Match ratings - Burnley

[Robspur12]

If you were to grade Poch, what mark would you give him so far? Not an easy question I know. The defence has been woeful, but he's introduced youngsters and got extraordinary levels out of Kane. Ultimately I would say about par so far. Not bad but nothing special either.

You have to add some context into your assessment. It's his first season, several young players from the academy, other young players like Dier playing regularly only 1 useful striker. He has got us to a cup final and we are currently 6th with everyone around us including southampton having spent more in the summer. Also We don't brick ourselves every time we face a top 4 side. I would say that is more than par? I think Spurs fans need to be a bit more realistic personally.

 

[milo]

If you were to grade Poch, what mark would you give him so far? Not an easy question I know. The defence has been woeful, but he's introduced youngsters and got extraordinary levels out of Kane. Ultimately I would say about par so far. Not bad but nothing special either.

I think that to do a fair assessment of Poch's first season you have to first acknowledge that he is the first manager that we have had in recent years who has bought into the club's business model and made full use of the academy. I think that it is remarkable that he has managed to successfully introduce so many young players and we have not heard a word of dissent from any of the more senior players who have been sidelined.

It has been a little disappointing how our season has petered out a little but the season only looks like a failure if your starting point is mid-season. At the beginning of the year most of us would have been delighted with what we have achieved. I think that he has done a brilliant job of laying the foundations this season which was what most of us had said was our aim for the season. There is work to be done in the summer but I have not been this confident that we are heading in the right direction for years.

 

[wiziwig]

I think he did that yesterday - it was a dead rubber line-up/performance

As long as Liverpool and Arsenal don't both screw up the FA cup, 7th will be EL anyway. The one thing left to play for now is 5th and 6th get less qualifying rounds

I'll be more than happy, taking a chance on Reading winning the FA Cup..

 

[braineclipse]

If you couldn't see how impotent we were in attack - then I give up!

If you cannot see the context of my post then probably you should give up...

My reply was to Brain, and I agree with you that the entire attacking unit was poor today. He was trying to excuse Poch for playing Paulinho in order to try and solidify the defence. So was he playing DM?

I still want to know if anyone can work out our formation today?

Paulinho wasn't playing DM. The idea that for a midfielder to have a defensive impact he has to play DM is rather silly.

Ever heard the term a "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while"? That's not a dig at Poch btw, it was meant for our woeful defence. Are we meant to be pleased that we scraped a hard fought draw against the third worst team in the league? Added to the inept display against Leicester last game.

I don't have that much of a problem with Poch playing Paulinho, let's face it, besides Eriksen and Chadli, the rest of the attacking midfield have ranged from dreaful to average. But, in general, I do find his substitutions to be a bit strange and ill timed. He's the manager, so ultimately the buck stops with him, but the players do have to shoulder a lot of the blame for today also. Chadli and Paulinho seem to be the fall guys, but I thought Mason and Bentaleb were equally poor. I don't quite get what the fuss is about with those two If I am honest. Well Bentaleb I kind of get the hype, he's good on the ball, but just don't really see Mason as anything more than a squad player. Grimsby posted that they offer nothing going forward and no solidity, I don't quite feel as strongly, but I do see where he is coming from.

No I don't think it's quite good enough. But I also think that a draw away against a hard battling relegation struggling side is awful.

It's more of the same to be honest, we struggle to create chances against hard working well organized teams. Particularly when, as you say, Mason and Bentaleb struggle to get our passing game going.

 

[Pirate55]

If you cannot see the context of my post then probably you should give up...



Paulinho wasn't playing DM. The idea that for a midfielder to have a defensive impact he has to play DM is rather silly.?

Please enlighten me. Where do you think Paulinho was playing? And what formation were we playing against Burnley?

 

[braineclipse]

Please enlighten me. Where do you think Paulinho was playing? And what formation were we playing against Burnley?

Either a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3, depending on how you see it. If you want to describe Paulinho playing in the hole in a 4-2-3-1 with Mason and Bentaleb in the deeper midfield roles I think that's accurate enough. Can also be described as a 4-3-3 (or 4-1-2-3/4-1-2-2-1 if you prefer) with Bentaleb as the holding midfielder, but Paulinho with significantly more attacking freedom than Mason - both in the two box to box midfield positions.

