• 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

Antonio Conte - officially NOT the coach of THFC

Of course . I do not like the 4 at the back. As seen in the mess for Chelski second goal. We create more but looked far to open.
3-5-2 would be a suitable second option without any changes to the defence.
I'm not an expert in tactics by any stretch, but isn't a 3-5-2 a narrower way to play than a 3-4-3? And when you need to break down a side, don't you want to extend the pitch as much as possible, meaning a 3-4-3 would work better?
 
I'm not an expert in tactics by any stretch, but isn't a 3-5-2 a narrower way to play than a 3-4-3? And when you need to break down a side, don't you want to extend the pitch as much as possible, meaning a 3-4-3 would work better?
Yes in the final third it is . That’s when we would need to see good attacking output from our wingbacks . Royal would be a concern in that area .
 
Yes in the final third it is . That’s when we would need to see good attacking output from our wingbacks . Royal would be a concern in that area .

What type of 352 are you wanting? 1 behind the front 2? Or a defensive midfielder behind 2 cms?
 
What type of 352 are you wanting? 1 behind the front 2? Or a defensive midfielder behind 2 cms?

1 infront of 2.

Without getting into the weeds we need a plan B. There’s an obvious issue to be exploited with the current one and we need to be able to counter that as and when we need to .
 
Last edited:
1 infront of 2.

Without getting into the weeds we need a plan B. There’s an oblivious issue to be exploited with the current one and we need to be able to counter that as and when we need to .

You keep saying we need a plan b. But we've already shown we can change up our tactics during the game. These are plan b's and c's. They are tactics we've worked on.

But yes i agree we could do with a player that can play as a more attacking midfielder who can also cover kulu. Which it seems we are after. But conte at inter played them more as a cm (eriksen) with a defensive midfielder/playmaker behind. Don't think he's used one as you describe although i may be wrong.
 
You keep saying we need a plan b. But we've already shown we can change up our tactics during the game. These are plan b's and c's. They are tactics we've worked on.

But yes i agree we could do with a player that can play as a more attacking midfielder who can also cover kulu. Which it seems we are after. But conte at inter played them more as a cm (eriksen) with a defensive midfielder/playmaker behind. Don't think he's used one as you describe although i may be wrong.

The shape did not fundamentally change yesterday we just raised our tempo and Emerson narrowed up at points.

It did to get back in at Chelsea. And as much as we looked more of a threat we looked a disaster at the back. Need to keep a 3 at back that’s a 5 in defence and when needed a 3 man midfield. Which ever way round it is.

So plan B , C, D what ever that may be . How many times has Conte employed a midfield 3 at Spurs ? Wolves home late in game last season was one. Sort of at Chelski and that’s it. Better teams will exploit our 2 man in middle .Teams that keep the ball well and can finish will leave us falling short. I’m not having a dig at Conte it’s there to see. We surrender the middle of the pitch at times and look uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
The shape did not fundamentally change yesterday we just raised our tempo and Emerson narrowed up at points.

It did to get back in at Chelsea. And as much as we looked more of a threat we looked a disaster at the back. Need to keep a 3 at back that’s a 5 in defence and when needed a 3 man midfield. Which ever way round it is.

So plan B , C, D what ever that may be . How many times has Conte employed a midfield 3 at Spurs ? Wolves home late in game last season was one. Sort of at Chelski and that’s it. Better teams will exploit our 2 man in middle .Teams that keep the ball well and can finish will leave us falling short. I’m not having a dig at Conte it’s there to see. We surrender the middle of the pitch at times and look uncomfortable.

Liverpool (first game), leicester (son injured) we had winks in a 3.
 
1 infront of 2.

