Mousa Sissoko Team v Inter (h) CL 18/19 ratings

[stevee]

Mate, I think you are dwelling on the completion percentage and ignoring the bigger issue, that neither of our CM's got on the ball enough.

I'm not sure and I'm not going to look through 10 other players, but Winks only made two more in the second half for example. Neither were good. And I did point out that it was a team issue, we completed 100 less passes second half - as a team. But the midfield drives the team, and ours didn't that second half. Sissoko, whatever he is, is not a metronomic passer. Winks can be but I think he ended up doing too much of the running back and fetching last night, which isn't his forte either. Eriksen is a massive miss to us - he is that 8/10 hybrid who sees the ball 60-70 times a game and connects the dots together, especially the midfield to the attack.

True, you did highlight Winks, and that it was a team issue.
As I said earlier I think it was a tactical issue ,pushing Lucas up top, leaving us with one less player in midfield.
But it does open you up to accusations of an anti-Sissoko bias, if you only quote his pass completion rate and not the other players.
You plainly say that you are not going to look through 10 other players, but you took the time to look at Sissoko's stats.

 

[dannythomas]

I’m not sure why this thread degenerates every game into fellow Spurs fans throwing abuse at each other. Save it for when we comment on shit put out by Woolwich Mania or The Shed End .

For the record I completely agree that Chelsea are a better team than Inter which is why our performance on Saturday was so exceptional. If we had left out Eriksen and Son and played Winks and Sissoko at DM I’m not convinced our performance would have been close to what we saw that day. For most of the time Inter were happy to park the bus so we didn’t need to press as much as when we forced Chelsea back.

As far as Sissoko is concerned I , like many others, wanted him out. But he has progressed from that to unarguably a useful option in different formations so that we haven’t suffered too much from the demise of Wanyama and Dembele. And his final ball was the one that broke the deadlock yesterday so he can’t this time be criticised for that.

I’m a little concerned about Moura’s recent form , he’s not looking at all like the player who started the season . Fortunately we can once again team up fully fit and rejuvenated Kane, Deli, Son and Eriksen who are equal to any other quartet in the league. I think Kane clearly prefers Son up there with him over Lucas.

We have 4 great central defenders who can comfortably be rotated without significantly weakening us and I have to give Vertonghen MOTM despite not taking his goal chance. He seamlessly slotted back as if he had never been away.

 

[RealCoolYid]

Slowly slowly catch monkey

Lets start with the selections as there was much discussion about the omissions of Eriksen and Son for this one. As far as Son goes it's moot, he's been disappointing far more often than he's been great the last few months, and he's also been through a WC and Asian Games with no rest, so Ive got no issue with Moura coming in for him. Normally you'd want Eriksen out there for every game possible, as we are just a much better team with him than without him, but I think he's been flogged to death most seasons because of his importance, and I think he now has this stomach issue that's got to be managed. I understand why he was given some rest.

We started the more pro-active team, but given that this was must win for us, and the nature of both sides, that's hardly a surprise, however, this was a much more sedate affair than the intense mauling of Chelsea at the weekend. Part of that was the tactical approach from both sides. Inter weren't going to come with the high line and pro-active intentions of Chelsea, they were far more pragmatic, and for our part, we were much intense. I don't think the 423, or the personnel in it, were quite as good a blend as Saturday either. Good intentions were there, and we did try to do the right things first half, but it was all a little bit flat and got flatter as the game wore on.

I think the second half we were actually pretty poor, and the stats bare this out, we completed 100 less passes than in the first half, possession swung from 55% first half to 46.7 second, and where there were half chances and situations first half, I can barely remember too many sniffs of chances second half. And this wasn't just about a bus park of Inter, we just didn't have the control in midfield that we'd had at the weekend. I don't think Winks and Sissoko as a double pivot CM2 was great. Winks tried hard to get things moving and made more passes than anyone in our team ahead of the CB's 50/54 92% (highest) but he faded second half going from 36 passes to 14 - and game winning surge aside - Sissoko was very insipid, and went from a pretty meh 24 passes first half to 12 second half. And there's no defensive mitigation here ether, because he was terrible second half, there was a moment where his touch let him down, he gave the ball away with everyone - including Aurier upfield, and then just stood and watched as Perisic (who had been standing next to him) charged up the pitch alone in acres of space, it was Inter's most threatening break to that point, and if Icardi had seen Persic it could have been worse. There was just no drive, control or tempo coming from our midfield (both). And there's no defensive mitigation for Sissoko either tonight, he was really lethargic, made no tackles (Winks 2) at all.

