You mean there aren't many examples of P.L teams playing with 9 men - if we ignore at least one of the red cards happening right at the end of the game
Ange Postecoglou | New Spurs boss on 4 year contract
- Thread starter MayosNoun
- Start date
You mean there aren't many examples of P.L teams playing with 9 men - if we ignore at least one of the red cards happening right at the end of the game
Before scoring 3 goals? Chelsea just won 4-1 and missed at least two sitters before that. Spurs are stupidly lucky that Chelsea didn’t break them earlier when they should have or they would have been 9/10. We will never see that shite from last night ever again and for good reason.
That was embarrassing last night, not courageous just embarrassing. The tactics were just ridiculous, and highlights that the guys a poser. Loves everyone talking about him and giving him praise, ‘It’s who I am mate’. He’s a nob. A team in decent form would’ve done them for 10.
he's like me on CM01/02, doesn't matter how many get sent off I'm sticking to my attacking principles!
I was thinking about this earlier, with the amount of over the top balls available why didn’t Jackson just stand miles offside? Everytime they got through it was from out wide and all he’d have to do is tap them in with nobody around him.
Poch really didn’t think outside of the box
Poch really didn’t think outside of the box
You call it suicidal but they so easily could have come away with a draw. Not sure grimly hanging on would have been more effective. They just needed to not go down to 9 men
Before Chelsea even scored.
It took heroic keeping for that not to be 7-1. Sure Spurs had a chance, but imagine playing that way vs City, Arsenal, or Liverpool.
Horrendous strategy, and people are calling it "brave". The Ange love in is getting ridiculous.
We seen it at Celtic a lot in Europe under Ange, no plan B ever. Going gung ho away to Raith Rovers and winning 5-2 is bit different to going all out away to R Madrid or PSG, we took some big tonkings as a result. I love Ange but yesterday was mental again, if that was City or Liverpool instead of Chelsea, they'd have probably racked up 10 goals, once Chelsea broke through near the end, every attack looked like should be a goal. The plaudits do seem very weird, they were too pumped up, never calmed down and then played suicidal tactics. A controlled Spurs performance would have comfortably won that game.
Honeymoon is over, now let’s see how they go the next couple of weeks with some setbacks, injuries and suspensions.
Maybe Spurs wouldn't use those tactics against those teams in such a scenario. Maybe they just overestimated how much Chelsea suck.
But again your saying Spurs could have only scored 1 goal all game which is nonsense
aye, unbeaten runs are easy, reacting to the first loss and some negativity will be his first real test.
So you are counting all the Chelsea chances as goals but ignoring the spurs ones? Their keeper played well but I don't buy they wouldn't have needed him to make some saves if they HD just sat in a low block with 9 men
Is it not also possible that ange realised they were playing Chelsea rather than a better team
You’re right of course, but a lot of posters can’t see the wood for the trees here.
https://www.skysports.com/football/...ar-and-constant-erosion-of-referees-authority
I fully agree with what he said. It is getting quite ridiculous. Referees are scared to make any kind of decision and the result is that they defer to VAR. And even VAR gets things wrong.
So in my view, he is right. Players and managers should be man enough to accept the referee decisions.
Football is a game played by humans, refereed by humans and should not have every decision challenged and every goal decided by technology.
It was only supposed to be used in the event of a clear and obvious error.
I fully agree with what he said. It is getting quite ridiculous. Referees are scared to make any kind of decision and the result is that they defer to VAR. And even VAR gets things wrong.
So in my view, he is right. Players and managers should be man enough to accept the referee decisions.
Football is a game played by humans, refereed by humans and should not have every decision challenged and every goal decided by technology.
It was only supposed to be used in the event of a clear and obvious error.
How can someone get a yellow using the words cnut and mate in the same sentence?
His biggest problem is that he's got a few really ill disciplined players.
Udogie and Romero should've both been sent off much earlier.
Udogie and Romero should've both been sent off much earlier.
This 'fair play to him' argument is utter nonsense haha, they're after conceding 3 goals because of it, and goal difference matters. I'd understand if they were at 10 men, as you still have a chance at that point, but you have to have a bit of cop on going down to 9 men, they could have been completely rinsed for 8 or 9 goals by a competent team, what's that going to do for morale?
