Ange Postecoglou | New Spurs boss on 4 year contract
- Thread starter MayosNoun
- Start date
It’s absolute bonkers. They were losing regardless. It wasn’t about tonight - it’s about instilling the below mentality of zero fear and sticking to your principles regardless. It’s proper big Ange energy.
https://x.com/fabrizioromano/status/1721658338008576385?s=46&t=3cSPEXx54yOkvLX_Hq8XPw
It's almost like many here are disregarding the context, 9 men is a guaranteed loss. Spurs didn't get battered they attempted to grab a result despite dire circumstances. Arguably Ange can take more out of that game than Poch can.
It was a back and forth fixture but objectively what's important is to understand what you can take away from the game and bring into the next fixture. That's why United struggle from game to game irrespective of opposition because the performances are so dire there's nothing to inspire the displays in the following game. Football is certainly a results game but context holds much of the detail.
Not sure about that, think many people will want to tune in for their next game after seeing them going for it with 8 outfield players. Am not judging now how smart it was (or wasn't), but it can definitely have its benefits. No way many people were highly anticipating Spurs matches while Conte was around for example.
Wow! I wasn't watching but had the radio on and they were saying Chelsea players should just do this barring the bit at the end:
They lost with dignity.
Believe me Every fan would rather lose 2-1 or even 3-1 with your defenders defending their 18 yard box and not throwing their goalkeeper under the bus than lose 4-1 to Shitty team while getting played through like amateurs. What was even the point of the high press?? It wasn't even that effective and with less men it was always going to fail.
Edit: There was nothing to learn here from Ange in any way. Chelsea are shit that's nothing new, you can't successfully press high against a PL team with 2 men down and expect to succeed everybody knows that too. If he really wanted to learn something he would have tried to set up his team to defend the box in that second half to see how well his team can play on the backfoot. This was not a learning experience in any way for him.
They got 2 good scoring chance before the third conceding goal.
How do you guarantee they wouldn't concede as much if not more defending deep with a makeshift defense line on top 2 men down and an injury to a key attacker? There are teams getting thrashed with 11 men, and no amount of damage control could prevent further damage.
I questioned Ange management ability in long run against adversity like injury crisis, thick fixture if Tottenham has European football in the mix even before this game in defense of ETH in the past few weeks; but this situation is not one of those situation, even the best manager can't do anything brilliant and escape. Klopp Liverpool lost 5-0 to Man City after Mane sent off at one goal down in first half once. They later soundly beat City in CL run to the final in the same season. Would anyone dig those games up just to call Klopp naive now?
They created 2 chances from set pieces and one because of a Gallagher mistake.
Meanwhile they conceded enough space and chances to lose by double digits. Nico Jackson has been the barrel of everyone's jokes but managed to score more goals in the second half than he's managed all season....
But yeah, there's nothing wrong with that
With Chelsea's struggles in front of goal I would've put money on Spurs not conceding if they sat back.
So 3 top chances created with 9 men? It was 2-1 in the 94th minute
If they sat back they were losing that game 100% regardless. Look it was a mad game and the red cards killed Spurs but I enjoyed his approach. He could have lost 10-1 but didn’t and in the end they created a few chances so feck sitting back and losing the game on a whimper
He just said if they went down to 5 they were having a go
Sorry, but playing your defensive line on the halfway line, with both of your first choice CBs off the pitch is just fecking dumb. A half competent team would have seen them easily before the 94th minute.
Try and tell me a time where the above has ever worked? He should be rightly criticized for being naive.
He’ll be sacked within 18 months. Thinks he’s Billy big nuts after his Celtic spell & the opening few months in the PL.
Your "every" belief is massively wrong, all you have to do is see Spurs fans on this particular game. The high press has proven no more effective than parking the bus, therefor it's null.
Also, as a Man Utd fan, I still respect Fergie for going for it against City when they lost 1-6 at home, rather than take the "save face" defeat.
2 of them were set pieces though, it's not like they were cutting Chelsea wide open. They also conceded at least 6 one v one opportunities against a team that has struggled in front of goal. Like I said Nico Jackson has scored more goals in the second half than he has all season and will most likely not score 3 in his next 10 epl fixtures...
You're saying this now, if this was Liverpool or City it would be one of the worst losses in epl history and if it was Arsenal I don't think Spurs fans will be as forgiving and as happy with the resut.
While I understand people arguing for or against the suicidal high line, I don't think saying they created a lot of chances is a reason to back his tactics though. Son apart, their 2-3 biggest chances and threats were from set pieces and sure, they won those because they didn't completely park the bus but I think there could have been a balance where they defended deep but were also looking to attack on the counter. They still could have picked up free kicks and been dangerous. You feel this woeful Chelsea attack would have struggled to break down a 9 man team if it didn't play this high and they'd have improved Spurs' chance of getting a positive result. That being said, you can still commend Ange for sticking to his guns and playing a more positive style of football.
It hasn't. Not am I telling you it's worked... I'm defending a manager for trying something different to what almost always happens when you see teams down to 9 men, that statistically has never worked, why continue this trend for the sake of it? feck that... I like changes, especially positive ones.
I'm not sure he'd have really played such a crazy high line vs Doku, Haaland and co for sure.
He had 9 men ffs!! so what
Did you watch the game? you’re taking all the Chelsea chances against 9 men and are almost celebrating them whilst ignoring the fact it was 2-1 until the 94h minute and Chelsea were on the back foot having faces 3 rapid chances from Spurs.