Sissoko was lucky not to get hooked when the Poch threw the subs on, but it was lucky he wasn't as he then went on one of those surges, powering past a couple of Inter players, then getting his head up, picking out Alli, who deftly fed Eriksen, who provided the finish. For me, if he's going to be on that pitch this is where he should be, especially as an impact sub, in that outside right channel front right of a 433, powering at tired legs, where he was pushed into when the changes were made. This kind of role is how he made his name at Toulouse and where he was more effective for Newcastle. Yes he can play RM in the central CM3, but I think we have better options for that role most weeks, but he could provide the kind of chaos Mané does at Liverpool in that more forward role IMO. Not as a deeper metronome.

It's hard to pick anyone out on the 90 minutes as standout performer. Sissoko definitely provided the games most inspirational moment, but was pretty turgid otherwise. Winks was livelier but was still also pretty insipid, especially second half. Alli didn't quite manage to fulfil the void left by Eriksen, but was one of the few who was consistently involved throughout the 90 and was once again involved in the goal. Moura and Lamela were both fucking disappointing. Kane is actually looking like proper Kane again, hustle and threat. Normally I hate his trying to dribble, but his first half dribble was one of the best of his Ive seen, glided past players before unleashing. But this was one of those games where he struggled to wade through the treacle of Inter's discipline.

Both FB's were generally solid, saw lots of the ball in midfield areas, but neither really contributed much offensively.

This result was more about the ethos of Poch, that way this Spurs team isn't Spursy. Needed a win, 10 minutes left against a dogged Inter, Pochettino's Spurs found it. And Sissoko is probably the embodiment of that spirit right now, so just to give Bazali and Co the excuse to suck each other off, I'm giving it him.

Individual

Lloris - one horrible Lloris moment when he compounded a poor back pass from Winks by giving it straight to them. Otherwise OK, and one great save lat on.

Aurier - Solid enough.

TA - Good game

JV - Good game.

Davies - Like Aurier, solid enough and saw almost identical amounts of ball. Neither really gave us much of offensive quality.

Winks - Was a bit more involved than Sissoko, with and without the ball, but was pretty insipid and faded second half.

Sissoko - Was poor up until the 80th minute, then he picked up the ball, powered past a couple of players, got his head up, played the right pass which led to the goal. It was a great contribution in an otherwise pretty grim performance, especially second half.

Lamela - Eratic and clumsy, not great.

Alli - Was involved throughout but it was mostly quite inconsequential stuff, but was cool in the moment that mattered.

Moura - pffttt...

Kane - Definitely looking like real slim Kanie again. Aggresion, hustle, I don't mind him having the odd blank when he's at least hauling ass.

Subs - I guess this was a game where they were likely to prove as important as those that started. And they did. All did decent little jobs when they came on, with Eriksen finishing cooly for the win.

Poch - Not been a bad week for Che Poch. Just you think you're out, he drags you back into the revolution.

You are one garrulous so and so

 

[bus-conductor]

True, you did highlight Winks, and that it was a team issue.
As I said earlier I think it was a tactical issue ,pushing Lucas up top, leaving us with one less player in midfield.
But it does open you up to accusations of an anti-Sissoko bias, if you only quote his pass completion rate and not the other players.
You plainly say that you are not going to look through 10 other players, but you took the time to look at Sissoko's stats.

It wasn't his completion rate I quoted in the OP, it was his (and Winks) actual number of passes. And also Winks. I did quote Wink's overall completion rate because he did see more ball than anyone bar TA over the 90, and still completed the best of anyone. But I still emphasised that both Winks and Sissoko's actual numerical lack of passing was the issue.

 

[stevee]

It wasn't his completion rate I quoted in the OP, it was his (and Winks) actual number of passes. And also Winks. I did quote Wink's overall completion rate because he did see more ball than anyone bar TA over the 90, and still completed the best of anyone. But I still emphasised that both Winks and Sissoko's actual numerical lack of passing was the issue.

All true again.
What is also true is that in mentioning Winks (in isolation and not including the ratings part of your post) you took @ 2 lines.
Sissoko's mention takes up 15 lines of, mostly, negative comments.

 

[bus-conductor]

All true again.
What is also true is that in mentioning Winks (in isolation and not including the ratings part of your post) you took @ 2 lines.
Sissoko's mention takes up 15 lines of, mostly, negative comments.

Sissoko’s a bit of cult hero right now, and after popping up with his little run for the goal he again took plaudits, but I actually think he was pretty poor for much of that game, and very poor second half, and I don’t just mean with the ball. But if I’m going to tell people why I think the emperor is in fact half naked, I’m going to have to put up a good explanation as to why, so i tried to.

 

[BangkokSpud]

Mate, I think you are dwelling on the completion percentage and ignoring the bigger issue, that neither of our CM's got on the ball enough.

I'm not sure and I'm not going to look through 10 other players, but Winks only made two more in the second half for example. Neither were good. And I did point out that it was a team issue, we completed 100 less passes second half - as a team. But the midfield drives the team, and ours didn't that second half. Sissoko, whatever he is, is not a metronomic passer. Winks can be but I think he ended up doing too much of the running back and fetching last night, which isn't his forte either. Eriksen is a massive miss to us - he is that 8/10 hybrid who sees the ball 60-70 times a game and connects the dots together, especially the midfield to the attack.

No he isn't ignoring anything ... you are stupidly, or deliberately, missing the point that Poch made two very clear tactical changes in the second half ... both of which impacted Moussa's passing statistics ...

The first change was to push Lucas, and Son when he came on, further forward and transition the ball back to front a bit quicker ...

So let's explain tactically what that means: the back two Toby and Jan started hitting longer diagonals, the midfield now reduced from three to two drop into a more defensive role and are tasked with quickly recycling the ball ... what this means from a passing statistic is that the midfield two Winks and Moussa see far less of the ball for the first twenty-five minutes of the second half ... it must be said this tactic wasn't all that effective in creating chances, but it was very effective in running the energy out of the Inter defence .... Lucas and Erik ran their legs off knowing they would be coming off with 20 minutes to go ...

The second tactical change was to bring on Eriksen, leaving just Winks as a holding defender with Eriksen, Moussa and Dele all given freedom to roam forward supporting Son and Harry ... in effect switching to a 4-1-3-2 ...

So again let's explain tactically what that means, the defence (which now includes Winks as a CDM) recycle the ball primarily to Eriksen, he looks to play in any of the four attacking players now on the field, this means Eriksen now sees the majority of the ball, 12 passes in 20 minutes 100% to Spurs players (and a goal !!!!) With Eriksen as the midfield lynch-pin Moussa, Dele, Kane and Son all individually see very little of the ball as they are focused on creating space and running the legs of defenders ...

This is what's called a tactical analysis, of course I might have read it all wrong but only Poch and the squad would know that, your 'neither were good' or 'not his forte' isn't a tactical analysis it's just your subjective opinion ...

Poch set the team out to attack through the centre, the back four played as a back four not wing backs, the midfield stayed central and unlike in the Chelsea game we did not attempt to go 'wide' a tactic we've learnt doesn't work against well drilled Italian defences ...

All the changes made during the game were to reinforce this strategy, whilst the personnel changed with substitutions the tactic of one-two passes attacking through the centre remained ... it was master piece of management ... and thankfully it all worked ... I'm just sorry you can't see that ...

 

[stevee]

Sissoko’s a bit of cult hero right now, and after popping up with his little run for the goal he again took plaudits, but I actually think he was pretty poor for much of that game, and very poor second half, and I don’t just mean with the ball. But if I’m going to tell people why I think the emperor is in fact half naked, I’m going to have to put up a good explanation as to why, so i tried to.

So, what you actually mean is that 77% of the people on this forum AND the 68% that voted on the other site that was quoted on here are ALL guilty of not seeing the emperor in the nip.

 

[bus-conductor]

No he isn't ignoring anything ... you are stupidly, or deliberately, missing the point that Poch made two very clear tactical changes in the second half ... both of which impacted Moussa's passing statistics ...

The first change was to push Lucas, and Son when he came on, further forward and transition the ball back to front a bit quicker ...

So let's explain tactically what that means: the back two Toby and Jan started hitting longer diagonals, the midfield now reduced from three to two drop into a more defensive role and are tasked with quickly recycling the ball ... what this means from a passing statistic is that the midfield two Winks and Moussa see far less of the ball for the first twenty-five minutes of the second half ... it must be said this tactic wasn't all that effective in creating chances, but it was very effective in running the energy out of the Inter defence .... Lucas and Erik ran their legs off knowing they would be coming off with 20 minutes to go ...

The second tactical change was to bring on Eriksen, leaving just Winks as a holding defender with Eriksen, Moussa and Dele all given freedom to roam forward supporting Son and Harry ... in effect switching to a 4-1-3-2 ...

So again let's explain tactically what that means, the defence (which now includes Winks as a CDM) recycle the ball primarily to Eriksen, he looks to play in any of the four attacking players now on the field, this means Eriksen now sees the majority of the ball, 12 passes in 20 minutes 100% to Spurs players (and a goal !!!!) With Eriksen as the midfield lynch-pin Moussa, Dele, Kane and Son all individually see very little of the ball as they are focused on creating space and running the legs of defenders ...

This is what's called a tactical analysis, of course I might have read it all wrong but only Poch and the squad would know that, your 'neither were good' or 'not his forte' isn't a tactical analysis it's just your subjective opinion ...

Poch set the team out to attack through the centre, the back four played as a back four not wing backs, the midfield stayed central and unlike in the Chelsea game we did not attempt to go 'wide' a tactic we've learnt doesn't work against well drilled Italian defences ...

All the changes made during the game were to reinforce this strategy, whilst the personnel changed with substitutions the tactic of one-two passes attacking through the centre remained ... it was master piece of management ... and thankfully it all worked ... I'm just sorry you can't see that ...

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so aggressive and insulting. I didn't start insulting you.

OK, here's some tactical analysis for you.

You are indeed, pretty wrong. We started with a CM2, we didn't switch to one. And even after the first sub, we continued to play with a CM2. It wasn't until the 70th minute that Eriksen came on (for Lamela), was put in midfield, and Sissoko was pushed into Lamela's ARM position. So between the 45th and 70th minute, Sissoko still only made 8 passes in 25 minutes. But even if it was the first sub, he still only made 6 passes that half. That is not good enough.

We didn't suddenly switch to being Tony Pullis's West Brom just because we swapped Moura for Son. Alderweirteld hit less long passes second half (5) than he did second half (7). And all of them before the first sub - and your supposed "tactical change" was even made. Vertongeh hit 5 second half in 48 minutes - where he'd hit none first Half, but. 2 of those were before your supposed "change of tactics", only 3 after. And only 2 of all of those were successful.

So before your tactical change when you say the CB's started hitting long passes we made 10 long passes, after your tactical change 3.

And fuck knows what this even means:

but it was very effective in running the energy out of the Inter defence

Not sure how a tactic that didn't actually happen, and even if it did, happened 3 times extra, had us threatening even less second half than first, actually ran energy out of their defence. They were looking far more comfortable second half than they were first. Again, the stats bare this out. First half we had 8 shots, 3 on target. Second half we had 6, 2 on target. They had 2 first half and none on target, second half they had 8, 2 on target. Was it part of Poch's tactical genius to give them more of the game and better chances?

You could give Poch credit for bringing on our best player, and pushing Sissoko up into a zone where he had less traffic to charge through, and charging through is what he does best, but then you'd have to admit that my analysis that putting him in a CM2 for 70 minutes wasn't actually very smart.

So my criticism of Sissoko (and Winks and Poch for playing that CM2) still stands. Your analysis is deeply flawed. But even if it wasn't, that still doesn't excuse a midfield that just lost control of the game, a loss of control which saw us make 100 less passes as a team - not a handful less - and give up a 55% game for a 46% one. And that was not down to pumping three extra long fucking balls.

And that's before we get to how poor without the ball Sissoko actually was. he might have been seen charging about a bit, but just about every chance they had he was culpable in. Ive listed 3 of them. He was slow getting to players. Didn't make one single tackle.

He did play a crucial role in our goal. But an objective analysis of his overall performance does not paint a good picture. Not all his fault, and he wasn't alone - I criticised Winks and Poch for playing them in that format.

 

[bus-conductor]

So, what you actually mean is that 77% of the people on this forum AND the 68% that voted on the other site that was quoted on here are ALL guilty of not seeing the emperor in the nip.

If they are awarding it because of what they perceive he was great over the entire game, yes.

