Kingdawson
Banned
I swear i said "doesn't necessarily mean we'd create more"?
-
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
***Tottenham Hotspur VS Liverpool - Official OMT***
- Thread starter Midfield Maestro
- Start date
I swear i said "doesn't necessarily mean we'd create more"?
But whats the point in saying that? If you are chasing a goal, you throw another striker on....its not a guarantee you will score but, it gives you alot better chance than throwing a holding midfielder on.
This hyperthetical scenario came from Nayim talking about playing more attacking players than defensive ones. He was then told that playing more attacking players doesnt mean we will create more attacks.
True, it doesnt guarantee success, but how can anyone not see his point?
This hyperthetical scenario came from Nayim talking about playing more attacking players than defensive ones. He was then told that playing more attacking players doesnt mean we will create more attacks.
True, it doesnt guarantee success, but how can anyone not see his point?
Rossi22
Pedro Mendes
Michael Oliver.
Kingdawson
Banned
I think you're the one not seeing the point tbh.
Nayim was first to ask "How are you going to get more openings if you have more bodies in defensive positions and less in offensive ones?". That's a very simple way of looking at things imo. This is why Rossi made that comment regarding 5 strikers. I'm pretty sure that was his exaggerated way of informing Nayim that his comment was a very basic way of looking at things and there's far more to it then that.
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
Saha and Ade upfront, give them something to worry about.
I dont see us changing our lineup unless we are forced to. If Rafa is fit then he will most likely start just behind Ade. If we need it and are chasing the game, its nice to know that we have 2 big target men who can also play with the ball.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
What Rossi was doing was trying to construct a straw-man argument to counter my point.
What I was doing was not lookning at things "basically" but logically.
Think about it.
Yes, indeed, having less players forward will mean each of those forward players will have more space.
Yes, having more players in midfield might mean more possession (certainly no guarantee).
However, unless you have players to support the forwards then the forwards get isolated and the ball doesnt stick up front.
Unless you have bodies in attacking areas its difficult to get the ball up there anyway.
We have seen time and time again that by setting up defensively you play defensively and invite pressure upon yourself. A very dangerous game.
And ultimately this is LIVERPOOL, not bloody Barcelona! We are 11 points ahead of them for a reason, and its not because we should live in fear of them or change our set up to try and accomodate them.
They are a decent side and deserve respect, not awe.
spurspinter1
Steve Carr
It's not snowing at all in Liverpool, a bit icy but that's about it.
paxtonwolf
Tony Marchi
We missed it in Warrington too, just sheet ice on the ground.
Interestingly though, isnt this the same scenario as 2 years ago when we due to play at Anfield, not much snow but plenty of icy roads, but the match was postponed for crowd safety reasons around the stadium (not because they had a few players injured!!)
Liverpool squad almost 100% available, Spurs with several missing. Wont be postponed this season!!!!
But, like I said, if your tactic is to attack, and create alot, you play more attacking and creative players than defensive ones. If you want to defend, its vice versa.
Nayims comment was looking at it in a basic way, because its a basic solution.
You dont create more in attack, by playing less attacking players.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
you are just not using the force Totman
this is Zen attacking. You pack an 11 man defence, and attack - with your mind
and the lotus, becomes a mighty oak
and we win because our forest is larger.
Kingdawson
Banned
It isn't a basic solution imo. If more attackers meant more goals then why is there hardly any teams playing 4-4-2 and most going for a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 variation. Having more midfielders allows a team to dictate play and have more possesion thus allowing more openings. We're not going to agree anyway so really we're just going around in circles. All i'll say is that i fully understand why Rossi made that comment.
I think this is what King Kenny does......
He uses a lotus with powers to blind though, because apparently Liverpool are on a great run (of 2 PL wins in 7), and we should be sh#t scared of them.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
so
Not my explanation then?
Not my explanation then?
It doesnt matter what you call your formation. A 451 doesnt mean less attacking players than a 442. An attacking player doesnt mean striker. If you drop a striker, and play an attacking midfielder (VDV), we are no less attack orientated.
If you drop a striker, and play a DM (Sandro), we are less attack orientated. Which is why, against Norwich, Bale played up with Ade, to compensate.
No one is saying that 5 strikers means more goals, so personally, I have no idea what Rossi was going on about.
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
Surely there is a limit to the number of players to play in attacking positions anyway, as we have all noticed bale has been coming in and getting in vdv's way.
I think you'll create less with too many attacking players because it'll just cause congestion in the opposing half of the pitch, plus if they counter then they're much more likely to be successful..
I think you'll create less with too many attacking players because it'll just cause congestion in the opposing half of the pitch, plus if they counter then they're much more likely to be successful..
Kingdawson
Banned
Pardon me? a striker in general is a more attacking player then an attacking midfielder no matter what way you look at it. So if we're going by the notion that the more attacking minded players we play the more we attack and create chances...then....with an attacking mid playing instead of a striker we should attack less according to your theory but now you're saying dropping a striker for an attacking mid makes us "no less attacking orientated".
On paper and looking at it from a very very very very very very very very very very basic and simple way then yes dropping a striker for Sandro makes us less attack orientated BUT when you consider doing such things allows our world class players like Bale, VDV, Luka and Ade more freedom to manouveur around the pitch thus allowing all of them more attacking freedom then i'd take that over another striker (unless its a world class striker) ESPECIALLY as it also makes me far more relaxed knowing i have a player like Sandro covering our asses when the opposition do attack.
So to sum it up simply, i'd prefer:
VDV to have more freedom to create (lets say it's out of 10 and his attacking freedom moves from a 6 to a 8)
Luka to have more freedom (5 to a 6.5)
Bale to have more freedom (7 to a 8.5)
Ade to have more freedom (8 to a 9)
and for such awesome defensive cover as we get with a beast like Sandro (from a 5 to a 8 in defensive cover), then play a 6 or 7 out of 10 striker.
Kingdawson
Banned
spot on.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
nice
everyone has more freedom - shape goes to ratbrick and we end up looking like a pub team
way to go