*** OMT Spurs v Aston Villa ***

[Whiffler]

I love Poch's thinking towards the end: 'hmmm...we are losing Control of the game. I think I'll put on an 18 year old boy'

Reminiscent of General Foch in 1914 - "My centre is yielding. My right is retreating. Situation excellent. I am attacking."


On another point, it must be 3 seasons since we had a PL (positive) goal difference in double figures. We've repeatedly been left needing to scratch out an extra point when seasons end.

 

[Vega]

On another point, it must be 3 seasons since we had a PL (positive) goal difference in double figures. We've repeatedly been left needing to scratch out an extra point when seasons end.[/QUOTE]

3rd best goal difference in the league at this point, got to be a while since that happened.

 

[Daisuk]

Where was njie yesterday? Injured?

 

[paxtonwolf]

Mike Dean is always funny to watch. He was out of himself with joy when the Moose scored. Very pleased with himself for playing the advantage.

Yes that's a big tick for him today. Definitely think he would have awarded a penalty had Dembele not scored, so great advantage played. Still funny to see him celebrate.
On a par with the ref running like a zombie when Townsend scored at home to Stoke last season

 

[Lemonade Money]

Yes that's a big tick for him today. Definitely think he would have awarded a penalty had Dembele not scored, so great advantage played. Still funny to see him celebrate.
On a par with the ref running like a zombie when Townsend scored at home to Stoke last season

Or the ref staring at Ade's dance thinking WTF?

 

[paxtonwolf]

Or the ref staring at Ade's dance thinking WTF?

I think we all looked at that and thought the same

 

[Jordinho]

https://twitter.com/x/status/661270145638268928

Turns out Sherwood was involved yesterday, as MacDonald's body.

 

[braineclipse]

Just had another look at the 10 minutes from the Dembele-Mason sub until their goal. Check up on my own memory and sanity...

I really struggle to see how the sub changed the character of the game. They pressed high up the pitch and forced us into playing it long (or risk losing it as with Dier) and played direct balls to Gestede and fought for whatever dropped.

I really cannot understand what it is Dembele was supposed to have done to keep that from happening. Can someone arguing for Dembele being what kept control for us up until that point try to educate me on this? Have a look at those 5-10 minutes after the sub and tell me what specifically it is Dembele would have done that would have made a difference?

Mason did really well actually. Interception deep in our half, quick pass to set up a counter attack only stopped by a foul. Tackling in our box. Tracking runners down the outside. And the mandatory (for him) 4-5 involvements with 1-2 touch passing to keep us ticking and actually help us stretch Villa and keep them chasing shadows when we did settle on the ball.

For a comparison I watched the 10-ish minuts before the sub too. Dembele had a couple of good involvements. Kept possession through a spin and winning a free kick. Putting in a tackle. A couple of quick easy passes. But also gave the ball away in Villa's half and the break had to be stopped by Dier.

The main difference between the two periods was that perhaps Villa pressed a bit higher after Mason came on. Not that I think it had anything to do with our sub, rather time was starting to run out and it was desperation time so they pushed 3-4 players forward when we had it at the back to try to force the issue.

Really baffled by what it is Dembele supposedly would have done differently on the pitch to keep us "in control".

 

[Pirate55]

Just had another look at the 10 minutes from the Dembele-Mason sub until their goal. Check up on my own memory and sanity...

I really struggle to see how the sub changed the character of the game. They pressed high up the pitch and forced us into playing it long (or risk losing it as with Dier) and played direct balls to Gestede and fought for whatever dropped.

I really cannot understand what it is Dembele was supposed to have done to keep that from happening. Can someone arguing for Dembele being what kept control for us up until that point try to educate me on this? Have a look at those 5-10 minutes after the sub and tell me what specifically it is Dembele would have done that would have made a difference?

Mason did really well actually. Interception deep in our half, quick pass to set up a counter attack only stopped by a foul. Tackling in our box. Tracking runners down the outside. And the mandatory (for him) 4-5 involvements with 1-2 touch passing to keep us ticking and actually help us stretch Villa and keep them chasing shadows when we did settle on the ball.

For a comparison I watched the 10-ish minuts before the sub too. Dembele had a couple of good involvements. Kept possession through a spin and winning a free kick. Putting in a tackle. A couple of quick easy passes. But also gave the ball away in Villa's half and the break had to be stopped by Dier.

The main difference between the two periods was that perhaps Villa pressed a bit higher after Mason came on. Not that I think it had anything to do with our sub, rather time was starting to run out and it was desperation time so they pushed 3-4 players forward when we had it at the back to try to force the issue.

Really baffled by what it is Dembele supposedly would have done differently on the pitch to keep us "in control".

Stop! Hammer time of course. I don't think you ( or anyone) would argue other than Dembele's hold up play is the best we have. Irrespective of the actuality, of any specific 10 minute period used to prove a point one way or the other. The fact remains that in the first half we had almost total control with Dembele. For a really worrying period in the middle of the second half we ceded control. You may regard that as coincidence. I don't. Dembele makes himself available to receive a ball, uses his power and skill to hold onto it and gives others ( particularly Eriksen) more time and space as a result. That is his key strength. We missed it badly when he went off.

 

[milo]

Stop! Hammer time of course. I don't think you ( or anyone) would argue other than Dembele's hold up play is the best we have. Irrespective of the actuality, of any specific 10 minute period used to prove a point one way or the other. The fact remains that in the first half we had almost total control with Dembele. For a really worrying period in the middle of the second half we ceded control. You may regard that as coincidence. I don't. Dembele makes himself available to receive a ball, uses his power and skill to hold onto it and gives others ( particularly Eriksen) more time and space as a result. That is his key strength. We missed it badly when he went off.

I think that as the discussion about Dembele has gone on people have become increasingly entrenched in their positions. There a tendency then, I think, to cling to anything that you think supports that argument. It is classic confirmation bias.

Dembele is good at holding the ball up far up the pitch. He's not as good at picking out a player in a better position or quick possession play. He also has a tendency to run into a group of players when there is a better option on. He played well last night but as well as some of the stuff he does well, there was a smattering of what he does less well.

 

[alekaras]

Just had another look at the 10 minutes from the Dembele-Mason sub until their goal. Check up on my own memory and sanity...

I really struggle to see how the sub changed the character of the game. They pressed high up the pitch and forced us into playing it long (or risk losing it as with Dier) and played direct balls to Gestede and fought for whatever dropped.

I really cannot understand what it is Dembele was supposed to have done to keep that from happening. Can someone arguing for Dembele being what kept control for us up until that point try to educate me on this? Have a look at those 5-10 minutes after the sub and tell me what specifically it is Dembele would have done that would have made a difference?

Mason did really well actually. Interception deep in our half, quick pass to set up a counter attack only stopped by a foul. Tackling in our box. Tracking runners down the outside. And the mandatory (for him) 4-5 involvements with 1-2 touch passing to keep us ticking and actually help us stretch Villa and keep them chasing shadows when we did settle on the ball.

For a comparison I watched the 10-ish minuts before the sub too. Dembele had a couple of good involvements. Kept possession through a spin and winning a free kick. Putting in a tackle. A couple of quick easy passes. But also gave the ball away in Villa's half and the break had to be stopped by Dier.

The main difference between the two periods was that perhaps Villa pressed a bit higher after Mason came on. Not that I think it had anything to do with our sub, rather time was starting to run out and it was desperation time so they pushed 3-4 players forward when we had it at the back to try to force the issue.

Really baffled by what it is Dembele supposedly would have done differently on the pitch to keep us "in control".

tickle my balls with a feather. Would have happened no matter who was on the pitch.

 

[Pirate55]

I think that as the discussion about Dembele has gone on people have become increasingly entrenched in their positions. There a tendency then, I think, to cling to anything that you think supports that argument. It is classic confirmation bias.

Dembele is good at holding the ball up far up the pitch. He's not as good at picking out a player in a better position or quick possession play. He also has a tendency to run into a group of players when there is a better option on. He played well last night but as well as some of the stuff he does well, there was a smattering of what he does less well.

Yes, I agree, but he is particularly good at receiving a ball. It may not have mattered in that 15/20 minute spell when we reverted to long ball, but it also might have done. That is all. Those that want to believe it will, those that don't, won't. Personally, I think as he would make himself more available to receive a pass, then he would have got one. One thing is certain though, no-one can say for sure.

 

[parklane1]

So I have just got back from the game, and I am so annoyed with a large contingent of our so-called fans. I would say supporters, but they did nothing of the kind. Talk about getting on the teams backs and there is no doubt in my mind that this precipitated the nervy moments. Honestly, even before the Villa goal went in, some people were almost rooting for it! Anyway, enough of that rant.

