• 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 Brighton****

Good win away at a good team. Decent performance, but still way off our very best.

Think we saw some of the issues with the 3-5-2 with this squad. Unsurprised that Conte went back to 3-4-3 when he made his first sub. Think mostly he was forced into 3-5-2 because of injuries and a need for some rotation and it will go back to being a "sometimes, maybe" formation for us unless wet continue to have injury problems.

Thought Doherty looked decent at the very least, good to see. Bissouma remains some way off what we've seen him do for Brighton.

Kane and Son still aren't quite there.
 
monkeybarry said:
It was the comments about "not wanting to lose" if he play Doherty that were confusing.
He just said in post match interview about this being Doherty's first game without injury this season, so sounds like that's what he was referring to.
Almost like this is the first time Doherty has been ready for a full game.
Which might explain Royal starting too.
Click to expand...

Think it in the context of the question posed to him. Why pick this player over that player? Think he was slightly offended by it. Suggesting that he didn't pick the best team he could (or suboptimal as one poster on here put it).

He sees these players everyday. We see them in matches only.
 
Baleforce said:
True, looks more like the player we faced in an Everton shirt.

He is getting shuffled around a lot though.
Click to expand...
True.
He was playing regular for Everton either Central or left side forward. Most of his game time with us has been on the right.
I know from personal experience that no matter how good you are, not being in your preferred position knocks your confidence and your performance suffers.
 
DubSpur said:
They don't have primarily defending roles, it depends on what the manager wants from them. Some setups see them mostly defending, in others they have a much more attacking role.
I'd suggest you move past having "back" in the name and actually look at what the players are doing on the pitch instead of having a preconceived idea of what they do.
Click to expand...
Aye, but then they are definitely defending for us for significant portions. Neither side is playing like Hakimi which is probably down to the gap in ability but he's hardly wrong to suggest we are using them in a defensive manner because we are.

I'd argue it's fairly mixed, they defend a bit more than they attack but that's possibly due to how deep we sit and the desire to hit teams in transition and on the counter.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
 
IulianSteaua said:
Right wing BACK, Left wing BACK

Right wing BACK, Left wing BACK have primarily defending roles. Just like central BACK, left BACK and right BACK. If they were midfielders, it would be left MIDFIELDER and right MIDFIELDER or right and left wings without the BACK în them. It's literally în the name.
Click to expand...

Would you describe Cafu or Roberto Carlos as wing backs?

If you want to go with your basic argument - wing Is a midfield position. So a Wing Back is simply a mide midfielder that's slightly further back in starting position and role than a winger...... which again, contradicts your initial statement of being a back 5
 
IulianSteaua said:
Right wing BACK, Left wing BACK

Right wing BACK, Left wing BACK have primarily defending roles. Just like central BACK, left BACK and right BACK. If they were midfielders, it would be left MIDFIELDER and right MIDFIELDER or right and left wings without the BACK în them. It's literally în the name.
Click to expand...

That's not how language works.

The labels we put to to different positions on a football pitch are inherently coarse grained and not particularly descriptive of the actual role a player has.

The system is perfectly fine. If one describe it as 3 defenders or 5 the system and how we play doesn't change.
 
Bishop said:
Aye, but then they are definitely defending for us for significant portions. Neither side is playing like Hakimi which is probably down to the gap in ability but he's hardly wrong to suggest we are using them in a defensive manner because we are.

I'd argue it's fairly mixed, they defend a bit more than they attack but that's possibly due to how deep we sit and the desire to hit teams in transition and on the counter.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

I would like you say its a mix, for me, and I know I give him grief, but the reason Royal is not as attacking and Ihave been at games when he literally stops with the ball and passes sideway is because he lacks the ability or belief to bomb on. I said before the reason I judge him so harshly is he is actually found free on the right in and around the oppos box ALOT. Sess is different in that he goes on those dynamic runs but he seems to muddle up at the last minute (I like him BTW, think there is potential). SO I do think its as much to do with not having the right players as much as instructions
 
braineclipse said:
Good win away at a good team. Decent performance, but still way off our very best.

Think we saw some of the issues with the 3-5-2 with this squad. Unsurprised that Conte went back to 3-4-3 when he made his first sub. Think mostly he was forced into 3-5-2 because of injuries and a need for some rotation and it will go back to being a "sometimes, maybe" formation for us unless wet continue to have injury problems.

Thought Doherty looked decent at the very least, good to see. Bissouma remains some way off what we've seen him do for Brighton.

Kane and Son still aren't quite there.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Brightons manager referenced after the game he got it wrong thinking we would be 3-4-2-1 and made changes after about 20 minutes and that is when we reverted back to type pretty much in terms of giving the ball away and not being dominant. The only real reason we looked better at the start was because of the element of surprise at a different formation.
Conte also said in interview after the game he changed formation because Kulu was unavailable. I have no issue with this because it means we have an attacker on the bench who can come on and help change the game if needs be whereas if one of the front 4 is injured and we start all 3 we don’t have that option otherwise.
But if anyone thinks we will be playing 3-5-2 long term they will be disappointed, it will be back to normal as soon as Kulu is available again….
 
harr1984 said:
Our xG was only just above theirs, let’s not make out as if we carved out chances galore and they created nothing. It was another tough watch….
Click to expand...
I know, but Howard was basically saying that we were lucky not to concede and that we'll be in big trouble if we continue giving opponents as much possession and shots. Which is stupid, because a. who cares about possession, and b. the shots we give up, albeit many, are of such low quality that it would take a worldie for the opposition to score.
 
alekaras said:
I know, but Howard was basically saying that we were lucky not to concede and that we'll be in big trouble if we continue giving opponents as much possession and shots. Which is stupid, because a. who cares about possession, and b. the shots we give up, albeit many, are of such low quality that it would take a worldie for the opposition to score.
Click to expand...
Our fans care about possessions and shots more than anyone IMO
It’s a really weird measure as there is the obsession that passion means control and shots means wins…
Neither is true in reality. Arsenal had less possession today and one because they took their chances (with help from the ref)
Brighton huffed and puffed yesterday but barely made Hugo stretch. It’s what you say about quality
 
alekaras said:
I know, but Howard was basically saying that we were lucky not to concede and that we'll be in big trouble if we continue giving opponents as much possession and shots. Which is stupid, because a. who cares about possession, and b. the shots we give up, albeit many, are of such low quality that it would take a worldie for the opposition to score.
Click to expand...

To be fair they had a higher xG than us and with an xG of 0.9 we perhaps should count ourselves as lucky not to concede. One of those was their one big chance, but still. Keep giving away long shots and possession around the box stuff will happen and goals will be conceded.

Overall for the season our goals conceded matches well with xG against though, not like we're being lucky with that overall. And having mostly low quality, low xG chances against is a good way to have decent control in games without dominating possession.
 
braineclipse said:
To be fair they had a higher xG than us and with an xG of 0.9 we perhaps should count ourselves as lucky not to concede. One of those was their one big chance, but still. Keep giving away long shots and possession around the box stuff will happen and goals will be conceded.

Overall for the season our goals conceded matches well with xG against though, not like we're being lucky with that overall. And having mostly low quality, low xG chances against is a good way to have decent control in games without dominating possession.
Click to expand...
I also look at the average xG. They had an xG of 0.72 from 14 shots. So an average of 0.05 per shot attempt. We had 0.79 on 8 shots, an average of 0.10 per shot attempt. I mean, even if you look at the Arsenal game, and even though we were a man down, we still averaged a higher xG per shot than they did and that's excluding our penalty shot. We give up a lot of shots from distance and I can see how one could argue that, the more we give up, the more likely someone is going to get a good whack at the ball and score a worldie. But if we tried to defend those shots as well as we defend inside our area, that would probably stretch the defense and leave gaps which would allow the opposition to get higher quality shots closer to our goal. I like the tactic and it's playing the odds, which over the log run will get you the results you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back