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
Last night was the most insane game of football I have ever witnessed.
And that includes an afternoon watching Dave from the Pig and Whistle play on ecstacy and I think LSD.

Ange ball for ever. What’s football if not fun and release.

The noise from the fans last night shows it’s the way to play.
 
Just go for it, every game

We might fall short and be called 'naive' and a more pragmatic approach might be what gets you over the line

But tbh the last decade watching Spurs has taught me it's far far better to just be competitive and trying to win gets you a lot of the way towards that
 
Blanchflower said:
Just go for it, every game

We might fall short and be called 'naive' and a more pragmatic approach might be what gets you over the line

But tbh the last decade watching Spurs has taught me it's far far better to just be competitive and trying to win gets you a lot of the way towards that
Click to expand...
Mourinho was supposed to be the cynical, pragmatic touch we needed to win silverware. Conte was supposed to couple the cynical pragmatism we needed with the blood and thunder failure-is-not-an-option attitude we need to win silverware. All we have is years of claw-your-eyes-out football to show for it.

How refreshing Ange has been, indeed. Just fucking go for it and play football FFS. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but fuck me it'll be entertaining at least.
 
I think once down to 9 we probably should've done exactly what Liverpool did vs us and sat in and forced Chelsea (who aren't very creative) to unlock us. That was the pragmatic, sensible thing to do at that point in time. Klopp isn't exactly Conte or Jose and its exactly what he did.

But I can see why Ange is all in on sticking to his guns and doing it his way. It works to an extent, and I'm not angry at it at all, it potentially will win us more points in the long run than adapting would have done.
 
I also think this fanbase has PTSD from Jose/Conte and the weird all or nothing approach where we're either always boring or always going for it no matter what is a symptom of that. Lots of very good coaches who play entertaining football drop the line back further and sit in then.

Jurgen Klopp being one of them.
 
Billy Hunt said:
As a result of last night's magnificent defeat, are you with "We'll play this way even if we go down to 5 men" Ange, or would you revert to Conterinho stylee when needed - and hope we can cling on to a desperately dull 1-1.

Either way is stressful, but what is your preferred style of stress?

There's no room for 'don't knows' in this poll.

EDIT: Someone needed the 'don't know' option! Alright, Sir Keir?
Click to expand...

If you want to ask a question you can't slant your opening gambit, which in effect is then agree or disagree.

It's s fair poser but largely irrelevant as Postecoglou will do it his way.
 
I think there should be some adaptation. If we were 1 nil up in a final with ten minutes left and went down to 9 men, would you really want us to push up? I'd be praying we held on!

Angeball looked great for twenty minutes last night though, the problem was the players lacked composure and didn't manage the game after Udogie's stupid challenge fired Chelsea up. Hopefully, the experience will serve them well.
 
StripiestPilot said:
Ange already adjusts during the game. Many times already he has taken off forwards and put midfielders or defensive players on to close out the game.

Last night he (correctly) thought that Chelsea were so shit that we could still beat them with 9 men. If Bentancur and Son scored at the end then we would have.
Click to expand...

This.

I firmly believe that if Dier's goal had stood; we'd have gone on to win 3-2.
 
100% Angeball, it was lovely to watch, we were in with a chance of getting a result until the last 5 minutes. The scoreline really flattered Chelsea.
 
It's something we have wanted to see for a long time attacking till the end. From a tactical point of view though I can see why it would be criticized Sterling, Jackson, and Mudryk are all players who are poor at creating good chances in tight spaces. Chelsea have been very poor at scoring goals this season. I'm sure they much preferred having a 40-yard foot race with Dier and Royal.

Would suffocating them have got something out of the game? Maybe or maybe not. If we had suffocated them and got a draw out of the game would people be complaining about not being attacking? I doubt it.
 
Thought we were the better team even with 10 and would have argued to keep playing the way we did.
With 9 men and 15 minutes of normal time to play, I would have settled for a low block knowing how piss poor Chelsea are at creating and converting chances.
Jackson might have scored the shittiest hat trick ever and, the way he celebrated, you would think he’s scored a worldie to win the title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom