James Maddison

  • 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

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
White Hart said:
I think a match winning footballer is a role every team in the world would want.
Click to expand...
England is spoiled for choice though.

Good as Madders is, he doesn't score goals like Kane and he doesn't boss the midfield from box to box like Bellingham.

Does putting him in a very free role as a conduit to the attack blunt what makes those players good?

It's possible Mason Mount as a more disciplined workhorse makes the team better, even though swapping him for Maddison would make Spurs much worse.

But it's also possible the defensive attention going to others could open Maddison up to be even more freely creative.

Gary should try both and make a decision.
 
FightingIllini said:
England is spoiled for choice though.

Good as Madders is, he doesn't score goals like Kane and he doesn't boss the midfield from box to box like Bellingham.
Click to expand...

Gary isn't brave enough to play Bellingham WITH another progressive/attacking MFer.

Madz, Bell'm, Foden all jostling for the same position.

..........He proved this when he tried TAA in MF and dropped Bell'm to do so.

FightingIllini said:
Does putting him in a very free role as a conduit to the attack blunt what makes those players good?

It's possible Mason Mount as a more disciplined workhorse makes the team better, even though swapping him for Maddison would make Spurs much worse.
Click to expand...

He's been fucking shite for England.... Even when he was in good form for the Chvs in past years.
 
FightingIllini said:
England is spoiled for choice though.

Good as Madders is, he doesn't score goals like Kane and he doesn't boss the midfield from box to box like Bellingham.

Does putting him in a very free role as a conduit to the attack blunt what makes those players good?

It's possible Mason Mount as a more disciplined workhorse makes the team better, even though swapping him for Maddison would make Spurs much worse.

But it's also possible the defensive attention going to others could open Maddison up to be even more freely creative.

Gary should try both and make a decision.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is, when Southgate goes with 5 at the back as he generally does against the better sides it obviously gives you one less attacking player to choose from. Stones is quality but seeing as he always plays Maguire, he clearly doesn't trust Harry enough to play him as a two more often than not.

A braver manager would play Rice as the anchor player, Bellingham slightly ahead in a box to box role and then Maddison in the hole. You can then go for Foden on the left if you want technical ability in a game or go with Rashford if you want out and out pace. Saka on the right and Kane up top. That's just not in Southgate's make-up though, he will always worry first about what top opposition can do rather than what we should be capable of doing.

But a midfield three of Rice, Bellingham and Maddison with a front three of Foden, Saka and Kane is as good as anything in world football, for me.
 
FightingIllini said:
Welp, there's your problem.

And he's not going to keep playing Hendo on retirement duty to Dictator MLS is he?
Click to expand...

If the current PR shit-storm persists and the fans inside the stadium react badly to him this int. break then perhaps not, but his player selection 'rules' are hot air.......

Maguire & Phillips don't need to play to get picked...... I assume Henderson would get the same treatment (subject to prev. para).
 
Titanwolf said:
I think the issue is, when Southgate goes with 5 at the back as he generally does against the better sides it obviously gives you one less attacking player to choose from. Stones is quality but seeing as he always plays Maguire, he clearly doesn't trust Harry enough to play him as a two more often than not.

A braver manager would play Rice as the anchor player, Bellingham slightly ahead in a box to box role and then Maddison in the hole. You can then go for Foden on the left if you want technical ability in a game or go with Rashford if you want out and out pace. Saka on the right and Kane up top. That's just not in Southgate's make-up though, he will always worry first about what top opposition can do rather than what we should be capable of doing.
Click to expand...
The other problem for Maddison is you'd never want to play him out wide.

He has very specific gifts, which Angeball fully actualizes, even more than Rodgers did where he still had a lot of shape-keeping responsibility in and out of possession. He's a shape-breaker for us, his capacity to surprise is a responsibility rather than just a bonus.
 
FightingIllini said:
The other problem for Maddison is you'd never want to play him out wide.

He has very specific gifts, which Angeball fully actualizes, even more than Rodgers did where he still had a lot of shape-keeping responsibility in and out of possession.
Click to expand...

The thing is, if Gary was braver he could heed JMs performance vs Bournemouth where the lad played more deep and grafty than a trad. AM...... Rice + Bell'm/Madz both playing from a B2B position; rather than a standard 6/8/10 MF combo.

So long as we can keep him & Kane from treading on each others toes, the pace of Rash/Saka on the wings would be v.dangerous. with the other 3 arriving after the break out pass.
 
Last edited:
FightingIllini said:
England is spoiled for choice though.

Good as Madders is, he doesn't score goals like Kane and he doesn't boss the midfield from box to box like Bellingham.

Does putting him in a very free role as a conduit to the attack blunt what makes those players good?

It's possible Mason Mount as a more disciplined workhorse makes the team better, even though swapping him for Maddison would make Spurs much worse.

But it's also possible the defensive attention going to others could open Maddison up to be even more freely creative.

Gary should try both and make a decision.
Click to expand...
MADDs is not a striker and not a defensive midfielder for starters but he has his own qualities and is certainly a hell of a better player than Mount. Our midfield 3 of Bissouma….Maddison…Sarr is top quality so far. Englands should be Rice….Maddison…Bellingham
 
Last edited:
Zomb said:
Because there’s a bigger picture

Most Germans backed hitler and majority of British voted for brexit. Facts can be borderline and also situational

I would hate him as a keeper - he’s not awful but never a top 8 keep
Click to expand...
Most Germans did not back Hitler just afraid of the Nazi element and the Gestapo.
 
Brian Fantana said:
I hope he doesnt play a minute for England. Dont want him getting injured. It's bad enough Southgate will be coaching him for a week.
Click to expand...

He will want to play though, and to be fair, a player is just as likely to get injured in training. I think he will be a dead cert to start against Scotland next week in the friendly. That might be a hide behind the couch sort of game as I can imagine it will be somewhat fiesty.
 
Titanwolf said:
I think the issue is, when Southgate goes with 5 at the back as he generally does against the better sides it obviously gives you one less attacking player to choose from. Stones is quality but seeing as he always plays Maguire, he clearly doesn't trust Harry enough to play him as a two more often than not.

A braver manager would play Rice as the anchor player, Bellingham slightly ahead in a box to box role and then Maddison in the hole. You can then go for Foden on the left if you want technical ability in a game or go with Rashford if you want out and out pace. Saka on the right and Kane up top. That's just not in Southgate's make-up though, he will always worry first about what top opposition can do rather than what we should be capable of doing.

But a midfield three of Rice, Bellingham and Maddison with a front three of Foden, Saka and Kane is as good as anything in world football, for me.
Click to expand...

I think Southgate gets too much crap for this. He played a 4-3-3 against France and they generally went toe to toe. England played quite attacking throughout the tourney I though. Just a tough result. I'd love to see the Rice, Bellingham, Maddison combo but TBD if it would work. CB is still a question mark. And Rice has definitely developed into more of the box to box rather than the holding player. International football tends to be low scoring so tough to blame managers for being on the conservative side.
 
BlackLips said:
I think Southgate gets too much crap for this. He played a 4-3-3 against France and they generally went toe to toe. England played quite attacking throughout the tourney I though. Just a tough result. I'd love to see the Rice, Bellingham, Maddison combo but TBD if it would work. CB is still a question mark. And Rice has definitely developed into more of the box to box rather than the holding player. International football tends to be low scoring so tough to blame managers for being on the conservative side.
Click to expand...

He did, and he needs to stick to 4-4-3 and play to our strengths. We showed we were a match for France. If Kane converts his second penalty I really believe we would have gone on to win the game as we would have had the momentum. But when you have so much quality going forward you need to use it. Southgate gets a lot of undeserved stick but I do think he's acheived the bare minimum with the squad he's got and the fixtures we've had in the last few tournaments. We haven't beaten anybody we shouldn't be beating and have lost to an Italy side we should have beat at Wembley and then came up just short against the French who were missing a few big players.
 
Titanwolf said:
He did, and he needs to stick to 4-4-3 and play to our strengths. We showed we were a match for France. If Kane converts his second penalty I really believe we would have gone on to win the game as we would have had the momentum. But when you have so much quality going forward you need to use it. Southgate gets a lot of undeserved stick but I do think he's acheived the bare minimum with the squad he's got and the fixtures we've had in the last few tournaments. We haven't beaten anybody we shouldn't be beating and have lost to an Italy side we should have beat at Wembley and then came up just short against the French who were missing a few big players.
Click to expand...
No

every time France needed a goal they went stright up the pitch and got one

streets ahead of Muppet Sputhgate
 
Titanwolf said:
He did, and he needs to stick to 4-4-3 and play to our strengths. We showed we were a match for France. If Kane converts his second penalty I really believe we would have gone on to win the game as we would have had the momentum. But when you have so much quality going forward you need to use it. Southgate gets a lot of undeserved stick but I do think he's acheived the bare minimum with the squad he's got and the fixtures we've had in the last few tournaments. We haven't beaten anybody we shouldn't be beating and have lost to an Italy side we should have beat at Wembley and then came up just short against the French who were missing a few big players.
Click to expand...

Euro final vs Italy was THEE chance...... World cups are way more of a lottery, but home team, loads of pace and youthful energy, 1-0 up.... We should walked all over that ageing Italian team. Gary totally hamded them the impetus and even though we held out for pens he pissed them away with a bunch of cold, inexperienced youngsters.

We'll be ruing it for years to come.
 
White Van Jan said:
No

every time France needed a goal they went stright up the pitch and got one

streets ahead of Muppet Sputhgate
Click to expand...

That's not really true? They scored on 17 and 78 minutes. There second goal was nearly 20 minute after England equalised. They were more ruthless than us on the day and that was about the only difference between the two sides. When you go through both teams it was always going to be a close game and it panned out that way. Southgate should never have taken Saka off as he was destroying the French every time he got the ball in the second half in-partiuclar. Ifs, buts and maybe's though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom