One thing I would add is that whilst we have dished out a fair few beatings this season, our few defeats in the league have only been by 1 goal. So we are always in the game and always in with a chance of points. When we play well, we can hand out a 3-0 (like to Man Utd) but when we misfire, we are still in with a shout. A small improvement to the team/squad would probably make a big difference in our points total for this reason.
-
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
Our 2 big problems this season...
- Thread starter the dza
- Start date
No big problems, it should be extremely clear to anyone that we are ahead of schedule regardless of next game result.
Looking forward to how do we make the next step
- Bench depth
- Better start to season
- Addition of either an experienced head or game changer to first team
Think the point people miss with the points lost from winning position is spurs does not shut up shop when in the lead (Scum game is the perfect example), we continue to push to score more. It's what's entertaining, its what we the fans want to see, so I for one are willing to concede the occasional slip up vs. 60 minutes of managed out games every week.
If the media was anything close to fair/insightful, the narrative would be Spurs has played the best, most consistently good football, with best chance of future progress and Leicester has played percentage football while simultaneously having one of the luckiest seasons any club has had ... (and well done to them for taking advantage of it)
Looking forward to how do we make the next step
- Bench depth
- Better start to season
- Addition of either an experienced head or game changer to first team
Think the point people miss with the points lost from winning position is spurs does not shut up shop when in the lead (Scum game is the perfect example), we continue to push to score more. It's what's entertaining, its what we the fans want to see, so I for one are willing to concede the occasional slip up vs. 60 minutes of managed out games every week.
If the media was anything close to fair/insightful, the narrative would be Spurs has played the best, most consistently good football, with best chance of future progress and Leicester has played percentage football while simultaneously having one of the luckiest seasons any club has had ... (and well done to them for taking advantage of it)
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Spot on.
Let's remember our actual expectations this season. Let's remember that this was the first time in decades we've been able to re-adjust our targets to include a title challenge during a season.
I disagree, I think at times we have tried to close out a game when we've had a narrow advantage, we just aren't adept at doing it yet. Think Arsenal at home, 2-1 up and them down to 10 men. We weren't all over them after the sending off and it wasn't as if we got hit with a sucker punch; as I remember it they were pushing for the equaliser when down to ten men and could have even won it. By the end, we were hanging on for a 2-2 draw, not going wave after wave with attacks.
I think us learning how to cynically close out a game, particularly if we are ahead with ten minutes to go, is something we'll need to learn how to do -- it may just come with experience or may require a tactical tweak, or a little of both. I bet we'll have games in the Champions League next season where we'll need to just hold what we have and defend against a team superior to us.
Very different scenario, I struggle to think of a game in the PL this season where the opposition was superior to us. The Dortmund games were the only ones I felt you could see a quality gap (and we didn't play our full strength team).
agree re managing out last 10-15 minutes, but not if it's managing out 30-45 minutes.
***I apologise for the length of this post***
@Raziel agree, it's a different scenario having to do it against a top side as opposed to West Brom, Saudi Sportswashing Machine etc. Though if we can shut down a lesser team when we have to, perhaps it'd give us a bit more confidence when we are faced with a sterner test. I agree that we don't necessarily want to try and shut down a game too early, or we lose the attacking edge we have that gains us leads in the first place.
Another consideration is the occasion, the pressure of the situation, as much as the quality of the opposition. Having that defensive confidence and solidity, knowing you can close out that 1-0 win with 20 minutes to go in a high pressure game against a lesser team. Think of our recent game with West Brom, we were 1-0 up, 20 mins to go and a must-win for the title race. Things hadn't really gone out way infront of goal, it felt like one of those games that we have had a fair few of over the years at home -- you know, where you think to yourself "if we don't get the 2nd goal here, these qunts are gonna equalise." Under the pressure of a title charge, it'd be amazing for our team to be able to go Mourinho for 20 mins and close out a 1-0.
There are two types of games where we have surrendered leads in the league. Those early season ones, which may have just been down to a bit of sloppyness (Stoke at home 2-0 to 2-2, Leicester away 1-0 to 1-1). In those games, I'd agree with you, we don't just want to see us be a boring team at 2-0 up to Stoke and look to manage it out for the entire 2nd half (we were 2-0 up after 45 mins). But when Stoke got it back to 2-1, it was 78 mins on the clock. At that point, it'd be good for us as a team to have a tactical/mental Plan B and do a Mourinho for the last 10-15 mins. Even for Mourinho, it doesn't always work, but it's good to know you can attempt it and be successful at it much of the time.
Against Leicester (early season), we stole infront 1-0 with 10 mins to go. Unfortunately we conceded straight away. Whether a different mindset may have helped with a 10-minute game where we just have to not concede, I'm not sure.
Arsenal away, a different kind of pressure. Still quite early in the season, no title race at this point, but a North London derby at their place is still more pressure than other games. We played really well, probably should have gone 2-0 up at some point. Gibbs got an equaliser for them on 77 mins, so again, perhaps a different plan to manage a 1-0 lead with 15 mins to go may have helped us in a high pressure game. It may not have, as Arsenal are a very good side and score against most teams.
But they are all early season, and nothing was really on the line. We lost one other lead in the earlier part of the season, West Brom away. This game went 1-1 early (by the 39th minute) and I'd just put that down to one of those things. Sometimes, we'll just drop points after leading a game and that's football, nobody's perfect.
So the other type of game where we lost a lead and dropped points would be the later season ones, the 'title race' ones, the first of which was Arsenal at home. We got it back to 2-1 and had some good luck with them deciding to be silly and go down to ten men. This was a strange old game. We went 1-0 down, then Coquelin got sent off on 55 mins. We were 2-1 up by 62 mins. Momentum was with us, and I think it was right to look to be positive, make it 3-1 and kill it. However, momentum did start to swing back their way quite quickly as I remember. This was a high pressure game, closing out the win would have seen us go top of the league until Leicester's next game. Now this is perhaps where squad options come into play, because Poch DID try and change things and solidify what we had. He swapped Mason for Lamela. Goons shortly afterwards brought on Giroud, got their equaliser a minute later and that was that. Things may have been different if we'd have had a Wanyama type player to come off the bench, move Dembele further up and really look to shut Arsenal down. Mason for Lamela felt like a half-measure in that regard, and so it proved. Maybe it wasn't just the actual sub, but the fact that we aren't yet mentally/tactically ready to hold on to a narrow lead in a high pressure scenario. I think it's a little of both.
