100% Angeball, or adapt during the game? Which are you?

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

What's your preferred style of play?

  • Total voters
    234
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Airfixx said:
"Spurs DNA" so many said..... "Entertainment is paramount"...... "No more cowardly football".........

Now: Hiding behind the sofa.
Click to expand...

Sitting in when down to NINE MEN to not expose yourself to constant chances in behind is not "hiding behind the sofa" its basic common sense and exactly what a very attacking, highly successful coach in Jurgen Klopp did.

Again, these fucking extremes .. and I fundamentally AGREE with what Ange did but can also recognise the other side of the argument and why people question it. Y'all acting like people who think not letting Jackson through every 3 mins are pussies are taking the piss.
 
Deuterz said:
- They did not struggle. Again, they 'failed' due to a fluke, the plan worked. You can defend well and still lose 3-0 if three absolute worldies go in, the success of the plan is not dependent on the scoreline.
Click to expand...

Who? The Dippers? ......."Worked"? .......Didn't "Struggle"?

EH? ........They ultimately failed (no dis-credit to them).

What it showed is that even if you defend "well" and with more solid personnel (and an extra proper CB!!!) it still may not prove enough.

Deuterz said:
The rag-tag backline was working ok.
Click to expand...

Yes it was.... Ironically; the way we were playing (i.e. with the high line!).... (You're inadvertently conceding to part of the logic here!)

Vic was sweeping like a maniac and we were creating our own GOOD chances. (FFS; weren't you - and others contesting - excited? ..... Even when the game went into ET we were punching? .....I swear some of you are so close to hankering for Conte-ball.)

The remainder of my argument here is comes back to the fact that, as we saw with Conte; sitting back; those players had proven to crumble in FAR easier situ's than that (i.e. full 11 and not a crazy-ass, hate-ridden derby!).

Parking the bus instead of continuing what you yourself admit was working doesn't make a great deal of sense given what we know about these defenders.

....As freakish and unfamiliar as it felt; we came so close to pulling it off and (personally) I wouldn't change a thing.

Deuterz said:
Chavs had the ball in the net three times by attacking the space in behind, they had little to no creativity. When we went down to 9 their entire plan was to play in to said space and it was hilarious how many chances Jackson had.
Click to expand...

Again; by the 2nd yellow you (not Ange, but Deuters) would have been placing all your chips on the extremely remote possibility of the numbers game not killing us over 30+ more minutes..... Even though (as per the Liverpool analogy) we didn't have Van Dyke, Matip & Konate, but the aforementioned cut-n-shut flakey back 4.

Deuterz said:
I agree with the gamble in terms of what it represents. Ange is obviously not a gung-ho idiot. But playing the high-line with zero press was confusing and left us exposed every 2 minutes. Chelsea's incompetency is the only reason they didn't score another 3 or 4 at least.
Click to expand...

Who's to say that Ange wouldn't have shut up shop if at 75mins if we were already at 3-1 or 4-1? It's quite likely we would as again; he's no mug... However given the nature and time of those 2 late goals; who gives a fuck?



Gutsy as fuck? Yep.
Wrong call? Nope... Not IMO.
 
Deuterz said:
They conceded in the dying seconds due to an own goal ... we weren't creating a single thing prior, it was working perfectly. We won due to a fluke, and we had far more creativity/individual brilliance on the pitch than Chelsea did when they scored.
Click to expand...

We made hard work of that Liverpool game, only time we got the ball wide in that latter period was when we manage to score, if we did kept doing that and stretching the pitch more we would have had the game won way before that, also the only creative player we had on the pitch was Kulu, Chelsea still had Mudryk, Enzo and James out there.

I do reckon we would have held out a little longer if we sat in and probably frustrated them more, then again I think the manager played that way because he is playing the long game with these players anyway.
 
Rooster said:
Too many stupid dumbasses here.
Calling for adjustments and these cunts come out of hiding "BOO MOURINHO BALL" BOO CONTE BALL"
Cry me a river billy
Click to expand...
its the way of the world now, its full blown lunacy. you got idiots like yourself calling other people idiots and being correct. mental!
 
Deuterz said:
Sitting in when down to NINE MEN to not expose yourself to constant chances in behind is not "hiding behind the sofa" its basic common sense and exactly what a very attacking, highly successful coach in Jurgen Klopp did.
Click to expand...

The Klopp analogy would be infinitely more potent if it had actually succeeded. Alas not though...... And thus the discussion is at the same crossroads as before. i.e. High risk; high reward.

Han Solo vs asteroid field:

han-solo-star-wars.gif


Deuterz said:
Again, these fucking extremes .. and I fundamentally AGREE with what Ange did but can also recognise the other side of the argument and why people question it. Y'all acting like people who think not letting Jackson through every 3 mins are pussies are taking the piss.
Click to expand...

Just going round and round in circles...... One either supports Ange's decision or they don't.

"Pussies" is an over-statement; but the way some people have reacted IS curious at the very least....... Or maybe they were just gob-shite-ing with "extremes" with the rest of their rhetoric over the last 3 managers..... I happily concede that it might be the latter instead.
 
Last edited:
I thought he adapted to the opposition. Chelsea are shit. Bet he doesn't do that against Man City or Liverpool or even the Arse.

He also has said his job is to give the players the tools to win games. The tactic resulted in 3 goals scoring chances. The players didn't take one of them.
 
I find it pretty funny that pundits and media don't rationalise things and think outside the box as to why Ange played a high line, as if a manager who has 25 years experience doesn't have a clue what he's doing, like he's just flat out wrong, no critical thinking as to what he was trying to achieve in the long run.
 
Shadydan said:
I find it pretty funny that pundits and media don't rationalise things and think outside the box as to why Ange played a high line, as if a manager who has 25 years experience doesn't have a clue what he's doing, like he's just flat out wrong, no critical thinking as to what he was trying to achieve in the long run.
Click to expand...
He's not managing a team in Red, that's all the majority of pundits are interested in "rationalising" about when they hit adversity.
 
Can't give Premier League manages too much credit if it took them half a season to figure out how to play against a high line.

What's more likely is that we simply don't have the personnel to play the way we want to as effectively and consistently as would want to.

Half the goals from open play at the weekend were because Son couldn't hold the ball up. That's nothing to do with our defence. The other a set piece, which needs addressing far more than our defensive shape.

We've conceded the exact same amount of goals as Aston Villa. I rarely hear their defence get spoken about as much as ours does. Bare in mind TWELVE of the goals we've conceded were due to having Emerson Royal and Ben Davies at centre back. So that's 37 goals conceded without them partnering eachother, a few more than Liverpool and City.

Get to the summer. Get suited players, get rid of those who don't fit and you'll see what happens.
 
Lots of mentions of Arteta, Pep and Klopp. In fact I'm most reminded of AVB and discussions around him about a decade ago, and whether to stick with the 'high line' at all costs (though Ange's football is much better to watch than AVB's).

That said I expect us to improve if we get some better technicians in our squad who want to show for the ball. It seems you need a very particular type of player to be effective in this system. Jury very much out for me but I think 18 months or so from now to build the squad (barring anything calamitous) is warranted.
 
for me Angeball seems to work against teams that want to play football and have a go themselves or utterly dreadful teams like most teams in Scotland. It doesn't work against teams who put 10 men behind the ball. We have no proper centre forward so the ball wont stick. We are so open at times its crazy. A bit more defensive cover and we don't ship 4 goals against Newcastle. For me its 'horses for courses' maybe then Newcastle would have come out and attacked themselves rather than waiting for us to give them the ball.
 
Archie said:
for me Angeball seems to work against teams that want to play football and have a go themselves or utterly dreadful teams like most teams in Scotland. It doesn't work against teams who put 10 men behind the ball. We have no proper centre forward so the ball wont stick. We are so open at times its crazy. A bit more defensive cover and we don't ship 4 goals against Newcastle. For me its 'horses for courses' maybe then Newcastle would have come out and attacked themselves rather than waiting for us to give them the ball.
Click to expand...

So it does work then we just need to upgrade personnel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom