Match thread: Tottenham vs Swansea (Home)

  • There is only one thing weirder than posting on internet forums... lurking on internet forums!
    Registration only takes a minute and removes most of the adverts. You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

please keep it civilised, if you don't agree, please try not to belittle others. This goes for everyone, this forum needn't be happy clappy and people can have differences of opinions but 4 day derailed threads is just shit isn't it.
Yeah, but who's even going to look at those threads again, it's not as if they are worth keeping for posterity, they'll be cleared off the server in a year or so. The rows are probably the most interesting things in some of them.

:balelol:
 

Register to remove

I totally agree Thelonious it is great to have discussion but for someone to keep talking down to others is bad form and this is not the only thread that has been derailed in such away it also keeps genuine posters from posting as they don’t want a bun fight.


It’s not healthy this passive aggressive rubbish I for one had some points about the Swansea game and then saw where the thread was going so simply didn’t bother same in the match ratings thread.

So Tommy have a good Christmas but think that others may not agree with you so maybe think why they are saying it and be a bit more Constructive than tear down peoples thoughts you say you have much experience and opinion so why not educate don’t annihilate.

"Boomshanka"
Neil the young ones

:adegrin2:
 
Tommy, I get the distinct impression that you have a long standing issue with modern football babble speak and simply leapt on something you saw in my post.

<snip>

And yes, my posts can get very lengthly, sometimes its necessary in order to make my point as well as I can.

Tommy, I get the distinct impression that you have a long standing issue with modern football babble speak and simply leapt on something you saw in my post.

Not really, I accept that terminology changes, but its the hidden belief that its new, that I have an issue with, I read your post a couple of times actually, I wasn’t bullshitting when I said I was surprised, as I had always marked you as being a knowledgeable and thoughtful poster.

I dont think Ive invented anything new, and I dont even think what I am talking about is fanciful - considering it is purely observation of what our managers have done, not an invention of my imagination.


I’ll touch on this later as its a repeated thought

Honestly I really believe you have misunderstood what I was saying or why. Perhaps that is my fault, perhaps you should read the posts with more care.

Broadly I agree with much of what you are saying, though I do certainly believe tactics and playing systems hold more sway than you seem to. Its how teams like Bolton and Stoke become successful beyond their station and often what separates the very top teams in the biggest games.


I think the biggest disconnect is in what you interpret as tactics, and what are game plans. The biggest bone of contention is that tactics are great in theory, but the more intricate you make them, the less likely they are ever to succeed, on an almost exponential level. Much of what happens on a pitch is instinctive and executed at high speed and under intense pressure, the idea of 10 players acting under extreme pressure being able to follow a game plan of the sort that you suggest all falls apart the minute a successful tackle goes in.

The first game we beat Woolwich at home Redknapp most certainly outsmarted Wenger tactically, and that was by sitting deep and allowing them into certain areas, then breaking into the situation behind them that created.

That Woolwich team in particular didnt have anything like traditional wing play, all their attacking was virtually down the centre. Most often trying to play clever 1-2s and flicks to work their way through.

We set deep defensive lines, packing the centre. This forced Woolwich wide where they were basically ineffectual and as soon as we won the ball we had pace in Bale, Lennon and Defoe (as well as speed of thought in the ball being played to them) to really hurt them on the break.

As I said, they finished with something like 60% possession and were never even in the game, Harry snookered them completely.


This is reverse engineering history, to suit your proposition. We had no choice but to sit deep and hit them on the counter because of the early goal and the fact that their midfield was running ours ragged. Our first goal was the result of a long ball up the middle, the second was a penalty from a free kick and the 3rd was a mistimed header from a set piece.

Was that AVBs plan at Old Trafford as well, concede 75% possession and spend the last 40 minutes looking like a team from the southern premier league? If it was I don’t like it from a blood pressure standpoint.

Carlito was being hammered for his feelings on where we might press or defend, I raised this game as an example of what I believed his POV to be. Its a good example, IMO. Thats not to say I am promoting we do that every game, or even that it is my personal preference.

As to AVBs teasing the opposition, I provided the quote. His term was "provoke", so my memory betrayed me somehwat but the meaning is intact.

He has gone to length in the past to explain that essentially he likes players to invite pressure to create space that can be exploited.


Again, if this is his preferred policy, it’s a stupid and dangerous game to play. I like the policy (tactic in your terminology) of keeping possession – as I do believe that it’s an accepted principle that they can’t score, if we have the ball.

As a team we are very good (and were so under Harry) at forcing teams to retreat and park the bus, dominate possession completely. We are (and were) very poor at converting that into meaningful chances. If AVBs tactics work in drawing opponents out of their two banks of four so that we can exploit the space that creates then fantastic. I think it is risky, as if they get the jump on us we are looking bare at the back, but if it works I think it will be a wonder to watch.

Again, I dont think this is something new, all I have done is simply express what AVB has said in interviews as it was (I felt) relevant to the discussion.


I cannot see why we would not want to spend the majority of a game camped on the oppositions penalty area, dominating possession and probing for opportunities. If we are doing that its because the opposition are shit scared of getting a tonking if they open the game up. It hasn’t happened this season, because we aren’t good enough to play that way anymore, now we have no Rat and no VDV. Our biggest problem is that for all of his plus points, Defoe aint Messi, Jimmy Greaves or Falcao – and despite the early part of last season showing Ade and JD to be a good partnership, it doesn’t seem to have clicked back into gear.
I do not believe I have reinvented the wheel, I dont think that by using terms like "pressing" I have invented a tactical master plan and I do not believe a tactical system is the be all and end all of winning a game.


Firstly, I apologise for making it sound like I was blaming you – its not your fault that so many younger fans seem to think that their generation has invented everything (much like every new generation thinks it discovered great sex) – but we are back at the distinction between tactics (pre planned rehearsed routines of open play) and a game plan, and the situation of re engineering games that have finished as examples to prove your point.

I do believe all I have done is spoken about football as seemed relevant to the discussion.

Apart from the bit where you called me a dick and told me to fuck myself? :eek:)
I do believe tactics play a big part in a teams success, though of course not that that is anything new.


I don’t – as I said having better players, better motivated and led teams, discipline and teamwork win games, not tactics of the sort you proposed. This is where we are not going to meet up – I suspect!
I do believe you have jumped in with both feet here on a misunderstanding of what I was saying/was trying to say.


I’m sure I understand – I just fundamentally disagree.

And yes, my posts can get very lengthly, sometimes its necessary in order to make my point as well as I can.


No issue, I have an attention span longer than a housefly
 
Yeah, I was just having a bit of fun, no hard feelings Tommy...


:adebaehug:
I'm pleased for you.

When you stop the "funny" comments, and actually discuss any of the issues that I raise, or points that I make - then I'll change my mind about you.

I do not come on here to troll or wind people up, just discuss/argue with people who post stupid things or participate in genuine footballing issues that are enjoyable to discuss.
 
I totally agree Thelonious it is great to have discussion but for someone to keep talking down to others is bad form and this is not the only thread that has been derailed in such away it also keeps genuine posters from posting as they don’t want a bun fight.


It’s not healthy this passive aggressive rubbish I for one had some points about the Swansea game and then saw where the thread was going so simply didn’t bother same in the match ratings thread.

So Tommy have a good Christmas but think that others may not agree with you so maybe think why they are saying it and be a bit more Constructive than tear down peoples thoughts you say you have much experience and opinion so why not educate don’t annihilate.

"Boomshanka"
Neil the young ones
:adegrin2:
and your comment about my sex life was achieving what - exactly?

other people posted in both threads around the disagreements and discussions. As long as you don't post twaddle then people will give you all positive "agrees" that everyone seems so desperate to win.

I'll be constructive with anyone who wants to talk sensibly and without name calling, or posting snide, insulting remarks. You know the sort I mean, the ones that get people filled in if they tried it in real life.

Have a great Christmas yourself.
 

Register to remove

Not really, I accept that terminology changes, but its the hidden belief that its new, that I have an issue with, I read your post a couple of times actually, I wasn’t bullshitting when I said I was surprised, as I had always marked you as being a knowledgeable and thoughtful poster.

I think the biggest disconnect is in what you interpret as tactics, and what are game plans. The biggest bone of contention is that tactics are great in theory, but the more intricate you make them, the less likely they are ever to succeed, on an almost exponential level. Much of what happens on a pitch is instinctive and executed at high speed and under intense pressure, the idea of 10 players acting under extreme pressure being able to follow a game plan of the sort that you suggest all falls apart the minute a successful tackle goes in.
We will just have to agree to disagree. Im happy to accept a difference in terminology, so long as (eventually) you understand what I mean (regardless of agreeng with it).

I see tactics as the fundamental shapes and plays the team uses. Of course it is a fluid game and of course 1000 things are happening at one time, but ultimately different teams play in different styles with different strengths and weaknesses due to tactics IMO.

Play it long or on the ground? Short passing? Press high up the field or low? 451 / 433 / 442 /441? Focus high balls at their left back because he is terrible in the air and bad positionally? All things that are tactical in nature IMO. Of course if you wish to refer to them as something else that is fine, at least you see what I mean when Im talking about it.

With regards to the provoking, I do not see it as overly complex or rigid.

I dont envisage a very prescribed routine of "right, Walker - you give it to Dembele then run over there, Dembele - you pass to Lennon and move this way... Lennon - jink around a bit then pass to Defoe....oh cock where were we again?"

Im simply thinking of passing patterns practiced on the training ground being put into use.

We see teams in every single game passing and moving within the constraints of an over arching design, and of holding shape in certain ways for defensive/offensive situations.

I dont mean a controlled scientific algorythm footballers are supposed to follow dependant on a set list of variables...

We have the ball, the opposition are sitting in two banks in front of their box. What tactic do we employ to break them down? I felt under Redknapp there wasnt enough of a plan, aside from give it to Modric/VDV/Bale and hope they create something. Works a treat when those players are on form, but all to often it was fruitless (IMO).

AVBs idea of provoking is to lure players to break their lines in order to create space. This isnt something new, its just how he likes to play it.

I was thinking about this last night and one of the best examples that came to mind was Utds all conquering team of the early 2000's (most likely made the connection because of the article you linked).

They were terrifying and teams naturally just sat off them in an attempt at damage limitation. They were excellent at moving the ball from flank to flank, probing forward and back to try and move people out of their defensive positions, and suddenly within 2 or 3 passes a team has gone from a solid and inpenetrable 2 banks of 5 to being all at sea and conceeding.

This was provoking, and it wasnt terribly complex, it was just a tactic to employ.

What I like is the idea there is an underlying plan, because IMO that means there should be a consistency in our play, which means we shouldnt have to rely purely on invention to create and score. Though of course that is very welcome. In fact I think this underlying structure should mean we can create opportunities for invention more regularly.

My view is we are trying, but we are far from "there" yet.

This is reverse engineering history, to suit your proposition. We had no choice but to sit deep and hit them on the counter because of the early goal and the fact that their midfield was running ours ragged. Our first goal was the result of a long ball up the middle, the second was a penalty from a free kick and the 3rd was a mistimed header from a set piece.

I can assure you I thought exactly the same after the game. I have never credited Redknapp as being particularly tactical in how he sets teams out. He seems to pick players naturally compatible and simply let them get on with it rather than offer specific instruction. At the time of watching that Woolwich game I was blown away because I immediately saw we had a very different game plan to the usual and it was working. I got really excited at the time because I thought it was a signal Redknapp was developing us to deal with all eventualities.

If you did not see the game as a tactical masterclass by Redknapp thats cool, opinions differ, but take my work I am not re engineering anything.

Was that AVBs plan at Old Trafford as well, concede 75% possession and spend the last 40 minutes looking like a team from the southern premier league? If it was I don’t like it from a blood pressure standpoint.
I saw only highlights of that game. From what I can gather we were excellent for the first half/maybe 40 minutes and then essentially fighting a rear guard action there after.
I would guess that early dominance is what AVB was aiming for and that the later collapse was what he got due to a young team trying to gel and take on a new way of playing. I firmly believe we are in the midst of a pretty large transition and things like that second half are a symptom of it.
Like the analogy made earlier RE driving, when you are learning its the most difficult thing to do and requires huge concentration, very easy to get it wrong - until at one point it just clicks and suddenly seems like second nature.


Again, if this is his preferred policy, it’s a stupid and dangerous game to play. I like the policy (tactic in your terminology) of keeping possession – as I do believe that it’s an accepted principle that they can’t score, if we have the ball.
Again, in talking of provoking Im specifically talking of it as a tactic/policy used when trying to break through teams making life difficult.

That said in general play we do seem to like to play it between the defense a lot to try and open up space as well. Its risky I agree, but if we can become successful with it I think it could be fascinating to watch. I love the idea of manipulating a team into positions we want to exploit.

I cannot see why we would not want to spend the majority of a game camped on the oppositions penalty area, dominating possession and probing for opportunities. If we are doing that its because the opposition are shit scared of getting a tonking if they open the game up. It hasn’t happened this season, because we aren’t good enough to play that way anymore, now we have no Rat and no VDV. Our biggest problem is that for all of his plus points, Defoe aint Messi, Jimmy Greaves or Falcao – and despite the early part of last season showing Ade and JD to be a good partnership, it doesn’t seem to have clicked back into gear.

This is essentially the situation Ive been talking about all along. Clearly I havent been able to convey that or else, I suspect, we wouldnt still be in this situation!

While I agree Modrics and VDVs loss has really impeded our ability in this sense, I do honestly think we have the players - when all are fit - to be able to play this way. Ekotto at LB is a huge loss to us keeping width and possession. Vertonghen not at CB removes that composure and player to help recycle the ball whn we get stuck/closed out. Adebayor not holding the ball up and bringing people in is a real loss. All things that would, IMO, enable us to really start pulling teams around.

Firstly, I apologise for making it sound like I was blaming you – its not your fault that so many younger fans seem to think that their generation has invented everything (much like every new generation thinks it discovered great sex) – but we are back at the distinction between tactics (pre planned rehearsed routines of open play) and a game plan, and the situation of re engineering games that have finished as examples to prove your point.
Ill skip this one, I think its been covered

I don’t – as I said having better players, better motivated and led teams, discipline and teamwork win games, not tactics of the sort you proposed. This is where we are not going to meet up – I suspect!
I should point out, while I am a big fan of the tactical ploys/game plans/ policies (*delete as appropriate) that get used in matches, I fully accept that ultimately it is the players that do the job. Better players = a better job is done.

I see tactical elements as the foundation from which they play, not a constraint to inhibit them.

If they know where people are going to be, because it is second nature thanks to playing within a pattern, then they will be able to play those "telepathic" moves more often wont they? When under pressure and its so easy to fall apart, knowing what exactly you should be trying to do, because you have rehearsed/understood it, gives you a means to claw your way back to composure.

If you think differently thats fine, but Im still not convinced you are following my thinking at all yet - as I said - most likely my failing for not being able to convey it properly
 
If you think differently thats fine, but Im still not convinced you are following my thinking at all yet - as I said - most likely my failing for not being able to convey it properly
Yep you have completely lost me then, now I haven't got the foggiest what you are trying to say.

Points that stick out

We were under the cosh because the goons had a better team than us, HR says the next day it was a plan of mine all along - and you believed him?

You agree with the policy of allowing teams to come on to us, ie draw them closer to our goal, so we can steal the ball off them - run round the back and score? What if they won't let us have it and keep scoring against us?

And you think its a good one?

You love the idea of manipulating teams to do what we want - to the point that you are going to let them think they are dominating us and do to us what we would like to do to them, ie hang around our penalty area in possession of the ball?

And you think its a good one?

is that what you are saying, in essence?
 
Not at all

We were under the cosh because the goons had a better team than us, HR says the next day it was a plan of mine all along - and you believed him?
No, I thought it at the time. Like I say, clearly we saw the game in different ways.

You saw a team beaten back to their door by a superior opponent, I saw a team ceeding possession in areas that would not hurt us to exploit the space that was then created.

Once again, this was no more than an observation on a match in particular, used as an example in Carlitos defense - it was not a statement of belief in how we should be playing.

You agree with the policy of allowing teams to come on to us, ie draw them closer to our goal, so we can steal the ball off them - run round the back and score? What if they won't let us have it and keep scoring against us?