Without getting into the weeds we need a plan B. There’s an obvious issue to be exploited with the current one and we need to be able to counter that as and when we need to .
Do we?
I mean if teams changed their set up to stop us… and fail… why would we change
 
5 subs should be utilised more

At least 2 by 60
At least 4 by 75

Else we are harming ourselves
Prevents injuries building and prevents tiredness in a long season

I presume this will happen more as we get two games per week
 
5 subs should be utilised more

At least 2 by 60
At least 4 by 75

Else we are harming ourselves
Prevents injuries building and prevents tiredness in a long season

I presume this will happen more as we get two games per week
I was surprised it took until the 76 min to make our first sub on Saturday. It might of been that we scored at around the hour mark and he let it play out for a bit afterwards?
 
I don't think we are a particularly good pressing side. It's as though we have to put our mind to it rather than it be automatic part of our game.

So if our front 3 are 'closing' rather than 'hounding' that's enough of a time difference for (good) opponents to find the balls between the lines or onto their CMs where they are generally outnumbering us 3 to 2, hence the problem. It puts an enormous amount of work onto PEH and Bentancur, which tbf they admirably cope with. But against the very best it might crack.

Not forgetting that against the very best we are quite comfortable sitting in that low block 541 and dealing lethal blows on the counter.(As an alternative way of dealing with it)

The reason it's a tricky call is there are many teams (in the PL), and games, where a team can surprise you with their quality. Saints is a good example, they really have out maneuvered us in games previously , yet the opening home game we controlled, looked dominant, physical and effectively steamrolled them.

It's a headscratcher for Conte, as it was for previous managers, it's almost a consistency problem that they have difficulty explaining or understanding.
 
I don't think we are a particularly good pressing side. It's as though we have to put our mind to it rather than it be automatic part of our game.

So if our front 3 are 'closing' rather than 'hounding' that's enough of a time difference for (good) opponents to find the balls between the lines or onto their CMs where they are generally outnumbering us 3 to 2, hence the problem. It puts an enormous amount of work onto PEH and Bentancur, which tbf they admirably cope with. But against the very best it might crack.

Not forgetting that against the very best we are quite comfortable sitting in that low block 541 and dealing lethal blows on the counter.(As an alternative way of dealing with it)

The reason it's a tricky call is there are many teams (in the PL), and games, where a team can surprise you with their quality. Saints is a good example, they really have out maneuvered us in games previously , yet the opening home game we controlled, looked dominant, physical and effectively steamrolled them.

It's a headscratcher for Conte, as it was for previous managers, it's almost a consistency problem that they have difficulty explaining or understanding.

We won't be a great pressing team with Kane and Son in the team imo. We can do it for shorter spells.

We accept getting pushed back a bit more for periods. We accept being "outnumbered in midfield", because we know the threat of Kane, Son, Kulusevski and our wing backs should still make us lethal on the break. And we know we're capable of being solid at the back playing like that.

When/if we're unable to launch counter attacks (or play out through pressure) that becomes a real issue. Opponents dominate, will create some chances at least and we create very little. Long sustained periods of defending and little else.

We really only need to launch a handful of good breaks during a half of football to go from not a good look to looking rather good.

To me the solution is better ball players deep. Defenders, wing backs or deep midfielders. Launching good breaks becomes increasingly more difficult for every player in our team that's not up the job of playing through pressure effectively.

A Modric/Dembele/Carrick type player would obviously help, but only so much. By having weak spots in that regard it makes the job so much easier for the opponents that I don't think even an excellent ball player in midfield makes enough of a difference.

The teams that are very good at that become good by individuals being very good, sure, but just as much by having no weak spots.

Imo Sanchez and Royal are weak spots in this (rather specific) regard. Reguilon too. Jury still out on Sessegnon. To overcome the headscratching inconsistency you talk of we need better that that.

Not that we need better to keep doing well, to win games, to have great performances. But to minimise those really frustrating periods like against Chelsea, the Wolverhampton first half, we need better.
 
We won't be a great pressing team with Kane and Son in the team imo. We can do it for shorter spells.

We accept getting pushed back a bit more for periods. We accept being "outnumbered in midfield", because we know the threat of Kane, Son, Kulusevski and our wing backs should still make us lethal on the break. And we know we're capable of being solid at the back playing like that.

When/if we're unable to launch counter attacks (or play out through pressure) that becomes a real issue. Opponents dominate, will create some chances at least and we create very little. Long sustained periods of defending and little else.

We really only need to launch a handful of good breaks during a half of football to go from not a good look to looking rather good.

To me the solution is better ball players deep. Defenders, wing backs or deep midfielders. Launching good breaks becomes increasingly more difficult for every player in our team that's not up the job of playing through pressure effectively.

A Modric/Dembele/Carrick type player would obviously help, but only so much. By having weak spots in that regard it makes the job so much easier for the opponents that I don't think even an excellent ball player in midfield makes enough of a difference.

The teams that are very good at that become good by individuals being very good, sure, but just as much by having no weak spots.

Imo Sanchez and Royal are weak spots in this (rather specific) regard. Reguilon too. Jury still out on Sessegnon. To overcome the headscratching inconsistency you talk of we need better that that.

Not that we need better to keep doing well, to win games, to have great performances. But to minimise those really frustrating periods like against Chelsea, the Wolverhampton first half, we need better.

The irony is, with Brighton being the best example, 'lesser' teams can play with a flow and connection that belies their supposed level of player. Of course, where they lack is a front line of stellar players.

Sanchez and Emerson have always been an issue in a passing/possession comfort aspect. The trifecta completed when Moura played.

The thing is, we can have good runs of form, and more importantly performances, with these players playing as we did at the back end of last season. I'm not saying they can't be improved on btw.

A factor to consider is how much our game outcomes are affected when the front 3 are running red hot. Their finishing rate is ridiculous and punish teams given any slight opportunity.

The counter point to that is how reliant the 'running red hot' is on the support structure behind them?

Finally (as I think I posted the other day), Contes tactics are very specific, if a good coach nullifies that, then it can very much feel like we've been shut down.
 
The irony is, with Brighton being the best example, 'lesser' teams can play with a flow and connection that belies their supposed level of player. Of course, where they lack is a front line of stellar players.

Sanchez and Emerson have always been an issue in a passing/possession comfort aspect. The trifecta completed when Moura played.

The thing is, we can have good runs of form, and more importantly performances, with these players playing as we did at the back end of last season. I'm not saying they can't be improved on btw.

A factor to consider is how much our game outcomes are affected when the front 3 are running red hot. Their finishing rate is ridiculous and punish teams given any slight opportunity.

The counter point to that is how reliant the 'running red hot' is on the support structure behind them?

Finally (as I think I posted the other day), Contes tactics are very specific, if a good coach nullifies that, then it can very much feel like we've been shut down.

Teams like Brighton make a conscious effort and signs/picks players that fit into their style. No coincidence that they have had several players now moving to bigger and richer clubs. What they need from a player is in some ways quite similar to what big teams need.

That comes at a cost. And they've had some rather poor runs and games as a result of that. But well worth it. They can afford that, we can't. We need deep players that are good enough at the ball and also very good defensively. We also imo must play with a bit less risk, Brighton can afford losing games because they tried to play ambitious and gave the ball away repeatedly. We can too of course, but to a lesser extent.

I think a lot of the "running hot" depends on what happens deeper.
 
5 subs should be utilised more

At least 2 by 60
At least 4 by 75

Else we are harming ourselves
Prevents injuries building and prevents tiredness in a long season

I presume this will happen more as we get two games per week
Subs disrupt your flow too much. Having 5 shouldn't change that you don't really start making them till about 70 mins. Well unless things are going very wrong anyway

Tiredness shouldn't kick in in a 90 min game, other than maybe for WBs. Rotation between games is the way to manage longer term fatigue, not giving players 3/4s of a match
 
I saw lots of posts in the Wolves match thread about how pedestrian wee were (and often are) in first halves recently.

Do we think this is actually deliberate?
 
I saw lots of posts in the Wolves match thread about how pedestrian wee were (and often are) in first halves recently.

Do we think this is actually deliberate?
Why would it be? It would make no sense, we concede most of our goals in the first half, why would we intentionally want to potentially play catch up every game?
 
Back