So the next time we lost a lead and dropped points was West Brom at home, which we've already covered. Then it was Chelsea away, 2-0 up at half-time, no real problems. 2-1 is always going to be a big momentum shift in a game like that and we had to win to keep title hopes alive. Again, Poch did try and do something to stem the tide at 2-1 up, he subbed Mason on for Son (65 mins). Would a Wanyama type be a better weapon for Poch in this scenario? Move Dembele further up, sit Wanyama alongside Dier? Again, probably a combination of that and not being mentally/tactically quite there to hold out under the pressure of the occasion. We did somewhat stop their momentum, because we could have made it 3-1 and it took until 83 mins for Hazard to make it 2-2. Maybe a different tactical plan for those last ten mins would have helped, if Poch had better options from the bench. Who knows?
Interesting things to ponder. I am almost certain that Poch will want to sign another defensive midfielder in the summer both to cover/compete with Dier and to play alongside him as a tactical option (a big upgrade on using Mason in this way, who is naturally a more attack minded player trying to do a defensive minded job in those circumstances).
@Raziel agree, it's a different scenario having to do it against a top side as opposed to West Brom, Saudi Sportswashing Machine etc. Though if we can shut down a lesser team when we have to, perhaps it'd give us a bit more confidence when we are faced with a sterner test. I agree that we don't necessarily want to try and shut down a game too early, or we lose the attacking edge we have that gains us leads in the first place.
Another consideration is the occasion, the pressure of the situation, as much as the quality of the opposition. Having that defensive confidence and solidity, knowing you can close out that 1-0 win with 20 minutes to go in a high pressure game against a lesser team. Think of our recent game with West Brom, we were 1-0 up, 20 mins to go and a must-win for the title race. Things hadn't really gone out way infront of goal, it felt like one of those games that we have had a fair few of over the years at home -- you know, where you think to yourself "if we don't get the 2nd goal here, these qunts are gonna equalise." Under the pressure of a title charge, it'd be amazing for our team to be able to go Mourinho for 20 mins and close out a 1-0.
There are two types of games where we have surrendered leads in the league. Those early season ones, which may have just been down to a bit of sloppyness (Stoke at home 2-0 to 2-2, Leicester away 1-0 to 1-1). In those games, I'd agree with you, we don't just want to see us be a boring team at 2-0 up to Stoke and look to manage it out for the entire 2nd half (we were 2-0 up after 45 mins). But when Stoke got it back to 2-1, it was 78 mins on the clock. At that point, it'd be good for us as a team to have a tactical/mental Plan B and do a Mourinho for the last 10-15 mins. Even for Mourinho, it doesn't always work, but it's good to know you can attempt it and be successful at it much of the time.
Against Leicester (early season), we stole infront 1-0 with 10 mins to go. Unfortunately we conceded straight away. Whether a different mindset may have helped with a 10-minute game where we just have to not concede, I'm not sure.
Arsenal away, a different kind of pressure. Still quite early in the season, no title race at this point, but a North London derby at their place is still more pressure than other games. We played really well, probably should have gone 2-0 up at some point. Gibbs got an equaliser for them on 77 mins, so again, perhaps a different plan to manage a 1-0 lead with 15 mins to go may have helped us in a high pressure game. It may not have, as Arsenal are a very good side and score against most teams.
But they are all early season, and nothing was really on the line. We lost one other lead in the earlier part of the season, West Brom away. This game went 1-1 early (by the 39th minute) and I'd just put that down to one of those things. Sometimes, we'll just drop points after leading a game and that's football, nobody's perfect.
So the other type of game where we lost a lead and dropped points would be the later season ones, the 'title race' ones, the first of which was Arsenal at home. We got it back to 2-1 and had some good luck with them deciding to be silly and go down to ten men. This was a strange old game. We went 1-0 down, then Coquelin got sent off on 55 mins. We were 2-1 up by 62 mins. Momentum was with us, and I think it was right to look to be positive, make it 3-1 and kill it. However, momentum did start to swing back their way quite quickly as I remember. This was a high pressure game, closing out the win would have seen us go top of the league until Leicester's next game. Now this is perhaps where squad options come into play, because Poch DID try and change things and solidify what we had. He swapped Mason for Lamela. Goons shortly afterwards brought on Giroud, got their equaliser a minute later and that was that. Things may have been different if we'd have had a Wanyama type player to come off the bench, move Dembele further up and really look to shut Arsenal down. Mason for Lamela felt like a half-measure in that regard, and so it proved. Maybe it wasn't just the actual sub, but the fact that we aren't yet mentally/tactically ready to hold on to a narrow lead in a high pressure scenario. I think it's a little of both.
So the next time we lost a lead and dropped points was West Brom at home, which we've already covered. Then it was Chelsea away, 2-0 up at half-time, no real problems. 2-1 is always going to be a big momentum shift in a game like that and we had to win to keep title hopes alive. Again, Poch did try and do something to stem the tide at 2-1 up, he subbed Mason on for Son (65 mins). Would a Wanyama type be a better weapon for Poch in this scenario? Move Dembele further up, sit Wanyama alongside Dier? Again, probably a combination of that and not being mentally/tactically quite there to hold out under the pressure of the occasion. We did somewhat stop their momentum, because we could have made it 3-1 and it took until 83 mins for Hazard to make it 2-2. Maybe a different tactical plan for those last ten mins would have helped, if Poch had better options from the bench. Who knows?
Interesting things to ponder. I am almost certain that Poch will want to sign another defensive midfielder in the summer both to cover/compete with Dier and to play alongside him as a tactical option (a big upgrade on using Mason in this way, who is naturally a more attack minded player trying to do a defensive minded job in those circumstances).
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Verheijen has (imo) been rightly criticized by, among others the second captains podcast, for confusing what's best for the player's fitness with what's best for the team.
If, for the sake of argument, I agree with Verheijen that we have "collapsed" and this was not a surprise and a cause of us running too much. And just to be clear that's a huge if and only for the sake of argument. This has to be balanced up against the benefits of that approach. Our approach has gotten us at least 3rd in a season where competing for 4th was our target. It got us to a last month of the season title challenge when our aim was much lower. There are downsides to our approach, but there are also benefits. You cannot claim we "ran too much" and point only to the downsides ignoring what the downsides would be to running less. Or at least you can't do that without being accused of lacking in rationale.
