• 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

Igor the Interim

Because we don't have players capable of passing through the middle well. If we had Nordgaard or Damsgasrd then I think we would have seen a different approach. He decided not to try something he didn't think would work. Whether he was correct in that assessment is up for debate, obviously as you know I agree with him in that I don't believe we were capable of doing this and likewise I know you believe they were despite the evidence showing otherwise.

Sigh...

There are many more ways of using the middle of the pitch to progress the ball beyond simply relying on a passing midfielder. For example, using ball carriers through the middle to connect with 10s such as Simons. Or to feed to Kudus but from central areas. So this 'evidence' stuff is based on what? The knowledge that without Maddison we don't have a 'passing midfielder'? Does that 'evidence' then mean we cannot use the middle of pitch as another area through which to progress the ball? Nonsense.

Frank banged on and on about 'no risk is a risk' yet he repeatedly set us up in a way which mitigated every possible scenario bar wide player chance creation. You can absolutely play a higher line defence and STILL defend properly if your system is designed to be a little less hung-ho (maybe send one FB up - the proverbial 'wonky'). Squeeze the pitch. Force the ball. Be there nice and tight and tough to win second-balls. Have your forwards moving, and have them set up closer together.

We have spent this season dying in half-space half press do we or don't we area. Soft mid-press leaving JUST enough space to be played around, or dragged out of position. It is honestly ludicrous.
People go on about the mistakes. Yes, far too many of them, but those come from lack of confidence and a general "WTF are we doing' vibe.

I grew up watching the greatest passing midfielder Tottenham Hotspur has ever had. Week in week out, home and away. A Fukking Genius. I can still picture the glorious (and I mean glorious) pass for Crooksie's second in the SF Replay in 81 (divinity). So I am WITH you brother, I FEEL your pain. But it does not mean we could not have been using the middle of pitch in other ways to create goalscoring opportunities, and I think the risk aversion this season has killed us.

Here's hoping they get a vibes guy in and FAST!

COYS and peace!
 
Fernadez's numbers show no difference in through balls though. I don't whose numbers are more accurate, but watching it I don't see any difference. We weren't exactly spamming though balls under Ange, we played the same get it to the wide players have them cross it in football largely, to the lack of effectiveness.

Edit: Well there you go, the numbers confusion has been cleared up. There is actually no difference this or last season in terms of through balls and that was with Kulu and Maddison fit and available for periods.

I would say a deeper issue is that the CM under whichever manager will always be lacking in passing quality because frankly they lack passing quality. If Maddsion or Kulu are available that will massage the situation to some extent as we saw last season but it will still suffer from the same problems which again we saw last season because fundamentally we lack the correct profiles. Add a Nordgaard this season and I feel very certain we would have seen more forward central passes attempted by Frank simply because he would have the player profiles available to do so.

We played with attacking intent. Despite having 'limited Hoddle/Maddison' players (well, one) we looked to create overloads in higher areas of the pitch with inverted FBs. Whether you agree with the idea or not, saying there was 'no difference' between the two styles is utterly, utterly disingenuous. And like it or not, the 'unpopular' bloke was missing many key players for much of his time (debate why all you want, I have my thoughts).

You say Deki might relieve the situation. As a 'passing midfielder'? No he won't. How? He isn't that. Maddison is the only one who can do that, and it first requires a system which promotes attacking football and having the ball. You say Norgaard, he had Romero and used him so much so that he and Porro are really our only two passing players at this point (I maintain Bergvall's got it in him but time will tell).

BTW, if you (both) want to stick to this 'it's no different than last season' be my guest, but your eye tests should tell you different, and if not, here are a load more stats to show why Postecoglu was a far more 'progressive' manager when it came to actually trying to win matches. Again, this is not about whether it was the right approach or not, just that the approach was absolutely braver and more attack-minded, as well as employing methods beyond progressive passing through the middle of the pitch to try and create chances (i.e. not everything went wide).

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c36z5dpk1w9o
 
Back