Either way Paulinho was playing a fairly advanced midfield role, nothing like a defensive midfielder. He did however have, and fulfill, defensive aspects in that role. Bringing him into that attacking midfield trio (or as an additional central midfielder in a 4-3-3 if you prefer) made us more solid, both our back 4 and Bentaleb/Mason were less exposed as a result.

 

[Maltese Falcon]

I agree that Paulinho came in as the most advanced midfielder in the trio but Bentaleb and especially Mason were so poor and impotent that he was sucked back to fill in for their deficiencies

 

[parklane1]

I agree that Paulinho came in as the most advanced midfielder in the trio but Bentaleb and especially Mason were so poor and impotent that he was sucked back to fill in for their deficiencies

tickle my balls with a feather.

 

[Rorschach]

We certainly looked more solid because of the extra body in the middle but the cost to our overall game plan (if we had one) was too high. Paulinho dropping deeper than expected helped nullify the space in the middle of the park but that's it. His inclusion completely stifled us going forward and his recycling of possession backwards or sideways is completely pointless most times.

Kane played poorly also but his wingman was nowhere to be seen most of the match which didn't help. Having one less forward passing option didn't help Mason or Bentaleb either IMO. Although he wasn't the worst player on the pitch I think Paulinho's introduction and subsequent positioning was the route cause of our turgidity (oh yeah that's my new word).

 

[braineclipse]

We certainly looked more solid because of the extra body in the middle but the cost to our overall game plan (if we had one) was too high. Paulinho dropping deeper than expected helped nullify the space in the middle of the park but that's it. His inclusion completely stifled us going forward and his recycling of possession backwards or sideways is completely pointless most times.

Kane played poorly also but his wingman was nowhere to be seen most of the match which didn't help. Having one less forward passing option didn't help Mason or Bentaleb either IMO. Although he wasn't the worst player on the pitch I think Paulinho's introduction and subsequent positioning was the route cause of our turgidity (oh yeah that's my new word).

Our attacking problems in this game were not some new thing resulting from Paulinho being included. Us struggling to create chances against hard working well organized teams is not some new phenomenon, and there were way too many players having off days to conclude that it was Paulinho's inclusion that stifled us. It's as ridiculous as saying that Townsend's absence stifled us.

 

[Rorschach]

Our attacking problems in this game were not some new thing resulting from Paulinho being included. Us struggling to create chances against hard working well organized teams is not some new phenomenon, and there were way too many players having off days to conclude that it was Paulinho's inclusion that stifled us. It's as ridiculous as saying that Townsend's absence stifled us.

Ridiculous? Nice.

Paulinho's inclusion and position did cause us to lose our attacking shape and resulted in us looking rather toothless IMO. Our usual formation was changed, albeit not radically, and frankly it looked like we didn't deal with with the change well. I think that was the root cause of a lot of our problems in this game, certainly going forward. Now you can bring up other games where we were poor against teams like Burnley and throw in the always contentious Townsend but they are red herrings.

 

[braineclipse]

Ridiculous? Nice.

Paulinho's inclusion and position did cause us to lose our attacking shape and resulted in us looking rather toothless IMO. Our usual formation was changed, albeit not radically, and frankly it looked like we didn't deal with with the change well. I think that was the root cause of a lot of our problems in this game, certainly going forward. Now you can bring up other games where we were poor against teams like Burnley and throw in the always contentious Townsend but they are red herrings.

Ridiculous was a bit harsh. Sorry about that.

Continue to disagree about your conclusion though. It's just not warranted to make a conclusion like that when several players underperformed, we made several changes, and we've seen similar performances in the past. Other performances and other changes being made are not red herrings...

 

[Pirate55]

Either a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3, depending on how you see it. If you want to describe Paulinho playing in the hole in a 4-2-3-1 with Mason and Bentaleb in the deeper midfield roles I think that's accurate enough. Can also be described as a 4-3-3 (or 4-1-2-3/4-1-2-2-1 if you prefer) with Bentaleb as the holding midfielder, but Paulinho with significantly more attacking freedom than Mason - both in the two box to box midfield positions.

Either way Paulinho was playing a fairly advanced midfield role, nothing like a defensive midfielder. He did however have, and fulfill, defensive aspects in that role. Bringing him into that attacking midfield trio (or as an additional central midfielder in a 4-3-3 if you prefer) made us more solid, both our back 4 and Bentaleb/Mason were less exposed as a result.