The downfall of the hard working high pressing sides has been predicted by many. Yet Guardiola's very hard working Barcelona kept succeeding. Atletico Madrid just got to their second CL final and have combined real CL challenges with La Liga title challenges competing with teams that make their budget look very small. Dortmund had one off year in about 7. Winning the league back to back, getting to a CL final whilst losing key players every year and again with a budget dwarfed both by their main Bundesliga rival and several CL teams they outperformed. Verheijen also predicted the downfall of Liverpool under Klopp, or rather he predicted injuries. They got injuries, but they've also done rather well on the pitch with a congested fixture list.
As for a solid 18-22 players to rotate: Walker, Trippier, Toby, Jan, Wimmer, Rose, Davies, Dier, Dembele, Mason/Bentaleb, Eriksen, Alli, Lamela, Son, Chadli, Clinton and Kane make up 17 players ignoring the goalkeepers. Our bench has not been made up of youngsters and squad fillers this season. Players like Wimmer, Trippier, Davies, Son and Chadli would be regular starters for mid-table PL sides at least imo. I get that Gutter Boy sometimes takes things to an extreme, but this kind of straw manning of his arguments really is no better.
I do not apologize for focusing on the part of your post I thought was the most interesting
Personally I think the option of having another very good passer on the bench is just as important for those circumstances. Part of why we get put under pressure is that we've not been good enough at keeping possession under pressure by accepting risk and being brave and good on the ball. Yes you can park the bus and hoof the ball away every chance you get in a situation like that. But just as valuable is the option to put on another "passer" and try to keep the ball and keep the opponents from building momentum through possession and making them chase it.
I also think that focusing on signings to sort out these problems is slightly one sided. We should look for all our 25 years and younger players to improve significantly over the next couple of seasons. Was Dembele as solid defensively at 21 as he is now? Of course not. Can Bentaleb develop to be solid enough? Perhaps he can. Can Dier get better on the ball? I think so. Can a youngster like Onomah or Winks have a real impact next season like Dier and Alli have had this season? Perhaps...
I will probably end up writing this a lot this summer. But player development, it's what we do.
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
Not sure it's always right to talk about 'surrendering' leads when quite often it's because we've simply been outplayed fair and square by an opponent so much more fired-up having gone a goal down.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Verheijen's argument was that we ran too much relative to Leicester City, though. I don't think he was comparing us to our competitors for a top three/top four place, he was comparing us to the league winners and pointing out that we'd come up short due to our more active pressing style when compared to Leicester's approach of standing off and conserving energy that way. When he talks of a Spurs collapse, it isn't relative to our challengers for a league position, but relative to our only challenger for a Premier League title.
Yes, our style got us to (or actually, far beyond) our season's targets. But that isn't his point. And, with regard to his point, I think the essential gist that we have to take from it isn't that our approach is wrong (it certainly isn't, even if predictions of us being 'more fit now than we were in September' ultimately proved a bit too far-fetched), but that we need a proportionately larger squad of trusted players to carry out our style of play consistently in a manner that preserves momentum and energy throughout the season in a title-challenging manner. When you point out the solid 18-22 players, I actually see our ideal first eleven (Lloris, Walker, Toby, Verts, Rose, Dier, Dembele, Lamela, Alli, Eriksen, Kane) ably supported by good backups in certain positions. Vorm, Trippier and Davies (the reserve full-backs), Wimmer, N'Jie, Son and Chadli are undoubtedly good players to have and able depth (and in Son's case, that actually does him an injustice, imo; he'd be starting for us if Alli hadn't taken the world by storm). That's 18 players.
But in terms of the central midfield, we're lacking in replacements for Dier and Dembele, as has now been proven in Mousa's case. We're lacking in backup for Kane. And crucially, we have a lot of idiosyncratic roles assigned to players in our eleven that cannot be seamlessly replaced by players that are slotted in if needed; we cannot recreate Toby and Jan's partnership if Toby's out, we cannot recreate Mousa's effect on our possession stats and midfield dominance if he's out, we cannot replace Eriksen's unique combination of inventiveness and graft, and we cannot replace Lamela's relentless pressing.
Cover's needed, badly so. And Carroll, Mason, Bentaleb (although injury has laid the latter duo low) and Winks (all of whom have seen significant time on the bench this season, if you'll recall) are not it at the moment. If the ideal team needed to seamlessly press and harry from the first game to the last requires sets of players that can interchange as seamlessly and brilliantly as our full-backs have done this season, then we're pretty off that, and persisting with such a bench isn't the answer. That's the lesson that Verheijen's criticism offers us, imo, not his repudiation of what we do (which, if you're right, is more based on him prioritising players over the team, anyway).
I do not apologize for focusing on the part of your post I thought was the most interesting
Personally I think the option of having another very good passer on the bench is just as important for those circumstances. Part of why we get put under pressure is that we've not been good enough at keeping possession under pressure by accepting risk and being brave and good on the ball. Yes you can park the bus and hoof the ball away every chance you get in a situation like that. But just as valuable is the option to put on another "passer" and try to keep the ball and keep the opponents from building momentum through possession and making them chase it.
A very good point, certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Perhaps in a situation like the Arsenal game, where they are a passing side down to ten men, making them chase the ball would have been the perfect thing to do. As you say, that requires a certain bravery in possession along with the technical skill to execute.
More brute force defensive measures might be useful against a Pulis type team, defending a narrow lead with not long left, as they don't need much possession to hurt their opponent, relying on being direct and physical for their attacks, winning 2nd balls etc.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Arsenal do not run as much as us, and they have more experience. January first they were top of the league 2 points ahead of Leicester. They were clearly title challengers. That perhaps doesn't fit Verheijen's narrative though? What explains their collapse? And actually the amount of running done by players like Vardy, Okazaki, Albrighton and Kante is repeatedly brought up as a reason for Leicester's success.
How did we get to where we are? Player development, smart purchases, great squad morale and a system the players with well into seems like some of the keys to me. This is what we have to maintain to keep being successful with less money than some of our competitors. This (imo) has been key for the continued success of Atletico Madrid and Dortmund, who we are essentially trying to emulate.
You paint a pretty picture of seamless interchanging, but is it realistic? Is there a team around that has seamless backups/rotation options for their best and idiosyncratic players? Is this a realistic aim? Seems to me both Atletico and Dortmund have failed by your standard. As has just about every team in the world. If we ever get to where you want us to be I think we get there by continually developing players and trusting young players to step it up. Just like we've trusted Wimmer, Dier, Alli, Lamela, Kane and others.