And you think its a good one?
No I dont. I have repeatedly tried to emphasize this as a tactic when we are camped in the opposition half, when they are stubbornly set in a defensive shape and we need to break them down. To draw them out of their deep lines is to create space in dangerous areas. Thats it. And this is absolutely achieveable in the final two thirds of the field instead of our own.

The risk here is that by condensing play up into their half with the high defensive line to achieve that domination we are very prone to being caught on the break.

You seemed to have joined two separate posts of mine in your mind as one ambition on my part.

In response to Carlito being hammered for suggesting pressing high up the field isnt the only way to press I presented the Woolwich game as an example of when we did just that.

In response to someone showing concern at our inability to break teams down I pointed to AVBs statements about provoking the opposition to create opportunities.

Neither of these statements were me trying to make myself sound like a Football Manager wannabe self appointed expert with a philosophy of deep defensive lines and inviting pressure at all. They were separate and pertinent (imo) responses, using relevant examples, to points made by other posters and nothing more.

I do not want us to play the ball around our 18 yard box to tempt the other team into attacking at all.

I do want us to find techniques that will enable us to capitalise when we have a team pinned back, pulling them out of shape is a prime way to do so.

You love the idea of manipulating teams to do what we want - to the point that you are going to let them think they are dominating us and do to us what we would like to do to them, ie hang around our penalty area in possession of the ball?

And you think its a good one?
Again, not at all.
 
Entertain me for a moment - read these in the context I intended them

Carlito doesnt approve of the high line and squeezing play into the final 3rd and stiffling the opponent


System is probably the wrong word....ethos or style of play more fitting.

High line, squeezing the play in the oppos half as soon as we get it forward.

Strangle the game, using a philosophy of "if we stifle them in there half they cant hurt us"...*until they get desperate in the closing minutes and start punting long*...*Stoke next*

Its the footballing equivalent of putting a pillow over the oppos face and holding it there.

Personally I prefer the slashing the muther fucker to death method.
Carlito is attacked for holding this opinion.


Pressing football is the game EVERYONE who's any good plays, previously I thought you were trolling - now I know you just know fuck all about football.
We looked threatening when we pressed them high up the pitch, forcing them to give the ball away (that is what pressing is). That meant the distance to goal is far shorter and improves our chance to attack. It might have escaped your attention but the oppoents goal is at the other end of the pitch to ours! So where do you expect us to press in our 6 yard box???? You know fuck all about football.
I do not believe this is fair. I dont subscribe to Carlitos view exactly, but I can certainly see its validity. So I respond with the example of the Woolwich game to evidence an occasion where our beloved Spurs got a fantastic (monkey off the back) result by doing the opposite of a pressing game high up the pitch.

Seriuosly, how arrogant are replies like this? "You know fuck all about football".

In recent seasons it has been a specific tactic of ours in big games (noticably against Woolwich) to play a pressing game in our own half. Not in attacking areas. To only press in your own half is to draw the opposing team toward you creating space behind them. We had excellent wingers in Lennon and Bale, FBs able to attack in Ekotto and Walker, quick forwards and people like Huddlestone, VDV and Modric in midfield. This enabled us to suck Woolwich in, release the ball behind them quickly and break with real purpose. And it worked. First time Harry beat them at the lane they ended up with something loke 60% possession and yet were never in the game, it was genuis.

This is, if Im not mistaken, the sort of football Carlo wants to see us play (Im sure I saw him say as much previously). It has proven to work with us and arguably plays to our strengths so I can see why he might prefer it.

Personally I like the idea of being adaptable. In the first instance I would prefer a high pressing game and the ability to break down stubborn teams (something always beyond Redknapp) but also the ability to switch to a deeper, counter attacking style as well. I feel this is what the top level teams do, have real options to switch to when plan A isnt working. As well as plan A not being "lump it to Crouchy".

So who knows nothing about football? Theres a message in there somewhere, something about thinking before speaking, or looking before leaping, I forget now...

Here I do point toward a counter attacking style as an alternative when a "total domination" style doesnt work, so perhaps this is why you joined it up with the secondary points on Provoking with the ball which were in response to Carlitos observation we arent improving at breaking down stubborn sides
Carlito seemed to approve, I believe he understood what I was aiming at

Some of US know our onions mate, dont let people like that get you down.

I see no sign of us being better at breaking down stubborn sides with this style.
It is the position we ended up in with Redknapp. I lost count of the number of games where passing, territory and possession statistics were off the scale but we couldnt muster a decent shot on goal.

Up to the 18 yard box we were imperious, as soon as we got there we were clueless. I hated it.

IMO AVB has his system designed around creating this situation, so he must have solutions as well. I can see a real structure and shape to the side, purpose in runs that are made etc - that I did not see with Redknapp who I felt relied to much on player intuition/invention. So I do think AVB can make that break through, it might take a couple of buys though.

One thing AVB talked about previously was this idea of tempting the opposition with the ball. When we have achieved that domination and camped in the opposition half they have no where to go except long balls - which the CBs should gobble up and recycle into our possession. What he said we needed to do then was effectively tease the opponent with the ball so they would chase it through our lines. Still in the opposition half, they break their rigid two banks of 4(or 5) to try and win the ball, at which point space is created for us to exploit.

Its really brave, intelligent football and I love the sound of it. I just dont think we have got there with it yet. This is where someone like Moutinho would come into his own, composed possession and passing in tight situations.

When we play now I see to many balls back to the GK that effectively end up with us starting the process again, when an ball into midfield is on and would have achieved more of what we are looking for. The players need to build that confidence and understanding, but at least now it is clear we are on our way (IMO, at least)

This is one of the reasons Im very keen on Naughton getting a run at RB. Firstly it would mean Ekotto is back, someone built for this football IMO. He has the confidence and swagger to tempt players to him and then pass it around them. Also for me though Walker is one of the worst offenders for this lack of "positive possession" but I see Naughton as someone who uses the ball much more intelligently
This post was simply exploring the idea of us breaking down sides, pointing out in AVBs own words how he likes to set up to accomplish it.

I have bolded the section most relevant so that you can see I am specifically talking about when we have dominated a side, so when they are set back in a defensive formation to be hard to beat.

I have since referenced an interview with AVB so that you can see where what I am trying to express is coming from, and that it isnt my own ego driven ramblings ;)

Here once again in case you missed it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/8699902/Chelsea-manager-Andre-Villas-Boass-footballing-philosophy.html

What followed is, I think, a clusterfuck borne out of misunderstanding.
 
Brazil do it. They are more than happy to knock the ball along the back four until the opposition are drawn out and spaces open up.

When they do it they are 'toying' with the opposition, over here a defender would rather knock it long than get the inevitable jeers for making too many sideways passes...
 
Barca do something similar. I recall Gary Neville going into great detail on MNF one night last year. Essentially when they play out from the back the CBs split almost to the corner flags, the FBs push up and the CBs and Keeper play it between themselves to draw the other team forward allowing them space to play into. Looked bloody bonkers if you ask me, only they could pull it off.

Found the piece - from 1.15

 

VirginiaSpur

Supporter
Spouting bollocks from a distant land
Barca do something similar. I recall Gary Neville going into great detail on MNF one night last year. Essentially when they play out from the back the CBs split almost to the corner flags, the FBs push up and the CBs and Keeper play it between themselves to draw the other team forward allowing them space to play into. Looked bloody bonkers if you ask me, only they could pull it off.

Found the piece - from 1.15

That was awesome, thank you.

Say what you will about Neville, but I've always found him (in my admittedly short tenure of watching football) to be very insightful.

Found this to be very, very interesting back when it came up.
 
That was awesome, thank you.

Say what you will about Neville, but I've always found him (in my admittedly short tenure of watching football) to be very insightful.

Found this to be very, very interesting back when it came up.
I saw that last night and bookmarked it, havent watched it yet.

Gary Neville the player was annoying as fuck, really used to grate me and turned into one of those "love to hate" characters.

The second he went on sky my opinion of him revised completely. At the moment he is IMO the only pundit on TV who actually observes the games and has something to offer when articulating what he sees.
 

Register to remove

Top Bottom