier to defend against)
- The backline is holding the line, so the pass/run has to be good (offside trap is part of our game). you have 4 players covering, 3 of which have a shorter run back
- Perfect example of where a VDV who allow more protection by nature of his pace (yes, we should discuss if we adapt without him)

Now, what happens if Liverpool loses the ball in that still?
- One pass and 5 of their players are out of the game, ahead of the ball?
- On the bottom of the screen, there is a potential 3 on 2
- Through the middle there is 1v1

This is a lot about execution vs. "oh, look, I see a weakness" fatigue & quality made a big (predictable) difference.
Click to expand...
100%
 
Ange said in his presser that we covered more distance than Liverpool on Thursday. I find it fascinating and perplexing how we can cover more ground whilst they a) look far more fast and intense and b) always seemed to outnumber us all over the pitch. Can anyone square that circle? Is it something to do with us always wanting to play from deep but press up high?
 
elltrev said:
Ange said in his presser that we covered more distance than Liverpool on Thursday. I find it fascinating and perplexing how we can cover more ground whilst they a) look far more fast and intense and b) always seemed to outnumber us all over the pitch. Can anyone square that circle? Is it something to do with us always wanting to play from deep but press up high?
Click to expand...
Like he said 'chasing the ball all night'

If for example they play it across the back from wing to wing...we do the running the ball does theirs.
 
Last edited:
elltrev said:
Ange said in his presser that we covered more distance than Liverpool on Thursday. I find it fascinating and perplexing how we can cover more ground whilst they a) look far more fast and intense and b) always seemed to outnumber us all over the pitch. Can anyone square that circle? Is it something to do with us always wanting to play from deep but press up high?
Click to expand...
Watch sonny
He is the master of being in between everything and doing nothing
When you see that you can see why we get more mileage in
 
elltrev said:
Ange said in his presser that we covered more distance than Liverpool on Thursday. I find it fascinating and perplexing how we can cover more ground whilst they a) look far more fast and intense and b) always seemed to outnumber us all over the pitch. Can anyone square that circle? Is it something to do with us always wanting to play from deep but press up high?
Click to expand...

I thought it was one of the more interesting pressers. The comments about the running stats adds a little fuel to the fire about the mis execution of the tactics. The implication was that because we didn't press high and we sat back, we made the pitch bigger and played into their hands. You almost have 2 choices. The first is to get the defence up and press high to make the playing area smaller. The second is to play deeper and only zonally press. In other words maintain a shape and press when it comes into your zone. That lends itself to more of a counter attack.

I think it's good that Ange can root cause the running stats into something he can change with the players. After all, if we had 60-70% possession and lost 2-1, everyone would say it's business as normal with Ange. We've seen that quite often and just accepted that it's a work-in-progress phase that we'll pass through.
 
elltrev said:
Ange said in his presser that we covered more distance than Liverpool on Thursday. I find it fascinating and perplexing how we can cover more ground whilst they a) look far more fast and intense and b) always seemed to outnumber us all over the pitch. Can anyone square that circle? Is it something to do with us always wanting to play from deep but press up high?
Click to expand...
This is a major bugbear of mine; we have players sprinting all over the shop and end up on each others' toes and make a 2 yard pass, what is the point of that? Really good players seem to glide around, always in the right place, popping off passes, intercepting, all within their grasp, whereas we dash here and there and here and there and can't get near it.

((Also note how our full backs try to get up the pitch and support inside, to little effect... then Bradley strode up the pitch one time, one pass took out Bents and Berg and Bradley was in with just Davies to beat, so he rolled it into the striker (Gakpo perhaps) to score. We were carved open with 2 passes because a full back made that run that is our trademark)).
 
Muttley said:
I thought it was one of the more interesting pressers. The comments about the running stats adds a little fuel to the fire about the mis execution of the tactics. The implication was that because we didn't press high and we sat back, we made the pitch bigger and played into their hands. You almost have 2 choices. The first is to get the defence up and press high to make the playing area smaller. The second is to play deeper and only zonally press. In other words maintain a shape and press when it comes into your zone. That lends itself to more of a counter attack.

I think it's good that Ange can root cause the running stats into something he can change with the players. After all, if we had 60-70% possession and lost 2-1, everyone would say it's business as normal with Ange. We've seen that quite often and just accepted that it's a work-in-progress phase that we'll pass through.
Click to expand...
A bit of a problem of Ange's team is that it has to pull the entire team forward to both press high and compress the space of the opposition. That allows us to bring to bear the sheer force of numbers. When it works you see 6-7 players all involved in the triangulation of the ball, keeping it moving. Pass, pass, pass until an opportunity arises. Unfortunately we don't really have any truly incisive passers so it's all mostly to feet. Rarely any through balls or as we know dribbles, nothing truly unpredictable or incentive, something to keep defenders on their toes. When we do lose the ball due to the territory we as a team are occupying it's just too easy to play for the quick counter against us.

With Liverpool we didn't even really get a chance to occupy their half, they cut off the supply at source and we just don't have an alternative way of playing really. It's why while I like his system and principles I don't believe it will work with the calibre of player Spurs have. It really does require either the very best players or a relative gap between his team and the rest of the league as he would have had in Scotland. we are only able to attack effectively.
 
Bishop said:
A bit of a problem of Ange's team is that it has to pull the entire team forward to both press high and compress the space of the opposition. That allows us to bring to bear the sheer force of numbers. When it works you see 6-7 players all involved in the triangulation of the ball, keeping it moving. Pass, pass, pass until an opportunity arises. Unfortunately we don't really have any truly incisive passers so it's all mostly to feet. Rarely any through balls or as we know dribbles, nothing truly unpredictable or incentive, something to keep defenders on their toes. When we do lose the ball due to the territory we as a team are occupying it's just too easy to play for the quick counter against us.

With Liverpool we didn't even really get a chance to occupy their half, they cut off the supply at source and we just don't have an alternative way of playing really. It's why while I like his system and principles I don't believe it will work with the calibre of player Spurs have. It really does require either the very best players or a relative gap between his team and the rest of the league as he would have had in Scotland. we are only able to attack effectively.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And we've taken the stance of developing youth as opposed to blending a finished article/youth. One of the biggest issues I see is how little of that passing magic/creativity we have. It spindles off Maddison, but he is both inconsistent and/or injured. We need better.

On a footnote, one of the things Kane did for us, other than his goals, was play some incredible passes from precisely the areas we now need the likes of Maddison to be delivering from. His passing was something else.
 
Bullet said:
This is a major bugbear of mine; we have players sprinting all over the shop and end up on each others' toes and make a 2 yard pass, what is the point of that? Really good players seem to glide around, always in the right place, popping off passes, intercepting, all within their grasp, whereas we dash here and there and here and there and can't get near it.

((Also note how our full backs try to get up the pitch and support inside, to little effect... then Bradley strode up the pitch one time, one pass took out Bents and Berg and Bradley was in with just Davies to beat, so he rolled it into the striker (Gakpo perhaps) to score. We were carved open with 2 passes because a full back made that run that is our trademark)).
Click to expand...
Bentancur had really poor defensive positioning on Thursday. I don't know if it was Liverpool's players pulling him out of position. Sarr was in his headless chicken mode.
 
Bishop said:
A bit of a problem of Ange's team is that it has to pull the entire team forward to both press high and compress the space of the opposition. That allows us to bring to bear the sheer force of numbers. When it works you see 6-7 players all involved in the triangulation of the ball, keeping it moving. Pass, pass, pass until an opportunity arises. Unfortunately we don't really have any truly incisive passers so it's all mostly to feet. Rarely any through balls or as we know dribbles, nothing truly unpredictable or incentive, something to keep defenders on their toes. When we do lose the ball due to the territory we as a team are occupying it's just too easy to play for the quick counter against us.

With Liverpool we didn't even really get a chance to occupy their half, they cut off the supply at source and we just don't have an alternative way of playing really. It's why while I like his system and principles I don't believe it will work with the calibre of player Spurs have. It really does require either the very best players or a relative gap between his team and the rest of the league as he would have had in Scotland. we are only able to attack effectively.
Click to expand...

So if you don't think you have the players to execute your system, why do you setup that way? Conte joined us having won Serie in a 3-5-2. His midfield 3 were Eriksen, Barella either side of Brozovic. He took one look at our squad and put it in a 3-4-3, similar to how he had played in his brief Chelsea tenure. He got a lot wrong at Spurs and I didn't like the guy, but sort of respected him giving up his plan A around the player quality.

We now have way better technical players than Conte ever had, but we're still citing the same reason. We seem be re-enacting the definition of insanity by doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over. I'm seriously puzzled about this area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back