You're asking for what City and Chelsea with all their money have failed to do (with a different style of play). A seamless 18-22 man squad where any player can be replaced without a drop in quality. Look at Atletico, look at Dortmund. How are they handling their business? How much trust do they show young and developing players. Where has that gotten them with limited budgets? Yes they've struggled when important key players have been missing, this is the reality they and we have to live by. But meanwhile they've developed players, stayed at a very high level with impressive consistency and gotten stronger and stronger financially and on the pitch.
This is getting slightly philosophical, but I think our success in the coming season will be partly defined by how we manage our younger players currently outside the starting 11. If we succeed at continually develop these players we'll do great. If we, like CIty and Chelsea, fail to integrate and develop what are clearly very talented young players we will struggle. Because financially we will not be able to compete directly with the richer clubs. Pochettino has shown great faith in our young players, and Southampton's and Espanyol's young players before that. I think it's been not only necessity, but also a clear strategy. It's a strategy we must continue to keep performing above our financial limitations.
As we've seen with Chelsea and City sending young players out on loan and waiting for them to be at the level where they can seamlessly rotate with world class (or close to) world class players isn't really an effective approach. In fact there is really no reason to think it will work. Chelsea would have been hugely helped by Lukaku and De Bruyne in their squad this season, but those players were sold before they could get to that level. For me we must succeed with players like Bentaleb, Onomah, CCV, Clinton etc. If they're not good enough (probably not all are) we must look to find players that are. But the success of integrating and developing this kind of player in our team is key for us. And your aim of short term seamless rotation doesn't seem possible to combine with our (I think explicit) goal of developing and integrating our younger players.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
@braineclipse
To get equally philsophical, Marcelo Bielsa once asserted that, were football played exclusively by robots, he'd never, ever lose a game. It speaks to the abstract perfection of his philosophy, a philosophy of which both Pep and Poch are avowed disciples (although they emphasize differing elements of said approach). Press hard, press high, never give the opposition time to form an attack while attacking endlessly yourselves. Snuff out passing lanes, always be aware of your position, play direct or play short, whatever emphasizes the most efficient route to goal while denying the ball to your opposition.
It's football purity, in a way. A relentless, attacking approach that will win games and titles while being simultaneously aesthetically pleasing and defensively sound - after all, what can the opposition do without the ball? - and what ideal could be purer than this? Unfortunately, football is played by humans, not by robots. And humans get tired, make mistakes, and falter (sometimes falling) against superior opponents.
Rectifying this has been the challenge of clubs and managers worldwide for as long as Bielsa-ish total football tactics have existed. And for every Barcelona, Atletico or Dortmund, there's five or six clubs that run like lunatics, defend like amateurs, concede fifty or sixty goals while perhaps scoring sixty-five or seventy (if they're lucky) and finish the season burnt out and limp. The difference is simply in the trust afforded to the individual player in a system like Bielsa's versus more ordered, less grandiose tactics - a player in a Bielsa system is trusted to perform multiple roles and run multiple games in the space of one; and if he or she fails, the system fails with them. With more conservative tactics, roles are limited and mistakes are more easily rectified. It is what sees clubs that adopt elements of such risky tactics fail so soundly when their players are proven to be not of the standard required for such endeavours.
To avoid such a fate and win trophies and titles, to me, seems to lie in two elements - the first is the tactical and strategic acumen of the coach who recognizes when to push his players on, and when to hold them back; when to accelerate to peak training intensity, and when to relax. To manage a team is a finicky process of wildly disparate processes being combined to send eleven footballers out onto the pitch come the weekend in the best shape to win, and the coach who is trusted to implement such tactics as the ones Bielsa comes up with must be a master of it.
Here, I have no concerns. We have a (very) good coach who's studied long and hard at the elbow of Bielsa himself, among others - I don't doubt that Poch knows how to keep a team fit and firing on a tactical and strategic level.
However, the second element is perhaps even more crucial - it requires a squad of footballers who can be rotated into and out of sides with no corresponding dip in performances. Make no mistake, Verheijen isn't saying Leicester don't run at all; it's that they run a) less than us, and b) with more *quality* (I believe that's the exact word he uses in his statement), choosing their moments to press and stand off. We, by contrast (in Verheijen's view, and it's one I'm inclined to agree with) run relentlessly, whatever the opponent and time, and it cost us. Not because of Verheijen's smug belief in the 'less equals better' approach, but because, in my view, *we lacked the players to keep that pace up as the season wore on.* If we want to win titles, we'll need that sort of squad; and in the Premier League especially. Other leagues have a more concentrated nature, where quality is spread more unevenly. We don't have that luxury.
You ask if rotation of the sort that I'm envisioning is realistic. I counter that it definitely is, because we've already done it with two positions that are arguably critical to the success of Poch's philosophy here; namely, the full-backs. Trippier and Davies weren't big-money purchases (and remember, I'm not advocating for exclusively expensive signings here by any means). But they were excellent ones that could be plugged into the side at will, with us suffering *no* adverse effects for playing them instead of Rose and Walker. We have already gathered rotational options for two positions in the starting eleven that fit this quality we need; I'm willing to wager that we already have a third option in the form of Wimmer, who we could rotate into and out of the side without any adverse impact on our results and performances in Verts' absence (indeed, I think our PPG was slightly higher with Wimmer than it is with Verts).
Where we're lacking is in such options for our central midfielders and our striker, and perhaps our central attacking midfielders in Eriksen, Lamela and Alli (although we have a surfeit of ball-playing inside forwards who could be used in some of those roles with reasonable confidence, imo). To that end, we do not need players who possess *every* attribute of the ones they replace (just like Davies and Trippier don't possess *all* the pace and strength that Rose and Walker do, and just like Wimmer doesn't possess *all* the technical skill that Verts does), we just need players who can replace their most important attribute. Someone who can press like Lamela, who can carry the ball forward like Dembele, who can hold it up and lay it off like Kane. And, in time, those players can be taught the more secondary skills the first-team players possess, to make them even better replacements.
