• 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

***TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR vs Saudi Sportswashing Machine OMT***

This one below from Fernadez:
I agree with him/her; it is sub optimal to expect full backs to play as #10s.
They aren't skilful enough, and also cannot get back to defend properly, despite us having 2 excellent players there.
It is a strange idea for me. For instance, what if we said Romero should push up and complement Richarlison in the box, so we have 2 headers attacking our crosses? Would that be a good idea, or a rather strange idea.
By all means we should be inventive and give players freedom and try to overload situations, but always sending both full backs up to crowd out Maddison doesn't seem to help us.

I believe that tactical adjustments will enable him to get more out of the players we have currently. We defend in a way that doesn't allow for any mistakes cause it's always running towards our own goal man for man. It's an impossible job for the defence which is why nobody does it.

A less gung ho attack would make us more solid. In the case of Udogie it's not like there is a great benefit to him playing as an auxiliary #10 anyway. We could start with two #10's and lose nothing attacking wise for example. Or send up one full back at a time. Or have the #6 go into a back 3, have another centre midfielder sit in front when the full backs go.

We lose the ball/struggle to create often cause all our players are in the width of the opposition box. There's no need for that, have one player keep the width to recycle the ball.

There's plenty of minor adjustments that would make a big difference to both our attack and defence without changing philosophy.