It could be that many gave it him because of his eye catching role in the goal, or because that and the fact that nobody else stood out either.

 

[YorkshireYid]

If they are awarding it because of what they perceive he was great over the entire game, yes.

It could be that many gave it him because of his eye catching role in the goal, or because that and the fact that nobody else stood out either.

Or because we recognise a good game when we see one. No idea why your focusing so much on passes completed as a sign of a good game, by that logic Henderson would be MOTM almost every game. Also there where only two people on the pitch who had a better completion rate then Moussa, one was winks the other Valero.

So our two CMs who played the 90 both had completion rates of over 90% compared to Inters two who averaged, just above 70%. Now I would wager that's mainly due to the fact both of our lads worked there bollocks off and pressed a lot more then Inter did. So it's doesn't matter they where not dictating play that wasn't there job, we had a front 4 of Kane, Ali, Lamela and Moura on the pitch for that. There entire role was to press Inter up the pitch and stop them controlling play something they did very well

Your focusing far to much on one stat to suit your agenda here mate, you are legit the only person I have seen suggest Moussa had a bad game

 

[Joe Clash]

If they are awarding it because of what they perceive he was great over the entire game, yes.

It could be that many gave it him because of his eye catching role in the goal, or because that and the fact that nobody else stood out either.

You need a hobby mate, because your self-styled football expert persona isn’t working. Pass completion is a daft way of looking at football. The further you go up the pitch the lower your pass completion is going to be. Knocking square balls across the back 4 proves nothing - it’s killer passes that win games.

You’re ill equipped to give genuinely unbiased reviews of games owing to your personal agendas against certain players. Also, I think you enjoy the controversy and the notoriety. You like the attention.

 

[BangkokSpud]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so aggressive and insulting. I didn't start insulting you.

Because common sense and reasonableness are like water off a duck's back to you ... when 76% of the Spurs family believe Sissoko was man of the match ... you don't just say, "well I disagree" which is of course you are perfectly entitled to do, instead you arrogantly make post after post telling the majority that we are all wrong, and only you understand football and know what you're talking about ...

As to your assessment? I'd rather go with what Poch said "we changed to add an extra attacking player in the centre" because guess what? he's the guy who made the decision.... so on that basis it's reasonable to assume he knows why he did it better than you do ...

You've just created a load of meaningless waffle, around a load of equally meaningless statistics, all to support an opinion which anybody who actually watched the game agrees is correct ...

Do you disagree with any of this? - We started well but against a massed defence struggled to create many chances, as the game got even tighter in the second half we found ourselves unable to break through the packed Inter defence, as Inter tired we brought on fresh legs and looked to overload the centre of their defence ... this tactic worked and led to our winning goal ... Sissoko played a key role in these changes

Would you agree that this isn't 'speculation' it's what actually happened on the pitch ... or did I watch a totally different game to you? ....

If you don't like my opinion try reading this F365 Says: Pochettino plan was pure perfection... - Football365

FYI - This is my last attempt at a reasonable interaction ... will revert to 'get bent you clueless dick' as the standard default response to your insane anti-player rants going forward ...

 

[spursmalc]

When I go to the match I see a lot more such as where players are when not near the ball, running off the ball etc. I can understand detailed analysis from those going. However when watching on a stream or TV it is hard to see some of this as the camera follows the ball and you only see a limited area around the ball. When doing all this detailed analysis are you doing it from what you have seen or from stats produced and shown on websites? Or perhaps I just get caught up in the excitement of watching the match rather than noticing that tactically a player is moved further forward.

 

[bus-conductor]

Because common sense and reasonableness are like water off a duck's back to you ... when 76% of the Spurs family believe Sissoko was man of the match ... you don't just say, "well I disagree" which is of course you are perfectly entitled to do, instead you arrogantly make post after post telling the majority that we are all wrong, and only you understand football and know what you're talking about ...

As to your assessment? I'd rather go with what Poch said "we changed to add an extra attacking player in the centre" because guess what? he's the guy who made the decision.... so on that basis it's reasonable to assume he knows why he did it better than you do ...

You've just created a load of meaningless waffle, around a load of equally meaningless statistics, all to support an opinion which anybody who actually watched the game agrees is correct ...

