Tim Sherwood…gone \o/

[Pirate55]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Seeing as you keep using AVB as your defence stick of TS (due to not having much else to use to defend him) then all i'll say is whatever you may say about AVB, TS is not fit to lick his PowerPoint memory stick.

If AVB is ****e, then TS has been proven to be ****e-er

BTW, what are Tim's tactics according to what you've seen of his tenure? Notice you keep dodging this question with "he needs more time" or "he needs his own players"...your deflection of that question is deafening....after the number of games if a manager has a style/tactic/strategy it should be sometime that can be seen by now, even just a little...

I don't keep keep dodging the issue of his tactics. It is just that you don't like the answer. He hasn't had the time nor the players available to him to develop a coherent team tactic or strategy. I believe that if everyone were fit, then with current players, he is most likely to favour two up front as shown in his early games. However, when he was roundly criticized on here for adopting that "simplistic" approach away to Arsenal, he tried to change it against the better teams.

Today, I think he would have gone for Ade and Solly up front, if Ade was fit. With Eriksen in a floating role from the left, two Centre midfielders and a right winger. hopefully Lamela or Townsend (definitely not Lennon). I think we will see this approach from now to the end of the season from him. This is the approach that delivered his early success and I think he will revert to it. If we can get our injured players back and play a consistent team from one game to another, we may begin to see some cohesion.

 

[Nigeyman]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

No but even in AVB's worst moments he was better than the random "I'm still learning on the job" rubbish TS is serving up. When we lose a few of those games vs relegation fodder it'll become clearer imo how tactically inept TS really is

There really is no point comparing the two anymore...the most important thing is we start planning for next season and not make a hash of it. When we finally finish our debate 'Sherwood vs AVB' who was more inept? we are still left with the same problems...

-a chairmen who keeps making mistakes
-a dof that doesnt seem up to it
-a squad that isnt good enough to go toe to toe with the best

there has been something rotten at this club for a while and it goes deeper than AVB or TIM...the players should bear the brunt of our anger far more than both of our head coaches this season imo.

 

[chancer]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Honest question. You don't think the tactics had anything to do with the opening goal? And once we had scored an own goal inside two minutes were there any tactics (or change to tactics) to reset the game?

Honest answer - no.

- It was a standard ball over to their winger that didn't get behind our line - our 4 defenders were all in position as Sterling received the ball....otherwise Sterling would have been on his bike bearing down on goal. But what actually happened was that he was stopped dead when he got the ball.
- Rose was in a good position covering Sterling - but didn't get close enough
- Eriksen was tracking the midfield runner in the channel - but didn't stay with him
- Vertonghen was where he should have been at the front post but missed the ball
- Kaboul was well positioned but was put off by Vertonghen and/or a brainfart of his own.

A version of that goal that was down to poor tactics would have looked like this:

- The initial ball to the winger gets them in behind our inappropriately high line and the winger races in behind. Not what happened.
- Rose is somehow out of position too far up the pitch when Sterling gets the ball due to a silly high line. Again, not what happened. Rose had Sterling pinned but stood off him.
- Nobody tasked with tracking the channel runner. Textbook lack of planning/tactics. But again, Eriksen was clearly tasked with covering this run and when you look at the goal you can see he knows this, but for some inexplicable reason gets caught on his heels.
- The two CB's too far apart or dragged out wide so there's a gap in the middle. Instead, both of them let the ball go through their legs.

Our shape had the whole situation entirely covered, but FOUR PLAYERS in turn, one after the other, botched simple jobs. If someone wants to make the case that Sherwood sent them out mentally unprepared, I can see evidence for that. A tactical botch on that first goal though? Don't see it.


On the second question, if the idea is that after 2 minutes we change the formation we'd been working on all week then surely not. Better to stick with it and assume that the players aren't going to pass the ball directly to the best striker in the world. Sadly, that was a forlorn hope as it turned out.

 

[Pirate55]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Avbs tactics never altered but they were innefective at making us an attractive attacking team.

Timbo keeps chopping and changing and in recent weeks the players minds looks scrambled.

I think Tim is trying different things with the hope of striking gold...Injuries affecting us but of course AVB had the same issues.

I cant believe you still want to revere AVB... a dream that died for me...

Still holding a torch...I'm beginning to wonder if it some manly thing?

 

[Nigeyman]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Honest answer - no.

- It was a standard ball over to their winger that didn't get behind our line - our 4 defenders were all in position as Sterling received the ball....otherwise Sterling would have been on his bike bearing down on goal. But what actually happened was that he was stopped dead when he got the ball.
- Rose was in a good position covering Sterling - but didn't get close enough
- Eriksen was tracking the midfield runner in the channel - but didn't stay with him
- Vertonghen was where he should have been at the front post but missed the ball
- Kaboul was well positioned but was put off by Vertonghen and/or a brainfart of his own.

A version of that goal that was down to poor tactics would have looked like this:

- The initial ball to the winger gets them in behind our inappropriately high line and the winger races in behind. Not what happened.
- Rose is somehow out of position too far up the pitch when Sterling gets the ball due to a silly high line. Again, not what happened. Rose had Sterling pinned but stood off him.
- Nobody tasked with tracking the channel runner. Textbook lack of planning/tactics. But again, Eriksen was clearly tasked with covering this run and when you look at the goal you can see he knows this, but for some inexplicable reason gets caught on his heels.
- The two CB's too far apart or dragged out wide so there's a gap in the middle. Instead, both of them let the ball go through their legs.

Our shape had the whole situation entirely covered, but FOUR PLAYERS in turn, one after the other, botched simple jobs. If someone wants to make the case that Sherwood sent them out mentally unprepared, I can see evidence for that. A tactical botch on that first goal though? Don't see it.


On the second question, if the idea is that after 2 minutes we change the formation we'd been working on all week then surely not. Better to stick with it and assume that the players aren't going to pass the ball directly to the best striker in the world. Sadly, that was a forlorn hope as it turned out.

Chancer I think your posts are great...

I do think there is a link between individual mistakes and players going into a game, uncertain of the gameplan, not believing in the strategy.

I think this has been evident under both head coaches this season. I also think not many top teams in europe would want many of our defenders.

As soon as I saw our players in the tunnel my worst fears were confirmed...there was no belief and massive doubts regarding the plan...this I must concede is painfully evident and when a team feels that way the chances of individual mistakes in a game increase ten-fold.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I don't keep keep dodging the issue of his tactics. It is just that you don't like the answer. He hasn't had the time nor the players available to him to develop a coherent team tactic or strategy.

Pure BS. What players has he not had available? Lamela? Yes, he did play him when he wasn't injured it seems. Who else??

I believe that if everyone were fit, then with current players, he is most likely to favour two up front as shown in his early games. However, when he was roundly criticized on here for adopting that "simplistic" approach away to Arsenal, he tried to change it against the better teams.

More BS; he was criticised for
a) playing 2 in cm against their 3
b) playing a 2 without Capoue a recognised DM who was fit AND available; another point which cuts your into your point about "not having the players available"

Today, I think he would have gone for Ade and Solly up front, if Ade was fit. With Eriksen in a floating role from the left, two Centre midfielders and a right winger. hopefully Lamela or Townsend (definitely not Lennon). I think we will see this approach from now to the end of the season from him. This is the approach that delivered his early success and I think he will revert to it. If we can get our injured players back and play a consistent team from one game to another, we may begin to see some cohesion.

We'll see. He's been baffling far too many times to predict: taking off Eriksen vs Arsenal as he's bringing on Soldado who would likely have benefitted the most from having him around; Not playing Eriksen vs Norwich; Today having BOTH Dembele AND Sandro on the bench!! Playing Siggy in DM alongside Bentaleb. Clearly tactically clueless
It's like he thought "well we won against Soton with Siggy playing there it'll work again", not realising WHY it worked vs Southampton.

He is CLEARLY out of his depth, and deep down I think you agree

 

[chancer]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Er, how do you know this? Were you at the teamtalk? Did you think that was a good plan or naïve?

So is the idea that Sherwood - having spotted Bentaleb in the reserves and having stuck him in the first team when nobody else even knew his name - last week suddenly discovered that Bentaleb was, in fact, a DM all along who is essentially interchangeable with Sandro?

Impossible and implausible.

So the only fair assumption is that he picked Bentaleb to play as Bentaleb, not to play as Sandro.

That leaves the obvious explanation for Sherwood's tactical plan: Rather than parking the bus, playing DM's, inviting them on, and playing an orthodox counter-attacking game, instead we tried to use offence as defence, with moves often starting with Bentaleb and Siggy feeding/joining the front 4.

As for whether it was a good idea, several posters here were advocating playing 2 up front, which would essentially have been the same idea - offence as defence. In all honesty, yes, I'd have preferred that approach to that pathetic thing of camping on the D and hoping for the best. Against SSS, they'll breach you too often that way. So instead, run at their shaky defence. Yeah, a reasonable option.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Still holding a torch...I'm beginning to wonder if it some manly thing?