Your reply demonstrates my point beautifully. Having played a fairly regimented 4231 virtually all season, we suddenly change formation to accommodate Paulinho. No one it seems knew what their roles were. This threw everything into confusion imo and was a significant contributory factor to our inept performance. As other have said Paulinho was sucked so deep, he was often behind Bentelab and Mason. Where he wasn't , was contributing to our attacking in any meaningful way. I hardly recall him, or any of the midfielders for that matter, getting up and past Kane, who looked sadly far too isolated.

 

[braineclipse]

Your reply demonstrates my point beautifully. Having played a fairly regimented 4231 virtually all season, we suddenly change formation to accommodate Paulinho. No one it seems knew what their roles were. This threw everything into confusion imo and was a significant contributory factor to our inept performance. As other have said Paulinho was sucked so deep, he was often behind Bentelab and Mason. Where he wasn't , was contributing to our attacking in any meaningful way. I hardly recall him, or any of the midfielders for that matter, getting up and past Kane, who looked sadly far too isolated.

Or you didn't understand what was going on without Pochettino getting it wrong...

For me it seemed like Paulinho was brought in because he did well against Leicester, and because we needed more work rate and defensive discipline than Townsend had offered in recent weeks/months. He did contribute defensively, quite considerably so and we looked much more solid. Going forward he had an off day, like most of our team. Actually probably not as much as some others.

Haven't you been one of those complaining about Pochettino sticking too much to one "regimented" formation. We've been conceding too much, he changes the team, we become more solid. But it wasn't the specific change you wanted, you don't understand what's going on, so obviously he got it wrong?

 

[Pirate55]

Or you didn't understand what was going on without Pochettino getting it wrong...

For me it seemed like Paulinho was brought in because he did well against Leicester, and because we needed more work rate and defensive discipline than Townsend had offered in recent weeks/months. He did contribute defensively, quite considerably so and we looked much more solid. Going forward he had an off day, like most of our team. Actually probably not as much as some others.

Haven't you been one of those complaining about Pochettino sticking too much to one "regimented" formation. We've been conceding too much, he changes the team, we become more solid. But it wasn't the specific change you wanted, you don't understand what's going on, so obviously he got it wrong?

You are right, I don't want to see a regimented 4231, especially when it isn't working. But to change it without the players understanding their roles is even worse. Others ( I think you are one of them) want us to play 4231 regardless at it is seen as the "Poch way" and have argued against any change whatsoever so the players get used to this system. Any change for them should be like for like rather that systemic change. Hence, either Lamela or Townsend for the right hand AM.

I have no objection to Paulinho per se, although I don't particularly rate him, I certainly don't see how he can play in a 4231. If he is one of the two, he is not good enough defensively, if he is the centre one of the three, he is not creatve enough. If Bentelab were to be designated the DM then , I could see him playing in a box to box role together with Mason, but this didn't happen against Burnley. With Eriksen shunted out to the right, we simply compromised all our creativity.

We have now failed to score in 4 out of our last seven games. Previously.we had been far too reliant on Kane and Eriksen to come up with late late goals. We desperately need to improve our creativity as well as solidify our defence. Chadli has largely gone missing in action since his return from leave. Townsend and Lamela seem to be playing in the straight jackets imposed by the 4231. Huge improvement required both of the players and the tactics imo.

 

[braineclipse]

You are right, I don't want to see a regimented 4231, especially when it isn't working. But to change it without the players understanding their roles is even worse. Others ( I think you are one of them) want us to play 4231 regardless at it is seen as the "Poch way" and have argued against any change whatsoever so the players get used to this system. Any change for them should be like for like rather that systemic change. Hence, either Lamela or Townsend for the right hand AM.

I have no objection to Paulinho per se, although I don't particularly rate him, I certainly don't see how he can play in a 4231. If he is one of the two, he is not good enough defensively, if he is the centre one of the three, he is not creatve enough. If Bentelab were to be designated the DM then , I could see him playing in a box to box role together with Mason, but this didn't happen against Burnley. With Eriksen shunted out to the right, we simply compromised all our creativity.

We have now failed to score in 4 out of our last seven games. Previously.we had been far too reliant on Kane and Eriksen to come up with late late goals. We desperately need to improve our creativity as well as solidify our defence. Chadli has largely gone missing in action since his return from leave. Townsend and Lamela seem to be playing in the straight jackets imposed by the 4231. Huge improvement required both of the players and the tactics imo.

You're misrepresenting my opinion and what I've argued in the past.

We sacrificed some creativity for more solidity defensively. You say we haven't scored enough or created enough chances, to a large extent I agree. But we've also been way too open defensively and we were without both Verthongen and Lloris against Burnley. Again, the move by Pochettino worked - we looked more solid defensively. The defensive solidity for creativity trade off seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Just because you're not capable of describing the formation we're playing doesn't mean that Pochettino made a mistake.

 

[Pirate55]

You're misrepresenting my opinion and what I've argued in the past.

We sacrificed some creativity for more solidity defensively. You say we haven't scored enough or created enough chances, to a large extent I agree. But we've also been way too open defensively and we were without both Verthongen and Lloris against Burnley. Again, the move by Pochettino worked - we looked more solid defensively. The defensive solidity for creativity trade off seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Just because you're not capable of describing the formation we're playing doesn't mean that Pochettino made a mistake.

I can't describe the formation we played and neither it seems can you. It could be any number of variations you describe. My point is it was a mess. Was it a mistake by Poch? To me, too many players didn't seem to know where they were playing and what they were doing. Was it made explicit to them? Who knows? What I do know is that it produced a turgid performance. Burnley had more and better chances than us, so we weren't too good defensively and Vorm had to make a few decent saves. Furthermore, we created diddly squat offensively. So the "experiment" of playing Paulinho somewhere that I ( and the team) couldnt readily comprehend was hardly a resounding success.

I don't want more of the same thank you?

 

[braineclipse]

I can't describe the formation we played and neither it seems can you. It could be any number of variations you describe. My point is it was a mess. Was it a mistake by Poch? To me, too many players didn't seem to know where they were playing and what they were doing. Was it made explicit to them? Who knows? What I do know is that it produced a turgid performance. Burnley had more and better chances than us, so we weren't too good defensively and Vorm had to make a few decent saves. Furthermore, we created diddly squat offensively. So the "experiment" of playing Paulinho somewhere that I ( and the team) couldnt readily comprehend was hardly a resounding success.

I don't want more of the same thank you?

I can, I already have, but feel free to continue to ignore that.

Were we good enough? No, as I've already said. But of course, continue to argue as if I'm claiming that we were overall good in the game.

Is it fair to blame the relatively poor performance on Paulinho and Pochettino's choice to start him? In my opinion, no.

 

[Pirate55]

I can, I already have, but feel free to continue to ignore that.

Were we good enough? No, as I've already said. But of course, continue to argue as if I'm claiming that we were overall good in the game.

Is it fair to blame the relatively poor performance on Paulinho and Pochettino's choice to start him? In my opinion, no.

No, you listed three different formations.i said that if you could not identify THE formation we were playing, then it really isn't surprising the players looked confused. Hence the dismal performance. BTW, I didn't blame it all on Paulinho, who played no worse than a whole host of others. Indeed, if Poch had used Bentelab as a designated DM and Mason and Paulinho as genuine box to box midfielders, I would Have seen some sense as I could see that might give us more attacking potency.

However, what I objected to was Paulinho plonked somewhere ( still not sure where) which completely upset our rythm and led directly imo to the poor overall display with Eriksen in particular played well out of position.

 

[braineclipse]

No, you listed three different formations.i said that if you could not identify THE formation we were playing, then it really isn't surprising the players looked confused. Hence the dismal performance. BTW, I didn't blame it all on Paulinho, who played no worse than a whole host of others. Indeed, if Poch had used Bentelab as a designated DM and Mason and Paulinho as genuine box to box midfielders, I would Have seen some sense as I could see that might give us more attacking potency.

However, what I objected to was Paulinho plonked somewhere ( still not sure where) which completely upset our rythm and led directly imo to the poor overall display with Eriksen in particular played well out of position.

This is just a continuation of our previous disagreement on the importance of formations.

You believe that unless a manager sets a team up in a formation that most fans can easily recognize a mistake has been made?