Thomas Frank - Head Coach

[braineclipse]

He needs to stop talking about how we are brave and have to be brave. I’ve seen no evidence of being brave in any of our performances. It’s like he knows our motto and thinks talk of being brave is key buzzwords. Like a student not really understanding an exam principle but writing it over and over on the test paper as they think it will reveal just how clever they are when it actually undermines anything that they do know.

We need to be taking more risks in the attacking third. We need long shots, we need attempted through balls, we need to take on opposition defenders, get at them and take chances.

Passing backwards and sideways for the most of the match is NOT being brave.

A quote from the latest press conference: "We need to do everything we can to put an attacking, intense, front-footed performance out against Sunderland in two days' time. I'll do everything I can to make sure we do that."

That's different than brave, and hopefully we'll see some of that attacking, intense, front footedness on the pitch on Sunday.

 

[braineclipse]

Yeah…it may well be that the schedule is on our favor with respect to the Palace match. My only counter would be that we did also raise our game at Saudi Sportswashing Machine, versus United, versus Liverpool. I think there has been a good pattern of ending strongly regardless of schedule, even if we haven’t seen the results yet.

I also wonder whether, from his perspective on data, whether he looked at Brentford’s strong home form, who they’ve taken points from, and always intended to be even more conservative in this match because the data says a point is good.

That said, it doesn’t really explain the utterly dreadful passing from our players.

For sure there have been better games and worse games. I was just making a point on the Palace game in particular.

I think we do have a tendency to end strongly, although the way I see it is a bit harsher on our football. When teams start to tire, aren't able to press as well or defend with the same intensity we're able to play and then look better.

I think a very conservative approach does lead to worse passing, but not necessarily to this extent.

 

[thfcsteff]

You've not noticed the changes in Gray during the season? I'm surprised at that. I think he has come on leaps and bounds under Thomas. I've already made the statement that Bergval will follow next. Xavi is clearly making progress with Frank's nurturing as well and I read so many posters talk about Odobert looking better under Frank. Not sure I'm as convinced on that one yet.

I loved Poch's nurturing talents. In the spirit of a fun conversation, your comment on Gray is like saying that Poch didn't deserve any credit for Harry's progress because he was always going to be great. In my opinion, Frank is pivotal to Gray's development and will deserve the same credit Poch got for the players you list and others. Gray was absolutely critical to how we defended yesterday. Sometimes he was dropping in to centre mid and other times he was becoming the 9 and defending from the top. Then Frank was able to switch him mid game and move him back into the double pivot. That is all Frank nurturing.

I guess some players are just easier to coach. I bet Gray is near the top of that list at Spurs. I have a feeling Tel, Muani and Odobert aren't.

Kudus is the intriguing one for me. He hasn't hit his stride yet and you could lay that with the manager or player to be fair.

So regarding Gray. What changes specifically? I think the luxury Frank has had which his predecessor hasn’t is that he’s been able to play him in midfield because the defence has largely been fit. As we know, midfield is Archie’s favoured position, so I think the fact he’s getting to play there more suits his development. I do think Frank trusting him as one of the starters (seemingly) regularly now over the past 8- 10 games is a great thing, however I’d say that’s down to Gray’s natural ability more than any magical Frank coaching/development? If you’re prepared to hand Frank ‘pivotal status’ with regards to Gray’s performances over the last dozen or so games, that’s of course your prerogative. Let’s just be honest here though, the comparison between Frank & Gray and Poch & Kane? It’s a little bit of a stretch!!! With regards to dropping Gray back into a pivot, honestly, if when he took off Odobert and brought Muani on he’d have switched Gray to cover left mid and gone 4-4-2, that would’ve been fundamentally impressive (he, of course, didn’t). I’d say playing Gray at 10 was curious; nurturing? Not for me. Again, Gray’s flexibility and maturrity makes him easy to trust…now if Frank set Archie up to play as passing 10, if he set him up as an 8 who is encouraged to look through the opitch and not feed the width, if he worked on developing that, then maybe that’s nurturing in my eyes. Ditto Lucas. Right now, all he is doing IMO is choosing great young talent who have high ceilings and lots of experience for their ages already.

Xavi?
I mean, if he were to simply play him in a way which makes sense to his skillset regularly, then we’d see more from him regularly. Again, I think that’s more about tactical use? What has he given Xavi’s game which counts as nurturing his talent to you? Muani is 26 so he is a player you have more than a young player to mould. Odobert looks coachable to me, just a case of whether he is actually good enough. Tel? I think there’s a real player in there but I don’t think he fits the Frank mould.

IMO Frank needs to do more for Kudus. The reason we could get Kudus is because he has great raw talent but he’s (indeed) still raw in places. He needs elite coaching and he also needs to not bear the brunt of all out creative endeavours IMO. Right now we are not giving him the best opportunities for success.

 

[Mabspurs]

He needs to stop talking about how we are brave and have to be brave. I’ve seen no evidence of being brave in any of our performances. It’s like he knows our motto and thinks talk of being brave is key buzzwords. Like a student not really understanding an exam principle but writing it over and over on the test paper as they think it will reveal just how clever they are when it actually undermines anything that they do know.

We need to be taking more risks in the attacking third. We need long shots, we need attempted through balls, we need to take on opposition defenders, get at them and take chances.

Passing backwards and sideways for the most of the match is NOT being brave.

I think the problem is mainly the definition of "being brave". For many fans, that definition seems to be scoring more than the opponent and looking at defense as an afterthought... which to me explains the adulation Ange got in his first six months; until the reality of that approach hit home. Having said that, our first cup success in 17 years was primarily the result of two games where we were the antithesis of "being brave".... camping in our half and scrounging one single successful attempt at goal.... didn't see people refusing to celebrate Bilbao because we were not brave.

Frank, as I see it, believes that being brave means first and foremost conceding less goals than the opposition and building on that. The difference between Frank and Ange - as I see it - is that the former is a pragmatist and builds his strategy based on the abilities of the players available. How can you take "risks" in the attacking third when your players do 25 unforced errors in 90 minutes (1 every three minutes!!!) or - in a game of extremely tight margins - screw up 5 counter attacks by repeated brain farts? Do people think this is because of some "system" that Frank is demanding??? At the moment we have undoubtedly the worst squad - by a mile - of the "top 6" thanks to years of recruitment incompetence and injuries. The options are most paper-thin in the creative department and in terms of attacking play. How many of Bentancur, Odobert, Tel, Xavi, Richarlison, etc would be on the bench - let alone start - for the teams in the top 6? Even the likes of Gray, Bergvall and Kudus are unlikely to be starters....

THAT is the reality... whether people want to accept it or not.

 

[harr1984]

Yeah, where I was going with it was the Spurs fan's right that we should be going away to Brentford, totally dominating every aspect of the game and giving them a good hiding. GHod forbid our keeper has to use some game management to break up their ascendency and take the booking as we're not actually that good yet. We have to fight for every point in this league.

The funny thing is that under Ange we were complaining that we never took our time over goal kicks, corners, throw-ins etc. We were sprinting to get the ball back in play at the expense player fatigue and a lack of game management.

What the difference a year makes.

I keep seeing this kind of thing in bold from posters, trying to exaggerate what people are actually criticising to make out expectations are unrealistic.

Posters are looking for more attacking intent, where is one post saying they expect to dominate Brentford and give them a spanking? There weren't any real complaints about the result itself....

 

[Mabspurs]

Kudus is the intriguing one for me. He hasn't hit his stride yet and you could lay that with the manager or player to be fair.

The way I see it with Kudus is that he was brilliant in August - so his talent is clearly there. Hwoever teams soon realised he was our only realistic decent creative outlet and they could therefore double or triple down on him because the rest of the attackers - Richy, Xavi, Odobert, Tel, Muani were unlikely to be a threat (and that is being generous)...