Keep on; if I've got any 'torch' for AVB, you've got a whole galaxy worth of starlight for TS

 

[Pirate55]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Chancer I think your posts are great...

I do think there is a link between individual mistakes and players going into a game, uncertain of the gameplan, not believing in the strategy.

I think this has been evident under both head coaches this season. I also think not many top teams in europe would want many of our defenders.

As soon as I saw our players in the tunnel my worst fears were confirmed...there was no belief and massive doubts regarding the plan...this I must concede is painfully evident and when a team feels that way the chances of individual mistakes in a game increase ten-fold.

Agree on all points. The one thing we are mainly missing at the moment is confidence, especially in the back line that has been riddled with errors all season.

 

[chancer]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I do think there is a link between individual mistakes and players going into a game, uncertain of the gameplan, not believing in the strategy.

As much as I think people are being unfair about Sherwood's tactics, I definitely would not disagree with your point. That could well have been the case today, and that would be Sherwood's responsibility.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

So is the idea that Sherwood - having spotted Bentaleb in the reserves and having stuck him in the first team when nobody else even knew his name - last week suddenly discovered that Bentaleb was, in fact, a DM all along who is essentially interchangeable with Sandro?

Impossible and implausible.

So the only fair assumption is that he picked Bentaleb to play as Bentaleb, not to play as Sandro.

That leaves the obvious explanation for Sherwood's tactical plan: Rather than parking the bus, playing DM's, inviting them on, and playing an orthodox counter-attacking game, instead we tried to use offence as defence, with moves often starting with Bentaleb and Siggy feeding/joining the front 4.

As for whether it was a good idea, several posters here were advocating playing 2 up front, which would essentially have been the same idea - offence as defence. In all honesty, yes, I'd have preferred that approach to that pathetic thing of camping on the D and hoping for the best. Against SSS, they'll breach you too often that way. So instead, run at their shaky defence. Yeah, a reasonable option.

You write the bolded bit as though people are asking for more than one DM to be played; no people say we needed one DM to play - neither Bentaleb or Siggy are effective DMs, against the top teams like Pool. The fact that Sandro and Dembele were on the bench makes it more galling. The very best team even play a DM in their top of the table clash.
In fact playing a DM would make playing two strikers easier, it's often that important a role in a team.

If Arsenal had set-up like us today, and got smashed, we would have been saying similar about them and their naivity.

 

[Pirate55]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Keep on; if I've got any 'torch' for AVB, you've got a whole galaxy worth of starlight for TS

Glad to see you come out and admit your torch for AVB. I, on the other hand, have no such desire for TS. Just my simple old fashioned principles of giving a man a fair chance - whoever it may be. As I see it, AVB had more than a fair chance. TS has not.

Whether he is up to the job, is a whole different question.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Glad to see you come out and admit your torch for AVB. I, on the other hand, have no such desire for TS. Just my simple old fashioned principles of giving a man a fair chance - whoever it may be. As I see it, AVB had more than a fair chance. TS has not.

Whether he is up to the job, is a whole different question.

Haha...as usual you read what you want to:lol:

I said if I had a 'torch' you indeed had more than that for TS. I do not hold a 'torch' for AVB but by golly I'd even take him back now over the much more inept TS.

I think TS has had enough of a chance, and I think he should be replaced in May.

In fact, when you say that it's not certain whether TS is up to the job, you yourself are effectively stating that he's had enough time to show it, but has not done so: if you felt TS was the man for the job right now then he would have had enough time in your opinion..

 

[Nigeyman]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

You write the bolded bit as though people are asking for more than one DM to be played; no people say we needed one DM to play - neither Bentaleb or Siggy are effective DMs, against the top teams like Pool. The fact that Sandro and Dembele were on the bench makes it more galling. The very best team even play a DM in their top of the table clash.
In fact playing a DM would make playing two strikers easier, it's often that important a role in a team.

If Arsenal had set-up like us today, and got smashed, we would have been saying similar about them and their naivity.

Its simple really. If you defend well you have more opportunities to win the ball and be effective as an attacking force.

AVB initially had us defending very well...we had lots of the ball but were devoid of ideas going forward. Tim went for an attacking set up today but completly disregarded the defence...in fainess to Tim we have looked more likely to score goals in games...perhaps not vs the top teams compared to AVB but more so the other teams.

What I dont get with Tim is that he said he wanted us to keep the score level for as long as possible and make pool nervous....why did he not start with two DM's and then make attacking changes later on.

I am all for giving people a chance but Tim left our defence out to dry with that set up...in saying that there all still woeful.

 

[Nigeyman]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Haha...as usual you read what you want to:lol:

I said if I had a 'torch' you indeed had more than that for TS. I do not hold a 'torch' for AVB but by golly I'd even take him back now over the much more inept TS.

I think TS has had enough of a chance, and I think he should be replaced in May.

you two need to start playing nice.....come on were all depressed spurs fans here. stick to the decent debate without the snide remarks...your both better than that.

you know you love each other really!

 

[Pirate55]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Pure BS. What players has he not had available? Lamela? Yes, he did play him when he wasn't injured it seems. Who else??

Lets see. Against Benfica we had 11 recognized first teamers unavailable to him. Today, we had about £ 100 m of talent not available - Ade, Lamela, Paulinho, Walker, Capoue, and Chiriches. In virtually every game, he has had more than a few injuries to contend with.

More BS; he was criticised for
a) playing 2 in cm against their 3
b) playing a 2 without Capoue a recognised DM who was fit AND available; another point which cuts your into your point about "not having the players available"

The two against three in midfield arose because he selected two strikers.


We'll see. He's been baffling far too many times to predict: taking off Eriksen vs Arsenal as he's bringing on Soldado who would likely have benefitted the most from having him around; Not playing Eriksen vs Norwich; Today having BOTH Dembele AND Sandro on the bench!! Playing Siggy in DM alongside Bentaleb. Clearly tactically clueless
It's like he thought "well we won against Soton with Siggy playing there it'll work again", not realising WHY it worked vs Southampton.

Still too early to determine. He clearly favours the two striker approach whenever possible. Was Sandro on the bench because he was not fully fit or for tactical reasons? Do you know?

He is CLEARLY out of his depth, and deep down I think you agree

Not clear at all. As I said, I really don't know.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Its simple really. If you defend well you have more opportunities to win the ball and be effective as an attacking force.

AVB initially had us defending very well...we had lots of the ball but were devoid of ideas going forward. Tim went for an attacking set up today but completly disregarded the defence...in fainess to Tim we have looked more likely to score goals in games...perhaps not vs the top teams compared to AVB but more so the other teams.

What I dont get with Tim is that he said he wanted us to keep the score level for as long as possible and make pool nervous....why did he not start with two DM's and then make attacking changes later on.

I am all for giving people a chance but Tim left our defence out to dry with that set up...in saying that there all still woeful.

Therein lies the rub; they are not completely woeful; in fact Verts and Kaboul are considered out best CBpairing and I'm sure you've looked forward to seeing it in the past. The fact is our defence is being made to look far worse than it is because of TS and his inept tactics/strategy (or lack of)

 

[chancer]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

What I dont get with Tim is that he said he wanted us to keep the score level for as long as possible and make pool nervous....why did he not start with two DM's and then make attacking changes later on

Depends on what you consider the best way to stop them from scoring. Offence as defence is a legitimate plan in that regard.

I've lost count of the number of times on here when people have decried the fact we've sat back and let teams come at us. And I think that would have been a poor plan against this Liverpool team. Their weakness is at the back, so let's try to play the game up there rather than in front of our own D, which is where they are lethal. There is merit to that logic and it's what Sherwood went with.

I'd have seen no harm putting Sandro in there in place of Siggy, because it's not as though Sandro has zero forward-looking ability, but this wouldn't actually have helped with any of their goals today.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Not clear at all. As I said, I really don't know.

I think Tim's had ample opportunity to prove his credentials. If you felt he hadn't enough time you'd still be beating the 'give him more time' drum instead of the "I'm not sure" one.

Ok then, I'll ask you simply: how much longer do you think Tim should be given before you or anyone can judge whether he's good enough for the role?

 

[Pirate55]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Depends on what you consider the best way to stop them from scoring. Offence as defence is a legitimate plan in that regard.

I've lost count of the number of times on here when people have decried the fact we've sat back and let teams come at us. And I think that would have been a poor plan against this Liverpool team. Their weakness is at the back, so let's try to play the game up there rather than in front of our own D, which is where they are lethal. There is merit to that logic and it's what Sherwood went with.

I'd have seen no harm putting Sandro in there in place of Siggy, because it's not as though Sandro has zero forward-looking ability, but this wouldn't actually have helped with any of their goals today.

Agree with this. Do we know if Sandro is 100% fit though? Was it tactical or enforced?

To play a half fit Sandro from the start, would have been equally foolhardy IMO.