M18CTID
Well-Known Member
If I'm being honest, I'm not sure why people are so amused. While those 7 missing players aren't all regular starters the subs would've strengthened last night's bench considerably.
Taking everything into account - missing players, manager being stranded in London, City and United picking up no more than a point each at Anfield this season - that was a good point for Spurs last night. Yes, their starting XI was still strong and good enough to get a win at Anfield but they had next to nothing in terms of experience on the bench so their options to change things round were extremely limited.
As such, it was a case of them not knowing whether to stick or twist. If they've still got designs on winning the title, do they go balls out to try and win the game but increase the risk of other important players getting injured and put themselves in a worse position than they are now injuries-wise, or do they play a percentage game of trying to nab a point at least and so firmly cement their position in the top 3 while nullifying a direct rival for a top 4 spot the chance of closing the gap on them?
Personally, I think they called it right. While I said it was a good point in terms of cementing a CL spot, I do accept it probably doesn't do their gradually waning title challenge any favours but if they'd have seriously gone for it with little back-up on the bench they could've sustained some unwanted collateral damage and not even won the game anyway.
Taking everything into account - missing players, manager being stranded in London, City and United picking up no more than a point each at Anfield this season - that was a good point for Spurs last night. Yes, their starting XI was still strong and good enough to get a win at Anfield but they had next to nothing in terms of experience on the bench so their options to change things round were extremely limited.
As such, it was a case of them not knowing whether to stick or twist. If they've still got designs on winning the title, do they go balls out to try and win the game but increase the risk of other important players getting injured and put themselves in a worse position than they are now injuries-wise, or do they play a percentage game of trying to nab a point at least and so firmly cement their position in the top 3 while nullifying a direct rival for a top 4 spot the chance of closing the gap on them?
Personally, I think they called it right. While I said it was a good point in terms of cementing a CL spot, I do accept it probably doesn't do their gradually waning title challenge any favours but if they'd have seriously gone for it with little back-up on the bench they could've sustained some unwanted collateral damage and not even won the game anyway.