I want to see what Kudus can do if the opposition has two or three proper strikers they need to give their attention to....

 

[Mabspurs]

I keep seeing this kind of thing in bold from posters, trying to exaggerate what people are actually criticising to make out expectations are unrealistic.

Posters are looking for more attacking intent, where is one post saying they expect to dominate Brentford and give them a spanking? There weren't any real complaints about the result itself....

What would have been a "realistic expectation" from the squad available to Frank at Brentford? Assuming getting points was the primary objective....

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

What would have been a "realistic expectation" from the squad available to Frank at Brentford? Assuming getting points was the primary objective....

That game in isolation with Brentfords home form and with us having so many players unavailable then it was a good result. The performance itself though was about as ugly as it comes. On top of that, this isn’t just a one off performance, the reaction isn’t just based off this one game, it’s a build up from the 20 odd other games that have seen us play like this and worse.

I’ll say again though I do have sympathy for the injuries in the attacking areas he has to cope with. That said I’d have hoped and expected to have seen some sort of style or patterns of play developing by now..

 

[Mabspurs]

That game in isolation with Brentfords home form and with us having so many players unavailable then it was a good result. The performance itself though was about as ugly as it comes. On top of that, this isn’t just a one off performance, the reaction isn’t just based off this one game, it’s a build up from the 20 odd other games that have seen us play like this and worse.

I’ll say again though I do have sympathy for the injuries in the attacking areas he has to cope with. That said I’d have hoped and expected to have seen some sort of style or patterns of play developing by now..

Can I follow it up then... sticking to the Brentford game.... what would you have preferred? The point we got playing a game as ugly as it comes or a more gung-ho approach knowing the massive limitations of our creative options and the significant risk (based on Brentford's home form) of a "glorious" defeat?

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

Can I follow it up then... sticking to the Brentford game.... what would you have preferred? The point we got playing a game as ugly as it comes or a more gung-ho approach knowing the massive limitations of our creative options and the significant risk (based on Brentford's home form) of a "glorious" defeat?

My concerns aren’t with the Brentford game, they’re with the 20 odd others, so you’d have let others comment on your hypothetical. Playing with more attacking intent gives a higher chance of a win just as much as a higher chance of defeat though..

 

[harr1984]

My concerns aren’t with the Brentford game, they’re with the 20 odd others, so you’d have let others comment on your hypothetical. Playing with more attacking intent gives a higher chance of a win just as much as a higher chance of defeat though..

Whenever I hear Frank talk, he talks well and what we want to hear but it's all meaningless if not translated on the pitch:

'We were very good defensively. Actually, fantastic defensively on Thursday night. We gave them more or less nothing. That's hugely important. We understood how to close down their transitions.

'I understand the frustrations. I share them too. We're working very hard on the offensive part of the game. There's a few things in that we need to do to improve. For example, at Brentford we lost the ball unforced errors 25 times.

'I showed those 25 clips to the players today. That's focus, that's concentration. Of course, football is a game of mistakes. You lose the ball, that can happen because of bad decisions, bad touch, whatever, or concentration. So, could just half of them be better? That will provide us with more attacks.

'And there was maybe five at least good counterattacks, where a better touch and we are suddenly three-v-three. Then it looks more lively, more open, a little bit better. So that's the one level we need to do.'

Frank added: 'The next bit is the patterns and the structure, getting in the right positions. We didn't get that right on Thursday night and that is my responsibility, together with the coaches. I always take that.

It's why for me it's important we all look to evaluate the second half of the season before coming to real conclusions. Right now it's a concern, but hoping as he consistently mentions these problems that things begin to translate onto the pitch. What I find odd is that Frank himself admits the attacking play hasn't been good enough, yet some on here still refuse to admit such problems....

 

[braineclipse]

I think the problem is mainly the definition of "being brave". For many fans, that definition seems to be scoring more than the opponent and looking at defense as an afterthought... which to me explains the adulation Ange got in his first six months; until the reality of that approach hit home. Having said that, our first cup success in 17 years was primarily the result of two games where we were the antithesis of "being brave".... camping in our half and scrounging one single successful attempt at goal.... didn't see people refusing to celebrate Bilbao because we were not brave.

Frank, as I see it, believes that being brave means first and foremost conceding less goals than the opposition and building on that. The difference between Frank and Ange - as I see it - is that the former is a pragmatist and builds his strategy based on the abilities of the players available. How can you take "risks" in the attacking third when your players do 25 unforced errors in 90 minutes (1 every three minutes!!!) or - in a game of extremely tight margins - screw up 5 counter attacks by repeated brain farts? Do people think this is because of some "system" that Frank is demanding??? At the moment we have undoubtedly the worst squad - by a mile - of the "top 6" thanks to years of recruitment incompetence and injuries. The options are most paper-thin in the creative department and in terms of attacking play. How many of Bentancur, Odobert, Tel, Xavi, Richarlison, etc would be on the bench - let alone start - for the teams in the top 6? Even the likes of Gray, Bergvall and Kudus are unlikely to be starters....

THAT is the reality... whether people want to accept it or not.

There are many ways of being "brave" on a football pitch. Let's say you're right about what Frank means by being "brave". What's the difference between that and what we did in Bilbao?

To me if you're right about what Frank thinks being brave is the term is essentially meaningless.

To me the way Pochettino used the word makes the most sense. And we were brave, on the ball, not just in the final third, but deeper than that too.

That's what I want personally. Bravery on the ball.

 

[braineclipse]

I keep seeing this kind of thing in bold from posters, trying to exaggerate what people are actually criticising to make out expectations are unrealistic.

Posters are looking for more attacking intent, where is one post saying they expect to dominate Brentford and give them a spanking? There weren't any real complaints about the result itself....

This and "Ange did X" (usually an opposite extreme to what we're do now) "and that didn't work out".

 

[glasgowspur]

What concerns me is the time it's taking to implement these attacking principles, which I don't see tbh, especially when our most potent attacking players are not fit.
When kulu, maddison and solanke are back is it going to take another six months of this mind numbing turgidness to bed it in with them?
At present I can see one of them being sold because they don't fit the "system" and another defender being brought in.

 

[Mabspurs]

To me the way Pochettino used the word makes the most sense. And we were brave, on the ball, not just in the final third, but deeper than that too.

That's what I want personally. Bravery on the ball.

Me too... would you like to pitch in and get him another Walker, Rose, Dembele, Eriksen, Alli, Son.... and above all Kane?

The "Frank is no good" crowd don't want comparison to "Ange did X" when we are basically talking about the same squad of players (actually creatively infinitely worse without Kulu, Madders and Dom).... but then they harp back to Poch, who had the once in a generation luck of working with undoubtedly our best squad of the past 30 years and was able to instil in them his methods and philosophy over two or three years before the brave football really took hold.

We all want to be brave, we all want to see us dominate the opposition and play expansive exciting football.... only some of us are realistic enough to understand that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and until that skin and cartilage is replaced by better quality materials, the best you can get is a half decent leather item to tide you over....

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Me too... would you like to pitch in and get him another Walker, Rose, Dembele, Eriksen, Alli, Son.... and above all Kane?

The "Frank is no good" crowd don't want comparison to "Ange did X" when we are basically talking about the same squad of players (actually creatively infinitely worse without Kulu, Madders and Dom).... but then they harp back to Poch, who had the once in a generation luck of working with undoubtedly our best squad of the past 30 years and was able to instil in them his methods and philosophy over two or three years before the brave football really took hold.

We all want to be brave, we all want to see us dominate the opposition and play expansive exciting football.... only some of us are realistic enough to understand that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and until that skin and cartilage is replaced by better quality materials, the best you can get is a half decent leather item to tide you over....

And take into account the best in the PL are getting worse and the worse in the PL are getting better so nearly every fixture is a coin flip (see Brentford Home form)