Do you disagree with any of this? - We started well but against a massed defence struggled to create many chances, as the game got even tighter in the second half we found ourselves unable to break through the packed Inter defence, as Inter tired we brought on fresh legs and looked to overload the centre of their defence ... this tactic worked and led to our winning goal ... Sissoko played a key role in these changes

Would you agree that this isn't 'speculation' it's what actually happened on the pitch ... or did I watch a totally different game to you? ....

If you don't like my opinion try reading this F365 Says: Pochettino plan was pure perfection... - Football365

FYI - This is my last attempt at a reasonable interaction ... will revert to 'get bent you clueless dick' as the standard default response to your insane anti-player rants going forward ...

No, what I did was dismantle your meaningless waffle. Just as I highlighted your bullshit “pass completion” claim in the cult of Sissoko thread.

I’m not sure you actually read past the headline in that link did you? Because if you had, you'd realise it says nothing more than "Poch's gamble was rotating, which didn't really work until he brought his best player on" and that we were too pedestrian (like I said in my OP - all a bit flat). It says there was none of the usual reluctance to make changes, which is nonsense because he waited until the 60th and then 70th minutes to make them, as per usual. and that:

In the end, the goal came with an emphatic finish from the Dane, though it was Moussa Sissoko’s name that was sung by a buoyant Wembley crowd. His driving run came a little closer to the box than we had seen in the opening three-quarters of the game

Which is exactly what I said in my OP. That Sissoko is more effective there than in the CM2 set up we played.

It's a poorly written, un-insightful sound bite, which doesn't supply any detailed analysis whatsoever, but certainly doesn't support yours. And the only piece of logic in it, supports mine.

 

[bus-conductor]

You need a hobby mate, because your self-styled football expert persona isn’t working. Pass completion is a daft way of looking at football. The further you go up the pitch the lower your pass completion is going to be. Knocking square balls across the back 4 proves nothing - it’s killer passes that win games.

You’re ill equipped to give genuinely unbiased reviews of games owing to your personal agendas against certain players. Also, I think you enjoy the controversy and the notoriety. You like the attention.

Maybe you missed the bit where I said:

Mate, I think you are dwelling on the completion percentage and ignoring the bigger issue, that neither of our CM's got on the ball enough.

You're ill judged to critique someone posting on the internet if you can't even read what they write and just let your personal agendas against certain posters cloud your judgement.

 

[Bazali]

Sissoko’s a bit of cult hero right now, and after popping up with his little run for the goal he again took plaudits, but I actually think he was pretty poor for much of that game, and very poor second half, and I don’t just mean with the ball. But if I’m going to tell people why I think the emperor is in fact half naked, I’m going to have to put up a good explanation as to why, so i tried to.

Unbelievable

MOM was poor, pretty poor and very poor

Lmfao

 

[bus-conductor]

Or because we recognise a good game when we see one. No idea why your focusing so much on passes completed as a sign of a good game, by that logic Henderson would be MOTM almost every game. Also there where only two people on the pitch who had a better completion rate then Moussa, one was winks the other Valero.

So our two CMs who played the 90 both had completion rates of over 90% compared to Inters two who averaged, just above 70%. Now I would wager that's mainly due to the fact both of our lads worked there bollocks off and pressed a lot more then Inter did. So it's doesn't matter they where not dictating play that wasn't there job, we had a front 4 of Kane, Ali, Lamela and Moura on the pitch for that. There entire role was to press Inter up the pitch and stop them controlling play something they did very well

Your focusing far to much on one stat to suit your agenda here mate, you are legit the only person I have seen suggest Moussa had a bad game

Fucking hell, how many times. I literally said the opposite:

Mate, I think you are dwelling on the completion percentage and ignoring the bigger issue, that neither of our CM's got on the ball enough.

As well as seeing very little of the ball, Sissoko also made zero (0) Tackles and was culpable or partly culpable in most of the dangerous situations Inter had. And as the game wore in we had less and less of the ball, less and less shots, and Inter had more and more.

 

[Joe Clash]

Maybe you missed the bit where I said:

Yes, I missed it (I don’t read everything you write). In that case why are you using Sissoko’s pass completion as a stick to beat him with? You appear to want it both ways. Like I said, an agenda.

 

[bus-conductor]

Yes, I missed it (I don’t read everything you write). In that case why are you using Sissoko’s pass completion as a stick to beat him with? You appear to want it both ways. Like I said, an agenda.

I haven't used it as a stick to beat him with.

Like I said, an agenda.