At present, we don't have those replacements. And I remain unconvinced that it isn't possible to acquire them, seeing as we've done it with our full-backs and LCB position already. You assert that young players have to be blooded at the club, have to have a *role*, and I agree; there are 25 places in a PL-standard squad, 22 of which are essentially two sets of eleven players, a reserve goalie...and then two more spots. For me, I'd definitely keep young players who *aren't* suited to directly replacing first-team players just yet in those spots, i.e, Onomah and one other, if we're talking specifics. And I'd see that they a) train to become replacements for those first-team players as much as possible, and b) blood them where possible and whenever possible in scenarios where them entering idiosyncratic first-team roles without the requisite skills or playing patterns (leading to an inevitable drop in performance levels) doesn't lead to us dropping points or losing games. When they train to the level where they can passably replace the relevant first-team player, move one of the rotation options out of the 'second eleven' and move a young player in. As their skills correspondingly grow, move them into the first team if and when the first-team players drop off. It's a passage into the first eleven that doesn't lead to team performances suffering, but gives young players the chance to make the first team if they're ready.
At present, Mason, Bentaleb, Winks and Carroll haven't proved to be adequate replacements for their first-team counterparts, yet they're the ones we turn to on our bench when replacements are necessary. For me, we can change that, and we should. That's what I mean by rotation, and I remain convinced that building a bench and squad that way will lead us to overcome the shortcomings of our style of play that Verheijen (whatever his flaws and biases) has indeed somewhat accurately identified.
Edit; to clarify, I'm not advocating that we *buy* a second-string eleven and then only give two spots to our young players either, since I recognize that it might come across that way. Take Pritchard, for example; he can cover any of the middle three attacking midfield slots, and he had a great season at Brentford last year, single-handedly becoming their creative dynamo. Can he replace Alli, Lamela or Eriksen with no or at worst a marginal dip in team performance levels? Can he *passably* replicate Lamela's pressing, Eriksen's combination of graft and inventiveness or Alli's physicality mixed with technical brilliance? If so, no need to buy a player, we've got one right there. Train him to more seamlessly fit into the first eleven, and stick him on the bench. If there's another young attacking midfielder that then emerges and takes a place in the 25-man squad (Edwards, for example), re-evaluate Pritchard's role, and move Edwards into it if he's talented enough to replace him; move him straight into the first team, even, if his skill and potential benefit to the first team warrants such a move.
To get equally philsophical, Marcelo Bielsa once asserted that, were football played exclusively by robots, he'd never, ever lose a game. It speaks to the abstract perfection of his philosophy, a philosophy of which both Pep and Poch are avowed disciples (although they emphasize differing elements of said approach). Press hard, press high, never give the opposition time to form an attack while attacking endlessly yourselves. Snuff out passing lanes, always be aware of your position, play direct or play short, whatever emphasizes the most efficient route to goal while denying the ball to your opposition.
It's football purity, in a way. A relentless, attacking approach that will win games and titles while being simultaneously aesthetically pleasing and defensively sound - after all, what can the opposition do without the ball? - and what ideal could be purer than this? Unfortunately, football is played by humans, not by robots. And humans get tired, make mistakes, and falter (sometimes falling) against superior opponents.
Rectifying this has been the challenge of clubs and managers worldwide for as long as Bielsa-ish total football tactics have existed. And for every Barcelona, Atletico or Dortmund, there's five or six clubs that run like lunatics, defend like amateurs, concede fifty or sixty goals while perhaps scoring sixty-five or seventy (if they're lucky) and finish the season burnt out and limp. The difference is simply in the trust afforded to the individual player in a system like Bielsa's versus more ordered, less grandiose tactics - a player in a Bielsa system is trusted to perform multiple roles and run multiple games in the space of one; and if he or she fails, the system fails with them. With more conservative tactics, roles are limited and mistakes are more easily rectified. It is what sees clubs that adopt elements of such risky tactics fail so soundly when their players are proven to be not of the standard required for such endeavours.
To avoid such a fate and win trophies and titles, to me, seems to lie in two elements - the first is the tactical and strategic acumen of the coach who recognizes when to push his players on, and when to hold them back; when to accelerate to peak training intensity, and when to relax. To manage a team is a finicky process of wildly disparate processes being combined to send eleven footballers out onto the pitch come the weekend in the best shape to win, and the coach who is trusted to implement such tactics as the ones Bielsa comes up with must be a master of it.
Here, I have no concerns. We have a (very) good coach who's studied long and hard at the elbow of Bielsa himself, among others - I don't doubt that Poch knows how to keep a team fit and firing on a tactical and strategic level.
However, the second element is perhaps even more crucial - it requires a squad of footballers who can be rotated into and out of sides with no corresponding dip in performances. Make no mistake, Verheijen isn't saying Leicester don't run at all; it's that they run a) less than us, and b) with more *quality* (I believe that's the exact word he uses in his statement), choosing their moments to press and stand off. We, by contrast (in Verheijen's view, and it's one I'm inclined to agree with) run relentlessly, whatever the opponent and time, and it cost us. Not because of Verheijen's smug belief in the 'less equals better' approach, but because, in my view, *we lacked the players to keep that pace up as the season wore on.* If we want to win titles, we'll need that sort of squad; and in the Premier League especially. Other leagues have a more concentrated nature, where quality is spread more unevenly. We don't have that luxury.
You ask if rotation of the sort that I'm envisioning is realistic. I counter that it definitely is, because we've already done it with two positions that are arguably critical to the success of Poch's philosophy here; namely, the full-backs. Trippier and Davies weren't big-money purchases (and remember, I'm not advocating for exclusively expensive signings here by any means). But they were excellent ones that could be plugged into the side at will, with us suffering *no* adverse effects for playing them instead of Rose and Walker. We have already gathered rotational options for two positions in the starting eleven that fit this quality we need; I'm willing to wager that we already have a third option in the form of Wimmer, who we could rotate into and out of the side without any adverse impact on our results and performances in Verts' absence (indeed, I think our PPG was slightly higher with Wimmer than it is with Verts).
Where we're lacking is in such options for our central midfielders and our striker, and perhaps our central attacking midfielders in Eriksen, Lamela and Alli (although we have a surfeit of ball-playing inside forwards who could be used in some of those roles with reasonable confidence, imo). To that end, we do not need players who possess *every* attribute of the ones they replace (just like Davies and Trippier don't possess *all* the pace and strength that Rose and Walker do, and just like Wimmer doesn't possess *all* the technical skill that Verts does), we just need players who can replace their most important attribute. Someone who can press like Lamela, who can carry the ball forward like Dembele, who can hold it up and lay it off like Kane. And, in time, those players can be taught the more secondary skills the first-team players possess, to make them even better replacements.
At present, we don't have those replacements. And I remain unconvinced that it isn't possible to acquire them, seeing as we've done it with our full-backs and LCB position already. You assert that young players have to be blooded at the club, have to have a *role*, and I agree; there are 25 places in a PL-standard squad, 22 of which are essentially two sets of eleven players, a reserve goalie...and then two more spots. For me, I'd definitely keep young players who *aren't* suited to directly replacing first-team players just yet in those spots, i.e, Onomah and one other, if we're talking specifics. And I'd see that they a) train to become replacements for those first-team players as much as possible, and b) blood them where possible and whenever possible in scenarios where them entering idiosyncratic first-team roles without the requisite skills or playing patterns (leading to an inevitable drop in performance levels) doesn't lead to us dropping points or losing games. When they train to the level where they can passably replace the relevant first-team player, move one of the rotation options out of the 'second eleven' and move a young player in. As their skills correspondingly grow, move them into the first team if and when the first-team players drop off. It's a passage into the first eleven that doesn't lead to team performances suffering, but gives young players the chance to make the first team if they're ready.
At present, Mason, Bentaleb, Winks and Carroll haven't proved to be adequate replacements for their first-team counterparts, yet they're the ones we turn to on our bench when replacements are necessary. For me, we can change that, and we should. That's what I mean by rotation, and I remain convinced that building a bench and squad that way will lead us to overcome the shortcomings of our style of play that Verheijen (whatever his flaws and biases) has indeed somewhat accurately identified.
Edit; to clarify, I'm not advocating that we *buy* a second-string eleven and then only give two spots to our young players either, since I recognize that it might come across that way. Take Pritchard, for example; he can cover any of the middle three attacking midfield slots, and he had a great season at Brentford last year, single-handedly becoming their creative dynamo. Can he replace Alli, Lamela or Eriksen with no or at worst a marginal dip in team performance levels? Can he *passably* replicate Lamela's pressing, Eriksen's combination of graft and inventiveness or Alli's physicality mixed with technical brilliance? If so, no need to buy a player, we've got one right there. Train him to more seamlessly fit into the first eleven, and stick him on the bench. If there's another young attacking midfielder that then emerges and takes a place in the 25-man squad (Edwards, for example), re-evaluate Pritchard's role, and move Edwards into it if he's talented enough to replace him; move him straight into the first team, even, if his skill and potential benefit to the first team warrants such a move.
Last edited:
braineclipse
Willie Hall
@DubaiSpur
Part of what makes a high press, high intensity, loads of running game work is simply who you buy. Several teams that do not run as much as us overall have individual players that match ours. Milner at City and Brenton's Liverpool and Ramsey at Arsenal as examples. What makes our approach work is that we limit ourselves to signing players that fit into that category. Pochettino swiftly shipped out the half of our squad that couldn't do that, and we've signed players that fit the bill ever since. Here already Verheijens analysis breaks down, because he's not (as far as I know) denying that individual players can do this.
-Davies was not signed and stepped right in as that rotation player though. IIIRC I argued against people that had given up on him as early as the moment we signed him and as late as the first half of this season.
-Trippier similarly did not step right in and perform. In fact his first half of this season was fairly disappointing, though he upped his game quite well.
-Lamela is now at that level, but I again remember discussing with people who had given up on him quite a bit into this season. That was a huge chunk of money and 2 seasons before he reached that level.
These do not seem like the kind of players you're talking about when you want us to sign players that can come in this summer and be at a level of seamless rotation for next season.
You're asking our young talented players to train to the level where they can passably replace the relevant first-team player. That is a really high bar for a young player to reach without doing so through actually getting considerable game time. What you're describing is essentially the Chelsea approach, except it turns out essentially no young player manages to step up to that level without being given real game time.
I think we must accept that there will be a drop in performance when we replace a first team player with a younger backup player that's not as far along in his development if we want to actually develop young players. Most seem to agree that Onomah is an exceptional talent, but his impact this season has obviously not been at the level of for example Sigurdsson. If we do not accept that we should just keep Sigurdsson and send Onomah out on loan and hope beyond hope that he can do what a long string of Chelsea players haven't been able to do.
It seems to me that your description of "haven't proved to be adequate replacements for their first-team counterparts", yet they're the ones we turn to on our bench when replacements are necessary has been true about Dier, Alli, Kane and Lamela at various times. It's also been true about Davies and Trippier as well as Wimmer. Though in some of those instances it's been because they simply hadn't been given the chance yet. But people most certainly made the exact same arguments as you are making now when arguing why we Levy needed to get going and sign some players for Pochettino. Because obviously it wasn't that Pochettino actually rated these players, no one could actually rate these players this highly. Dier and Alli were just for the future. Kane and Lamela were somewhere between useless and not good enough to sit on our bench. We must sign someone that's good enough right now! Both for the first team and for the first choice backup. These younger players can develop in training...
Part of what makes a high press, high intensity, loads of running game work is simply who you buy. Several teams that do not run as much as us overall have individual players that match ours. Milner at City and Brenton's Liverpool and Ramsey at Arsenal as examples. What makes our approach work is that we limit ourselves to signing players that fit into that category. Pochettino swiftly shipped out the half of our squad that couldn't do that, and we've signed players that fit the bill ever since. Here already Verheijens analysis breaks down, because he's not (as far as I know) denying that individual players can do this.
-Davies was not signed and stepped right in as that rotation player though. IIIRC I argued against people that had given up on him as early as the moment we signed him and as late as the first half of this season.
-Trippier similarly did not step right in and perform. In fact his first half of this season was fairly disappointing, though he upped his game quite well.
-Lamela is now at that level, but I again remember discussing with people who had given up on him quite a bit into this season. That was a huge chunk of money and 2 seasons before he reached that level.
These do not seem like the kind of players you're talking about when you want us to sign players that can come in this summer and be at a level of seamless rotation for next season.
You're asking our young talented players to train to the level where they can passably replace the relevant first-team player. That is a really high bar for a young player to reach without doing so through actually getting considerable game time. What you're describing is essentially the Chelsea approach, except it turns out essentially no young player manages to step up to that level without being given real game time.
I think we must accept that there will be a drop in performance when we replace a first team player with a younger backup player that's not as far along in his development if we want to actually develop young players. Most seem to agree that Onomah is an exceptional talent, but his impact this season has obviously not been at the level of for example Sigurdsson. If we do not accept that we should just keep Sigurdsson and send Onomah out on loan and hope beyond hope that he can do what a long string of Chelsea players haven't been able to do.