It could be that in the relatively short time he has been there he has concentrated on getting his players tuned in to plan a but hasnt yet finished getting them suitably up to speed with plan b.
Yet despite being down to 9 men, when the liklihood of them losing is probably almost certain, they gambled, stuck to their guns and almost got a draw. Kudos to them, it would be nice if United showed an ounce of the bravery to play in such an aggressive way as Spurs are playing currently.
I think you might need to look up the definition of almost again.
Just to chime in - Postecoglou isn’t going to say “Chelsea are shite and we reckon we’re still better with 9 than 11”. Nor is he going to admit naivety. I do think if he was up against City or Liverpool (ironic considering their game), we would have witnessed a touch more pragmatism.
Spurs lost their heads yesterday, but they also showed determination and character whether people like it or not. Their squad depth is horrific though.
The players that remained on the pitch played as well as they could given the tactics and instructions they were given. I don’t think he can be given credit for his tactics when he lost 4-1 in the end and could have lost 7-1.
Yeah a better attacking team might have actually scored 7 but the score being 4-1 had nothing to do with what Tottenham were doing. It just took us a while to get our timings right with the runs in behind and the weight of the through balls. Once we figured it out, we looked like scoring every 60 seconds, if the game carried on for another 5 mins it would have likely ended 6-1.
If Son's shot had been about a foot closer to the post they'd have been 2-2 in the 94th minute. I would call that almost a draw. And that's ignoring Dier's goal being ruled offside by inches.
I truly dislike these hints that he was naive and your usage of "pragmatism" (but I know it's the usual way to call it, so nothing personal).
In my eyes being pragmatic is playing the best and most efficient way you can. And for Spurs it is this high line style. That's what they are training, that's what they will do better than parking the bus, no matter if they are 11 or 9 players.
And on top of that this is also about believing in your way. They got chances, they could have scored and even though Chelsea had more chances and obviously actually used them, the Spurs players now know that they can have a go against a strong team even with 9 man and still get chances to turn a match around. That confidence can be worth more than a slightly better GD
What do you mean? Spurs DID only score 1 and they barely created anything with their 9 man high line, 2 set pieces chances, a long range pot shot from Son and a shot from Bentencur. Meanwhile Chelsea had a plethora of 1on1s which they messed up by not squaring the ball, shooting straight at the goalie or missing, and that's not even mentioning how incompetent they were at trying to beat the high line which would be a cake walk for any half decent attack. Make no mistake, this game and result said a lot more about Chelsea's attacking incompetence than how good Ange's 'brave' tactics were, this could have ended in an all time beating and I wonder what all the Ange bootlickers would be saying.
4:1 is almost eh? Ok. And Chelsea should have had much more than that with that idiotic high line of Ange.
So, one loss and he is called a fraud??
Loved his comments about accepting referee decisions. Needs to be more of this. The whining is worse than the contestable decisions tbh.
Agreed.
What would folk rather? They sit in and lose by 3 or 4 anyway?
As well to give it a go.
Why be so miserable about it? It was a novel approach that was worth a shot and it nearly worked. Yeah they scored 2 in the last 3 mins, so what. Before that Spurs were still in the game and still had chances to get a draw.
Chelsea aren't a competant team. You also have to factor that into your thinking. If that were City or Liverpool, yeap you're getting spanked by 7 or 8 if you do that. Chelsea and their brain dead forwards spent most of the game trying to figure out what to do and how to not be offside.
I like him.
His reaction to the Var decisions were a breath of fresh air. Compared to other man child managers in the North of London
There are plenty of ifs everyone can come up with, if they had been playing anyone in the top 10 other than Chelsea and us they would have been absolutely mauled. They lost 4-1, goal difference means something.
It didn't almost work. They lost 4-1 and Chelsea missed about 5 sitters and had probably 10+ times where they would have been through but overhit a simple pass. They got absolutely wiped out in their own stadium by one of their rivals due to playing and behaving like a bunch of school children.
It was only Chelsea's own baffling ineptness that made it interesting.
That seems to be the case for a lot of people on here. They would prefer the nothingy gruel we serve up on a weekly basis at the moment
Literally could have equalised on two separate occasions with minutes to go. How is that not almost working? Are you dim?