It's Maureen
He got previous?
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
He got previous?
I don't see his posts...and I'd rather not as there are 4 others on this page it would bring along...but I am tempted seeing as you suggest it's worse than you.todd1882 I think Totti likes his shiny objects more than I do.
I have to admit Postecoglou is a very good manager. He seems organized, likeable, and has built a level of excitement around Spurs. But I believe he will be much like Bielsa was at Leeds. Very popular with fans but very committed to his system and not adaptable. With so many teams trying to adopt a possession oriented model you're left with the simple problem that only one team can have the ball at a given time. If a team plays passively against Spurs they can be overwhelmed by them. If they play aggressively it turns games very unpredictable and hard to see out. Having said all that, I think I was wrong about him originally and no matter what happens this year or next he was the right pick. The team was at a point where it need to be remade, establish an identity and get younger. I think he'll give Spurs three entertaining years and then we'll see what happens. I'm hoping I wrong about the long term.
He has to be a long-term appointment as he will be difficult to follow as his methods are so different.
There was a dearth of leadership in the last game. Players like PEH should not be diving and sulking with the ref. Dier should have helped to settle the backline, especially given his own limitations. You can forgive the younger players for dropping their heads but the senior players have to set the example.
More to the point that it was a makeshift back 4 that had not played together all season. You could take the 4 best defenders in the world and put them into a back 4 and they would be awful and require some time to get up to pace.
Look at Porro, awful when he first came in, but now looks like a top draw player.
The chart may also be misleading. If Dier was marking their main striker target (who had little movement) you wouldn't expect him to do anything but stick to they player.
The chart suggests that Davies was the roaming CB who was tasked with chasing balls and Dier was marking to the striker.
Overlay this will the Wolves chart and see what you get then.
That was just me semi-joking about the excuse Levy will use in January.
Was always my worry that an ultra attack every game would result in as many bad results as good ones.
But on the other hand, I didn't believe he could get an aggressive ultra attack out of the squad he arrived to. And Saturday was a glowing example of exactly that. They defaulted to coward mode immediately once Wolves started playing.
Nobody should "have to he a long term appointment"
You don't hire a total unknown and commit to keeping them regardless as to what is happening. If we'd said that about the likes of Ramos or AVB, and stuck with it, we'd have gone down.
This is not, in any way me saying he should be sacked after 2 losses, of course not. He can hardly be held accountable for 1 game finishing with 9 men and the other being a makeshift team missing most of its best players.
I can't agree with that. Natural talent hits thr ground running. We started the season with VdV, Udogie and Vicario as part of the back 5. Romero and Porro had only played in a 343 system before. Yet they all gelled immediately.
On the other hand, Dier and Davies, who are both bang average, wouldn't gel if they played all season. They'd probably get worse if anything.
I said when he arrived that even if he wasn't long term, hiring Ange was still a very important appointment because he's going to be building a squad suited to the football we want to see.
Meaning whoever does replace him will have a fit team that knows how to play high pressure attacking football and will stand us in good stead for the future.
Previous managers have had a certain style and it left us for the most part with pretty average players across the squad. Which is what we're feeling outside of our starting eleven.
Ange will change that
And that was all Diers fault was it?
Let's not worry about the truth, as long as it fits your analysis
...and yet Davies, PEH & Dier are 3 of our most senior players!!!
Yet weirdly, 3 of them (Dier, Davies & Royal) have all played together in previous seasons.... Albeit under a different manager/tactics.
All I saw was them reverting to type, but trying to implement some of Ange's new philosophy...
I almost would've been tempted (just for this game) to suggest they played a system that THEY felt comfortable with...
Just to get them through the match...
Rather than asking them to play some tippy tappy nonsense on the 6 yard line that NONE of them were capable of, or comfortable with!
Ok, struggled with....?
Not incapable!
I like Davies, but I prefer him at LB, I ACTUALLY like Dier, but not in this system...
Royal always just looks like he's out of breath... even after the first few minutes when we scored!
Dier and Davies are back ups, but that doesn't make them the sole reason for losing the game. IMHO they both played better than Sarr, Biss and Johnson who provided no meaningful defensive cover, or attacking threat (after minute 3 - they were absolute mint for the first 3 minutes!). Kulu does a good job of holding the ball up, until the opposition defenders stop laughing, but other than Hojberg who was outnumbered, we had little or no cover for the defenders.
I think the challenge during this period will be getting these players to play with courage. Far too many of them (including Sarr and Bissouma) went back to Conte-ball as an instinctive reaction as soon as we scored.
The way we stopped playing immediately showed a lack of trust in their team mates, instead of going up a gear and killing the game we put the handbrake on. That wouldn’t have happened if Maddison, VDV and Romero were on the pitch. They need to understand that playing on the front foot is the way we win matches, not passing sideways so our reserve CBs don’t feel too exposed.
The way we stopped playing immediately showed a lack of trust in their team mates, instead of going up a gear and killing the game we put the handbrake on. That wouldn’t have happened if Maddison, VDV and Romero were on the pitch. They need to understand that playing on the front foot is the way we win matches, not passing sideways so our reserve CBs don’t feel too exposed.
Last edited:
The two goals we gave away was the result of those players trying to play on the front foot tbf
So true...
It irritates the fuck out of me, but how often do you see Woolwich score, and THEN score again, moments later, to effectively try and kill a game off...
Liverpool did it the other day against Brentford...
Score, then score again, if ONLY to break their resolve...
We've rarely done that this season (away at Burnley maybe?)
But scoring early against both Chelsea and Wolves was an opportunity missed on both occasions....
Easy to say now, but we score twice against Chelsea and the rest of the game probably doesn't play out like it did....
And THEN we'd be going into the Wolves game on a high, and possibly not with as many injuries/suspensions as we brought on ourselves by NOT killing the game off on the Monday!
That Son 2nd goal disallowed against Chelsea was our sliding doors moment last week...
That stands, and we're 5 points clear of the pack going into the International week....
Fine fucking margins!