The performance today was average. We won, but should have kept a clean sheet. No real stand out performances for me, but I would say Alli, Lamela, Dembele and Toby were our best players. We just seemed to switch off like Villa did the first 70 odd minutes, and some of our players were making some uncharacteristic (this season at least) mistakes such as Dier, Rose, Mason and Vertongen. This is one of those games that our players will learn from, and thankfully we did not lose. For the first time, Lamela seemed to be like an experienced head at the end, so he deserves credit for that despite nothing really working for him in the first half.

The bit that did not make sense for me was playing Alli further forward when Mason came on. Alli was having a good game and I thought Mason would play in the position he played in against Sunderland. Mason was a bit rusty but the Villa players were going in very hard on him.

We won, but gave away our clean sheet and had an unnecessarily nervy end (until the third goal). Still not many points behind the leaders. Onwards and upwards this week.

Pretty much how I saw it as well, I would have took Alli off though not because he was poor but he has played a lot lately and I would have dropped Dembele back and played Mason as the forward one. The game was not us at our best but we deserved the win and it could have been by more. We did panic a bit when Villa scored but with such a young side that will happen ( and probably will again).


It was probably Dier's worst game of the season ( he was due one) and I am still not convinced that Rose is our best left back ( he does some good things but their are a lot of mistakes in there).

As for the crowd well I have been saying for a while now that there are a lot macarons who as soon a player makes a mistake the idiots start slagging them off, and I fail to see how that can help the player or the team. To be honest I love the away days much better as the macarons seem not to travel and the fans that do are behind the team from the start.

 

[milo]

One thing is certain though, no-one can say for sure.

I agree and that is why I (and I assume some others) have been questioning the reasoning of people who have said that Villa getting back into the game was a direct result of Dembele coming off

 

[stinkfoot]

Just had another look at the 10 minutes from the Dembele-Mason sub until their goal. Check up on my own memory and sanity...

I really struggle to see how the sub changed the character of the game. They pressed high up the pitch and forced us into playing it long (or risk losing it as with Dier) and played direct balls to Gestede and fought for whatever dropped.

I really cannot understand what it is Dembele was supposed to have done to keep that from happening. Can someone arguing for Dembele being what kept control for us up until that point try to educate me on this? Have a look at those 5-10 minutes after the sub and tell me what specifically it is Dembele would have done that would have made a difference?

Mason did really well actually. Interception deep in our half, quick pass to set up a counter attack only stopped by a foul. Tackling in our box. Tracking runners down the outside. And the mandatory (for him) 4-5 involvements with 1-2 touch passing to keep us ticking and actually help us stretch Villa and keep them chasing shadows when we did settle on the ball.

For a comparison I watched the 10-ish minuts before the sub too. Dembele had a couple of good involvements. Kept possession through a spin and winning a free kick. Putting in a tackle. A couple of quick easy passes. But also gave the ball away in Villa's half and the break had to be stopped by Dier.

The main difference between the two periods was that perhaps Villa pressed a bit higher after Mason came on. Not that I think it had anything to do with our sub, rather time was starting to run out and it was desperation time so they pushed 3-4 players forward when we had it at the back to try to force the issue.

Really baffled by what it is Dembele supposedly would have done differently on the pitch to keep us "in control".

Brilliant post Brain.

 

[Jordinho]

Once they scored we panicked. It was only when we finally got the ball down on the ground and passed it around a bit we regained control.

 

[braineclipse]

Stop! Hammer time of course. I don't think you ( or anyone) would argue other than Dembele's hold up play is the best we have. Irrespective of the actuality, of any specific 10 minute period used to prove a point one way or the other. The fact remains that in the first half we had almost total control with Dembele. For a really worrying period in the middle of the second half we ceded control. You may regard that as coincidence. I don't. Dembele makes himself available to receive a ball, uses his power and skill to hold onto it and gives others ( particularly Eriksen) more time and space as a result. That is his key strength. We missed it badly when he went off.

Is making himself available to receive a ball really a strength Dembele shows over players like Mason? That's new to me...

To be clear I don't regard it as a coincidence that we lost control. I just don't attribute it to Dembele going off. 10 minutes before the sub was fairly similar to the 10 minutes following it and Dembele wasn't particularly involved. Mason came on and made an immediate positive impact to help us keep control of the game. Unfortunately for him and us he then made a single mistake that cost us a goal. Fortunately for us the team, without Dembele, managed to wrestle back control of the game in the final 10 minutes... A rather rare thing when the losing team gets a goal back and only needs another or the draw.

Hold up play as in holding on to the ball in a close physical duel sure. Dembele is as good as it gets. Is that what you need to keep control of a game when the opponents are pressing? It's obviously useful in some situations, but just as useful is the ability to pass and move quickly. When Dembele holds on to the ball with 4-5 touches it does not create space when opponents press us. It gives them time to swarm out any passing options. A quick 1 or 2 touch pass can be much more effective in many situations. When you have no other option winning the physical duel is obviously useful, but it's not the main factor in those situations imo.

Look at the top teams that actually manage to kill off games through possession, it's not by having the stronger players physically and winning duels. It's by moving the ball quickly enough that the opponents are chasing shadows.

Have a look at the 10 minutes leading up to the sub. Look at Dembele's involvements. Once he wins a free kick. That's fine, but he was running into trouble and definitely wasn't finding space despite a good turn. Another time he was disposessed trying to take on players a bit into their half. Just as effective was his one or two involvements where he simply passed it backwards or square quickly to a man in space who could then also move it on quickly and keep Villa running. That part of the game Mason is better at.

 

[Pirate55]

Is making himself available to receive a ball really a strength Dembele shows over players like Mason? That's new to me...

To be clear I don't regard it as a coincidence that we lost control. I just don't attribute it to Dembele going off. 10 minutes before the sub was fairly similar to the 10 minutes following it and Dembele wasn't particularly involved. Mason came on and made an immediate positive impact to help us keep control of the game. Unfortunately for him and us he then made a single mistake that cost us a goal. Fortunately for us the team, without Dembele, managed to wrestle back control of the game in the final 10 minutes... A rather rare thing when the losing team gets a goal back and only needs another or the draw.

Hold up play as in holding on to the ball in a close physical duel sure. Dembele is as good as it gets. Is that what you need to keep control of a game when the opponents are pressing? It's obviously useful in some situations, but just as useful is the ability to pass and move quickly. When Dembele holds on to the ball with 4-5 touches it does not create space when opponents press us. It gives them time to swarm out any passing options. A quick 1 or 2 touch pass can be much more effective in many situations. When you have no other option winning the physical duel is obviously useful, but it's not the main factor in those situations imo.

Look at the top teams that actually manage to kill off games through possession, it's not by having the stronger players physically and winning duels. It's by moving the ball quickly enough that the opponents are chasing shadows.

Have a look at the 10 minutes leading up to the sub. Look at Dembele's involvements. Once he wins a free kick. That's fine, but he was running into trouble and definitely wasn't finding space despite a good turn. Another time he was disposessed trying to take on players a bit into their half. Just as effective was his one or two involvements where he simply passed it backwards or square quickly to a man in space who could then also move it on quickly and keep Villa running. That part of the game Mason is better at.

Sorry Brain, but you won't convince me the two things were merely coincidence. Although you curiously say they weren't related. You eloquently try to minimise Dembele's role in the team, whereas I maintain he has been one of the vital cogs in our recent good run. He simply has strengths others don't and adds a steeliness to our midfield which allows others, particularly Eriksen, to flourish. To have too many "re-cyclers" or "fast passers" make us too one dimensional. I would be very surprised if Poch left Dembele out of our big games ( especially the Goons) and I think taking him off on Monday was to give him a rest and keep him fresh for the battles ahead. We will soon see how Poch rates him.

 

[Pirate55]

One further point. All the big successful teams in the EPL in recent years tend to have a major physical player in midfield. Matic, Toure, Schweinstieger/Schneiderlin or going further back, Vierra and Keane. Arsenal's lack of success in recent years (apart from the last two cups) is largely down to them never replacing Vierra in midfield but relying too heavily on skilful passers IMO

 

[afsoc4life]

This is funny. People have come with a new angle. As a fellow poster put it. continue looking for evidence to minimise Dembele's performance on that day. All we needed to do during that 10 minutes of madness was to cool the passage of play, slow the ball down, hold on it - make Aston press and become more tired. Isn't it funny that when Lamela held on to the ball for a while, things cooled down? The good thing is that as the team becomes more experienced, they will know what to do during such times.

Now let's think back to the Liverpool game when gegen-pressing started - what happened? Players that didnt have the technical ability to hold on to the ball, give a good pass were floundering. One of Dembele's strength is that it is very difficult to get the ball off him unless you foul him and now that he has started sniffing again around the goal area - that is good news. Infact it is wunderbar news for Spurs, we have another arrow in our midfield's bow. How anyone can try to write it down makes one wonder if we are fans of Spurs or fans of certain players ...

Of course the above is my personal opinion. I am not a football coach. I also grew up with a different football philosophy than most in the UK. Street ball rules ...