• 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

Bishop said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Bishop said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Lemonade Money said:
I would flip that and say a new manager needs a couple of games under his belt before the 6 pointers.
Click to expand...
Agree

New manager should have been in now so he had some time before the Forest game (which is where it’s really going to get squeaky).

I think I’ve worked it out though. They’ve realised we have a 3 week break after the Forest game (which is crap btw) so have decide to give him until then as if it goes poorly they have time to hire someone before Sunderland.

You know what’s going to happen:

Liverpool - lose
Madrid - maybe a draw and go out
Forest - draw

They will pat themself on the back that results have started to turn not realising how bad that set of results is.
 
Benny_Lad said:
Agree

New manager should have been in now so he had some time before the Forest game (which is where it’s really going to get squeaky).

I think I’ve worked it out though. They’ve realised we have a 3 week break after the Forest game (which is crap btw) so have decide to give him until then as if it goes poorly they have time to hire someone before Sunderland.

You know what’s going to happen:

Liverpool - lose
Madrid - maybe a draw and go out
Forest - draw

They will pat themself on the back that results have started to turn not realising how bad that set of results is.
Click to expand...
Forest is now a must win,
 
Lemonade Money said:
I would flip that and say a new manager needs a couple of games under his belt before the 6 pointers.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, what I was saying in the original post is that’s my theory of what our board are thinking. I honestly think they are sacrificing the chance to get something at Liverpool in case it starts a new manager off with a loss.

If it were me, Tudor would have been gone Wednesday morning.
 
Bishop said:
Look at Damsgaard, there in 4th place for all competitions, for through balls. I coudn't find any historical data regarding these but last season under Frank he hit 1.90 key passes per match with a total of 62 key passes, hitting the 90%, this season under Andrews he has played 32 key passes 1.91 per match and at the 93 percentile. Which just support my argument that if Frank had the players he would indeed have them playing through balls and centrally so.
Click to expand...

A player I wanted us to sign and that we were apparently in for in 2021 but (of course) didn't get done.

It took Frank the better part of two seasons to integrate Damsgaard.
He showed patience bringing him through, agreed.
You don't get that time at Tottenham.
Why did Frank not ask for a player of that skill set in the summer when he arrived? Because we thought Maddison was fit? Everyone knows Madders is 25 full games a season if lucky.
Frank wanted MGW, who is not definitively a playmaking passer more than an aggressive, high-pressing dribbler (a very good player for sure BTW).
I just think that if such a player as Damsgaard (in style) was important, he'd have either gone for him or isolated one to go for.
 
There's some bad signs with Tudor...the results so far for starters, but also the players reaction/attitude towards him.
This might not be on them, it could well be the higher ups have misjudged what this group needs.
This appointment has missed any 'new manager bounce' and it could in fact be argued, things look worse than when Frank was in charge.

If this has not got off in the right foot..it's likely just another uphill battle we don't need at this point (it's the last thing we bloody need).

I'm surprised they're not reading it that way. The only caveat is other 'options' to go to, it's slim pickings.
 
Lemonade Money said:
I would flip that and say a new manager needs a couple of games under his belt before the 6 pointers.
Click to expand...

Definitely, better to have a couple of games where we're expected to lose to try things out before the Forest game. If we lose both then surely we can't stick with him for the Forest game.

Mind you if we kept Tudor on for the next 2 games then say appointed Defoe or someone with club connections then the stadium would likely be bouncing that might help.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
There's some bad signs with Tudor...the results so far for starters, but also the players reaction/attitude towards him.
This might not be on them, it could well be the higher ups have misjudged what this group needs.
This appointment has missed any 'new manager bounce' and it could in fact be argued, things look worse than when Frank was in charge.

If this has not got off in the right foot..it's likely another uphill battle we don't need at this point (it's the last thing we bloody need).

I'm surprised they're not reading it that way. The only caveat is other 'options' to go to, it's slim pickings.
Click to expand...
I totally agree but surely we are at/past the point where the players have to stop worrying about their hurt feelings and knuckle down and do their job.

I know it’s not the same (although fudge know why it’s not) but I wouldn’t last long in my job if I sulked when I got a new manager I didn’t like
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
There's some bad signs with Tudor...the results so far for starters, but also the players reaction/attitude towards him.
This might not be on them, it could well be the higher ups have misjudged what this group needs.
This appointment has missed any 'new manager bounce' and it could in fact be argued, things look worse than when Frank was in charge.

If this has not got off in the right foot..it's likely just another uphill battle we don't need at this point (it's the last thing we bloody need).

I'm surprised they're not reading it that way. The only caveat is other 'options' to go to, it's slim pickings.
Click to expand...

They have no plan and no clue
The fact that ENIC have put it out there it’s up to the football leadership to make the calls says a lot about what is happening
 
Daisuk said:
fudge off, Igor, you’re clearly not the guy. The treatment of Kinsky yesterday was shameful. A guy like that is not going to be able to motivate this group completely devoid of confidence.
Click to expand...
Taking kinsky off stopped the rot. I feel sorry for him not because of the treatment but because he is brick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back