It seems to me that your description of "haven't proved to be adequate replacements for their first-team counterparts", yet they're the ones we turn to on our bench when replacements are necessary has been true about Dier, Alli, Kane and Lamela at various times. It's also been true about Davies and Trippier as well as Wimmer. Though in some of those instances it's been because they simply hadn't been given the chance yet. But people most certainly made the exact same arguments as you are making now when arguing why we Levy needed to get going and sign some players for Pochettino. Because obviously it wasn't that Pochettino actually rated these players, no one could actually rate these players this highly. Dier and Alli were just for the future. Kane and Lamela were somewhere between useless and not good enough to sit on our bench. We must sign someone that's good enough right now! Both for the first team and for the first choice backup. These younger players can develop in training...
@braineclipse One thing I would say about our squad options for centre midfield is that they don't have the physical attributes of Dier and Dembele, and imo, the power that they bring to games, sweeping around the park and covering everyone else's arse, that's been a big part of our defensive improvement this season. So if we want to maintain that power to our game in their absence, and our squad options don't possess it, we have to sign someone who does. Whether Poch will deem that as important is another matter, I hope he does though. We look a much better side for the added strength and athleticism through the middle of our team imo (it's not the only reason we look better, but it's a factor).
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Bentaleb at 20 certainly hasn't been a small or weak player. I would also say that Onomah seems to have a fantastic physical talent. If either of them is ready and in Pochettino's plans for next season I don't know. But it's not all looking Tom Carroll in our squad.
What has often been overlooked in the past is that Pochettino at Southampton seemed fond of those big strong central midfielders in Wanyama and Schneiderlin. Along with his preference for Dier and Dembele this season I suppose some would claim a trend and another sample size discussion could begin...
Certainly their size and physicality has been very useful in some situations in some games. I wouldn't want us to limit ourselves to that kind of physicality in central midfield though, would see us missing out on a lot of potentially excellent central midfielders.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Might not seem like it, but they're actually exactly the sort of players I want us to sign this summer. Essentially, in 2015, I wanted to see us sign improvements to the first team, and I was immensely happy that we signed Toby and Son, among others - it was the backup players (Trippier and Wimmer) who turned out to be very good as the season wore on, even as Toby impressed and Son struggled to a small extent. I certainly didn't see Davies or Trippier as bad signings based on their slightly shaky starts.
If there are players we want who can improve the first eleven, and they're available, by all means, sign 'em. Someone better than Dembele, for example - if we want that sort of player, I'd be happy, as it increases competition in its own way (by making Dembele the rotation option) and improves the overall quality of the squad. But, failing that, players who work damn hard, have the right physical and technical attributes for our style of play, gel with the rest of the squad, and can be used as replacements for our players when the season gets white-hot and the games flow thick and fast (i.e, up to and after the Christmas period) would also suit me, although I hold that such players tend to be more expensive than a lot of people assume. There will be an adaptation period, of course - the difference lies in the scale. A player who adapts in a period of four to six months can be said to be a rotation player - a player who grows into his role over years is a more long-term prospect that I'd class as a young player who either needs to be introduced into the squad gradually or sent out on loan prior to being introduced into the squad more rapidly (if it's successful).
I'm not asking for our young players to instantly replace the first-teamers they do get substituted on for, either - take Onomah (who I think has a real future as a CM who drives from deep a la Dembele). The key is in the world 'passably'. Do I expect him to spray passes around like Eriksen, or hold on to the ball against four, five, six players like Dembele does at times? No, of course not. Do I expect him to passably simulate such traits? I.e, if he's replacing Dembele, is he reasonably hard to knock off the ball, does he put in a reasonable amount of tackles and physical challenges, does he dribble powerfully (perhaps past a couple of players at a time) and get the ball forward in a manner that somewhat resembles Dembele? If he's replacing Eriksen, do I expect him to track back like Eriksen does, and play the same incisive inside passes on breakways (which are easier to execute than more difficult plays through packed defenses)? Sure, I do. Or Pritchard for Lamela (although Pritchard's older than most of our other 'young' players) - do I expect him to immediately, seamlessly play those mesmerising through-balls for Kane and co. that Lamela sometimes pulls off? No. Do I expect him to press like Lamela does, harry, nip and tackle opponents, never giving them a moments' peace? Sure.
If they can't passably resemble those players, then they should still be given game time, but in low-risk situations - thirty minutes at the end of comfortable games, starts against lower-league sides or dead rubbers. If they *can* simulate such traits, then they're well suited to being the direct rotation option for the relevant player, with the prospect of replacing them in the first eleven as the seasons wear on. In the absence of such options, a rotation player can be signed, or a first-team player can be signed that pushes the first-teamer involved into the role of a rotation option. As always, the key is to have a seamlessly interchangeable squad.
(Btw, with regard to Alli, I don't think he ever was portrayed the way you're suggesting he was, as a liability not good enough for the squad; right from the first nut-meg on Modric in that friendly, he was impressive as all hell - introduced into the team after just a few games and never looked back.)
braineclipse
Willie Hall
You keep describing the Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project approach to youth development almost perfectly the way I see it. Give them 30 minutes towards the end of low risk matches. Perhaps a league cup start or two. Would you mind pointing towards some examples of the approach you're arguing for working out for teams overall? I've given several examples of teams succeeding with the kind of approach I'm advocating for us and tried to highlight where I think their approach differs from yours. But you're not responding to that from what I can see. You keep saying seamlessly interchangeable squad, but you're not pointing out which teams you think represents what you want us to do, or how they got there. Who are these teams with seamlessly interchangeable squads combined with good youth development?
What I do think happened is that people wanted us to sign more experience players last summer instead of giving young Alli a role that close to our starting 11 in our squad. Just like you're arguing that we need starting players and backup players and then the youngsters after that.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Well,I don't entirely know where you're getting the strange idea that Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project operate the way I've laid out above. Their modus operandi seems to be to sign about fifteen young, talented players, loan them our for years on end and then sell them when they're profitable enough to earn a lot of money which can then be spent on incoming transfers to get around FFP. This, on the other hand, seems to me to be qualitatively and quantitatively a step up from what either club affords most young players that sign for them.
The reason I haven't responded to the examples you've brought up is that I don't think they particularly bolster your point; I've noted that you've cited Atletico Madrid repeatedly, but I really can't imagine why you'd do that given that in many cases, the young players that they do have at the club are seemingly overlooked in favour of expensive buys or squad players in crunch situations, your example of Gimenez aside. Take Luciano Vietto as an example; he's had about ten games' worth of scattered, desultory minutes under Simeone, looked awful, been constantly shifted around in favour of (at first) Jackson Martinez, then Torres, then Angel Correa and now Torres again (while Griezmann remains a lock in that other strikers' position under Simeone when they do play a 4-4-2), and looks likely to depart on loan after being hailed as a priceless young talent at the start of the season. Loads of the talented young players they do sign or develop are sent out on loan (Borja Baston, a product of theirs, has been impressing on loan for three seasons now at Depor, Zaragoza and Eibar without breaking into the first team, and the likes of Manquillo and Guilavogui can share similar tales) while 'rotation' standard players are signed themselves (Martinez, Agusto Fernandez, Guilherme Siquera, Filipe Luis) and take their place with seemingly much greater ease. Of the players you did cite somewhere else, Oblak was the most expensive La Liga goalkeeper of all time when he signed from Benfica for 16 million euros in 2014, and *still* kicked his heels on the bench for the majority of the 2014-2015 season as Miguel Angel Moya, the veteran backup keeper, played 27 La Liga games and quite a few CL and cup games before Oblak finally got his chance towards the end of the campaign.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand why Atleti do what they do; I think they've misused some of their young players, but I can fully understand why they'd keep a roster of rotation options on hand that they can call on, while maintaining a pathway to the first team for their youth players that the more talented ones like Koke, Gimenez and Saul have freely utilised in recent seasons and the riskier ones have slowly been introduced to. But I just found it strange that you'd cite them as an example of youth development done right, when they really aren't according to your own definitions of such a term.
As for my own examples, I freely admit that it's difficult to point to a club and say 'that's how to do it', because it seems like common, accepted wisdom from my standpoint. If a player's really talented and offers a net benefit to the team immediately, play him immediately; start him if necessary. If he can replace the player in the first eleven *passably*, rotate him with that player and let him gain experience. If he can do neither of these things immediately, give him some minutes where you can and send him out on loan when he's ready, trusting that he can step into the rotation role when he returns. In the meantime, maintain a healthy roster of rotation players who can be called upon to slot into the side and perform at the same (or mostly the same) level as their counterparts. Whether that core of players is an entire eleven beyond the first eleven, or whether it's less than that seems to be your bone of contention; for me, it honestly doesn't matter as long as the key of being able to plug and remove players at will from the first team's primary tactic is maintained.
With Alli, you're grasping the wrong end of the stick. He came in and immediately lifted the team - there was never a period where someone thought 'the team's carrying him, maybe he needs to be benched'. From first to last, he improved the team immeasurably. To me, that's not even the standard of player your contention seems to be about - your (certainly somewhat justifiable) concern appears to be for the players like Onomah, who won't immediately look like a net benefit to the team. But Alli shouldn't enter into this - if someone's that talented, by all means play him immediately.
Last edited:
Bedfordspurs
Martin Peters
I think when your under the cosh you need to be able to mix it up style wise to gain the momentum back - a plan B of sorts
When you look at our full backs as has @DubaiSpur there actually a contrasting group. Pace and power of rose and walker and arguably better crosses in Davies and certainly Trippier, which menag both players to be used differently (trippier as a true winger vs Watford away for example at no detriment to our game)
We don't have players to offer variety to an equal level of Dembele or Dier. We have good plays but Mason and Bentelab don't offer anything that can change a game and it's why I think Carroll has had chances as he passes better so in theory we can keep the ball more and kill a game. But w heave seen that unless Mason is 100% on it he isn't as good as Anyone else in the first 11 and he is arguably the best if the subs.
When you look at the three behind Kane we have a real mix in our first choice group which is Alli, erisken, Lamella and Son. Their are goals, guile and work rate there. But the drop is noticeable when Chadli or Onomah come on and has been when Son has too at times. You need variety and an ability to mix it up and I like the suggestion someone else said about pushing Dembele forward if we have a genuine alternative for him on the bench. I also like the idea of dropping Kane back and bringing in an alternative forward.
And we are crying out for that other striker, again IMO a striker who is different but versatile like Kane. It's why I still think Berhino who can play wide and through the middle and still has that something about him. We can actually mix it up style wise with him as he is quicker than Kane and arguably a more striker when he wants to be like Defoe.
We're still on that learning curve and although I expect is to drop back a place or two in the league next season I fully expect us to be even better after this one
When you look at our full backs as has @DubaiSpur there actually a contrasting group. Pace and power of rose and walker and arguably better crosses in Davies and certainly Trippier, which menag both players to be used differently (trippier as a true winger vs Watford away for example at no detriment to our game)
We don't have players to offer variety to an equal level of Dembele or Dier. We have good plays but Mason and Bentelab don't offer anything that can change a game and it's why I think Carroll has had chances as he passes better so in theory we can keep the ball more and kill a game. But w heave seen that unless Mason is 100% on it he isn't as good as Anyone else in the first 11 and he is arguably the best if the subs.
When you look at the three behind Kane we have a real mix in our first choice group which is Alli, erisken, Lamella and Son. Their are goals, guile and work rate there. But the drop is noticeable when Chadli or Onomah come on and has been when Son has too at times. You need variety and an ability to mix it up and I like the suggestion someone else said about pushing Dembele forward if we have a genuine alternative for him on the bench. I also like the idea of dropping Kane back and bringing in an alternative forward.
And we are crying out for that other striker, again IMO a striker who is different but versatile like Kane. It's why I still think Berhino who can play wide and through the middle and still has that something about him. We can actually mix it up style wise with him as he is quicker than Kane and arguably a more striker when he wants to be like Defoe.
We're still on that learning curve and although I expect is to drop back a place or two in the league next season I fully expect us to be even better after this one
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
This is pretty spot on.
Mason and Carroll are OK players and certainly not bad players, but neither of them are particularly dynamic, neither can see/play an intricate pass, neither of them offer much of a goal threat. I like Mason's energy and work rate but that's not enough.
Bentaleb has some talent, but he's squandering it with his poor decision making on the pitch, something which Lamela has improved upon greatly this season.
We can get away with playing maybe one of them, but not two of them at the same time.
Strikers wise, I still maintain that even someone like Shane Long wouldn't be a bad shout. He wouldn't be my first choice, but he's got pace and I think Poch could do some good with him.