Feck me let’s just sit back with 9 men for 50 odd minutes. If that games finishes 2-1 Poch is facing massive questions, 2 shitty 95 and 97 min goals change nothing for me
Liverpool had their defensive line intact. Klopp switched to back 5 with the luxury of throwing TAA and Konate on, where as Spurs lost 3 of their defenders and playing players out of their natural position in that defensive line. If Spurs can defend a low block well, Conte maybe still in charge.
What is positive about doing something that actively gave up chances to the opposition? Doing something else that statistically has never worked doesn't make it any better and now they've shipped 2 unnecessary extra goals. Chelsea were abysmal at creating chances until he left half a pitch for them to play into.
Anyone who watched that interview of him post-match where he says we’d have played that way with 5 men as that’s who are - we will always have a go as long as I’m here - and doesn’t think the players and fans are fecking buzzing about it is seriously not looking at the bigger picture. The game was over when they went down to 9 - the way they played afterward means they made something from the defeat.
Loved his interview there. Took all the ref/var decisions on the chin which was a breath of fresh air compared to crying cnuts like Arteta and Klopp
Those players play for a manager who is an expert at positional play even against 11 men.
Against 9?
You may as well line all of them up in front of the goal and have City try to fit the ball through the gaps. Parking the bus or playing a high line literally won't matter against City.
I remember Pep in his first season, insistent on playing his own way, even after embarrassing losses to Chelsea and Everton.
It's more than trying to just win the next game.
I just covered that. It's something different <--- that's the positive thing. 0 for 1 vs 0 for 100's. Whatever, you just want teams to do the same thing over and over - leading to same outcome over and over? How boring. Be it by 1,2,3,4 goals... same outcome, a loss.
The outcome was the same today in the rare instance of trying something else, but the way we got to that outcome was different. I like variety.
The crowd(fans) gave the team a standing ovation with the loss.
What do you mean so what ? You're talking as if they created those chances because of the highline and were cutting through Chelsea at will, this is a shite Chelsea team and the fact that we're commending the fact that a 9 man team 'only' lost 4-1 is evidence in itself that it was an absolutely dreadful decision.
Also Spurs lost 4-1 and if you ask any Spurs fan who the motm was it was Vicario, having your gk as motm in a 4-1 loss isn't a good performance or a good tactic at all, idk how it's even a debate.
Klopp being mocked parading his team to the crowd when Liverpool scored two late goals against West Brom at home to draw - it wasn’t about celebrating a draw - it was about creating a connection between him, the players and the crowd. It’s all about the bigger picture.
He is the current media darling, so he would get praised no matter what he does.
But if Maddison is actually injured then the next few games will be interesting. Everything has gone for them so far this season until tonight.
Having a very light schedule should help with the other injuries too, then had a 10 day break before tonight game! amazing if you can get it.
But if Maddison is actually injured then the next few games will be interesting. Everything has gone for them so far this season until tonight.
Having a very light schedule should help with the other injuries too, then had a 10 day break before tonight game! amazing if you can get it.
It's not the same outcome though, I just said. They gave up completely unnecessary chances and conceded more goals. Goal difference and results against teams are important factors in a league table. We literally lost a title because of it.
Variety is the spice of life and all, but it's not a recipe for success.
Because if Ange has a strong season with Spurs and maintains challenging it undermines many people perception on Erik needing time to paper over the poor excuse of a season.
Disagree. With chelsea struggling to score they could've nicked a point. It was so easy for Chelsea to create chances. I'm not buying the whole that's the way we play mate nonsense, he's getting caught up in all the early romance with him and just failed to do proper in game management. If this were City, Arsenal, or Liverpool it'd have ended in double figures.
Ive never said that? not sure what you’re talking about at this point. It could have been 8-1 to Chelsea or Spurs could have nicked it 3-2 it was a mad game. I don’t agree one bit that they should have sat back they had already lost no team was holding on for 50+ minutes with 9 men and also losing key players to injury. Pointless
Chelsea was almost embarrassed and the craziness of the tactic almost worked. I enjoyed it
Last edited:
The outcome is a loss. It's the same. People are getting too hung up on the Liverpool effort, the likelihood is they would of lost by a few even parking the bus too. Liverpool's effort was insane, with a better set of players, built better to do it.
And I praise Fergie for attempting to stay in that game too.
They did and if Liverpool was playing Chelsea tonight they would have claimed a draw at least as Klopp wouldn't be use a high line with 9 men.
Nah disagree, they would just lose with 9 men sitting in the box 100% it just would have been slow and wasted everyone's time, at least they had a go and Chelsea actually couldn't really work it out for a while and Son could have scored and it would have been a masterclass. The chances of them getting a result with 9 men for that long would have been miniscule regardless.
You keep mentioning 'already lost', well they should've just walked off the pitch when down to 9 men then.
At the end of the day it's a results based business, if you think playing the way Spurs played down to 9 men was the best and most probable way of Spurs somehow scraping a result then that's your opinion.
I do not think the same way.
The odds of that are nearly nil. How many 9 side teams have ended up with a draw against 11 men?
Or we could look at the defeat to Wigan, the defeat marginal defeat to City, and especially the draw against Everton in the run in of the season as the issue. We played too negative back then and allowed the other teams took initiative which killed us. The bigger picture was SAF time was near the end, he did what he knew was best then, but as the football move on with time, the mindset to play on front foot to get more favorable result and cut the loss with some freak game here and there. Can't be stuck in what SAF would do mode forever. It's over a decade now since he retired.
I think it would be interesting to see if he'd have still played with the crazy high backline and a complete gung-ho attitude if he hadn't lost so many defenders to red cards and injuries and had more options than Dier and Emerson Royal. I think he might have then been more conservative while still looking to attack whenever given the opportunity.