• 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

Ingerlund

Rorschach said:
Yeah I think he's a little unlucky. He didn't break stride or attempt a tackle. The Italian's foot was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Click to expand...
Agreed, Tarkowski was running in a straight line, whilst Chiesa played it off his left foot then his right in an awkward place and was already falling as the ball went off the pitch... and Tarkowski just carried on running.

If VAR penalties are given for this kind of incident we should just instruct our forwards to dribble around and around the box, loads of stepovers and dummies and turning left and right until you trip over a defender PENALTY!!!
 
I do like Southgate, and what he’s trying to do. I just fear that we lack the Eriksen / Silva / Mata / Ozil type of player to make this possession football work effectively. We’ve created very little over two games from passing through the middle, which is what Gareth seems to want us to do.

It seems like our personnel is more suited to high tempo pressing and/or hitting on the break than playing possession football.

Maybe if Lallana can get match for he’ll help with the creativity in possession.
 
I think the back 3 makes sense given we don't have two centre backs good enough to form a back two.

We could play with two and Dier dropping in, freeing up another midfield berth. I'm more of a fan of two box to box midfielders in there with a back three.

Tonight we got lucky with the three man midfield. A better team would've overloaded the flanks more, we were weak there.

Another question would be whether Kane fits this side. The constant running from the front players was a key feature these last two games and Kane isn't of that mould. The same with Dele, who I could only see in a deeper role in this side.
 
Cochise said:
I think the back 3 makes sense given we don't have two centre backs good enough to form a back two.

We could play with two and Dier dropping in, freeing up another midfield berth. I'm more of a fan of two box to box midfielders in there with a back three.

Tonight we got lucky with the three man midfield. A better team would've overloaded the flanks more, we were weak there.

Another question would be whether Kane fits this side. The constant running from the front players was a key feature these last two games and Kane isn't of that mould. The same with Dele, who I could only see in a deeper role in this side.
Click to expand...

I say this having not watched the match tonight, but Kane runs his nuts off and Dele can play from deep if needed?
 
thfcsteff said:
I say this having not watched the match tonight, but Kane runs his nuts off and Dele can play from deep if needed?
Click to expand...

He's not a speedster like the other 3 that were used though. There were a lot of hopeful balls down channels that worked because of who we had chasing it.

Dele can play deeper, but he's probably 4th or 5th choice there. Lingaard has done well these last two games as the #10. Dele may look better for England when his runs have a chance of coming off. With two strikers looking to get in behind he has to play a different role to the one he does at Spurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back