totally underwhelmed

[persvenality cult]

Anyone who thinks we ground out a draw because of great tactical nouse (and there are some) is deluded. We got a draw in spite of the tactics, not because of them.

If we continue to play good teams with three midfielders protecting the back four, we are going to end up losing the vast majority.

The midfield three did not protect the back four as shots rained in left, right and centre, so there's that myth debunked.

The fact of the matter is, if you set your stall out to defend, then you invite the opposition on to you and you build up their confidence. At the end of the day, they will have sustained pressure because of those tactics and the chances are that pressure will result in them scoring.

These tactics will cost us dearly. The best way to defend is to do it from the halfway line, and keep the ball in their half, not to camp out near our own box and hope that the number of bodies will keep them out and that the ricochets will all go our way.

If we are a team worthy of the top four, then we should not be going anywhere afraid of playing to our strengths. Too often, we are tailoring our game to suit the opposition ('suit' being the appropriate word) rather than letting them think about how they are going to tackle us.

Liverpool at home last year was a glorious example of a time when we could have won if we'd have gone for it. On our own soil, we decided to play it tight, and whilst they didn't have a shot, neither did we. Some buffoons on here had it down as a tactical masterclass. In reality, it was tactical fuckwittery of the highest order. Given the attacking players we have now got, if we see that same tactic next Monday, then I will have lost all faith in this manager. The difference between 3 and 1 is double that between 1 and 0, and if we don't start taking a few more risks to get those 3 points, then we are not going to make the top four and that is a fact.

rubbish, I don't even know where to begin with a post like that. that's someone's personal view, but it's just not backed up by what happened, or the bigger picture. tottenham's confidence waned badly as the game went on, so, err.... that's half the post ruined.

when we play this way we concede very few goals, so that old chestnut 'the best form of defense is attack' chestnut doesn't apply either.

yes, keeping them at a distance is better, you'll notice that after an initial flurry their biggest threat were the shots from distance..

but really it's just more kneejerkery after one game. we haven't reached our destination, yet. 3 deep midfielders provides a platform for attack, a way of exploiting the phsyical and technical superiority of your players. but it requires everyone to in very good shape and it requires a lot of co-ordination. we're not there yet.

on the plus side, Mancini clearly got the Hart call 100% correct. And his change in the second half, swapping tevez in the hole, using swp and silva as dummy strikers making runs on the inside of their fullback, worked instantly, within a couple of minutes their offside trap had been broken and SWP should have scored. we ran the midfield in the second half but as it went on it became clear we needed a target, on went Ade (and missed two good chances). it was a game that showed we lacked match practice and sharpness, but not tactical guidance.

I really wonder about the level of tactical sophistication on this board. I know that some people much prefer the English model but it leads to people jumping all over our tactics whenever we don't get the result we want....in this case I think we did get a good result but it makes no difference, people will have a go and trot out the same old stuff, opinion presented as self-evident fact. Better get used to it, we will use Zonal defence, a deep line, with as many as three players closing off the angles in front.

I bet you that this year we score more and concede less than we've managed in fourty years (in the top flight at least). (just like we did in the second half of last year). are you taking that bet? doesn't that tell it's own story?

p.s. your game theory is wrong as well.
because the other team is a rival, who could finish within 6 points of us
0 points is really -3.
that's why you have to avoid losing to them. if we'd have done it last year......

 

[macmanson]

Time to trot out the excuses now. Less than a week ago you were bragging about winning the league, now you need a month or two to get the team playing right? Am I reading a Hughes interview here?

And for fuck's sake, shut up about Bellamy already, we get it, you don't like him. Continuing to talk about him after "you've put your foot down" smacks of a little bitches attitude and not authority. If you are done with the guy, then be done with it.

You might have a point wit the Mancini/Hughes interview, but who aer you to tell us to shut up about Bellamy?

Who do you support, its not City, so what are you doing on here... we're talking about Bellamy in house; on this forum. If you don't want to read about it, don't click the links.

I'm not talking about fans, I'm talking about Mancini continuing to talk about Bellamy in interviews, even when not asked about him.

 

[Ricktee76]

Sack Mancini, sack the board, everybody out, last one turn out the lights.....Jesus wept.

Spurs are last seasons benchmark, they battered us, but they didn't beat us.

Negative or not if Mancini's tactic was to not lose, then it was a success, those who expect 3pts a game, need a reality check were not f'kin Barcelona!!

We rarely get a good result at Spurs, getting battered 0-0 was a great result, considering their possesion, shots on target, saves and hitting the woodwork.

Ok there are a few creases to be ironed out but teams rarely get going til 5 or 6 games into the season, thats why its key to get good results early on.

Spurs are a hard team to beat at home 09/10:

P 19
W 14
D 2
L 3
F 40
A 12

That record includes 9 clean sheets.

 

[Anonymous]

Anyone who thinks we ground out a draw because of great tactical nouse (and there are some) is deluded. We got a draw in spite of the tactics, not because of them.

If we continue to play good teams with three midfielders protecting the back four, we are going to end up losing the vast majority.

The midfield three did not protect the back four as shots rained in left, right and centre, so there's that myth debunked.

The fact of the matter is, if you set your stall out to defend, then you invite the opposition on to you and you build up their confidence. At the end of the day, they will have sustained pressure because of those tactics and the chances are that pressure will result in them scoring.

These tactics will cost us dearly. The best way to defend is to do it from the halfway line, and keep the ball in their half, not to camp out near our own box and hope that the number of bodies will keep them out and that the ricochets will all go our way.

If we are a team worthy of the top four, then we should not be going anywhere afraid of playing to our strengths. Too often, we are tailoring our game to suit the opposition ('suit' being the appropriate word) rather than letting them think about how they are going to tackle us.

Liverpool at home last year was a glorious example of a time when we could have won if we'd have gone for it. On our own soil, we decided to play it tight, and whilst they didn't have a shot, neither did we. Some buffoons on here had it down as a tactical masterclass. In reality, it was tactical fuckwittery of the highest order. Given the attacking players we have now got, if we see that same tactic next Monday, then I will have lost all faith in this manager. The difference between 3 and 1 is double that between 1 and 0, and if we don't start taking a few more risks to get those 3 points, then we are not going to make the top four and that is a fact.

rubbish, I don't even know where to begin with a post like that. that's someone's personal view, but it's just not backed up by what happened, or the bigger picture. tottenham's confidence waned badly as the game went on, so, err.... that's half the post ruined.

when we play this way we concede very few goals, so that old chestnut 'the best form of defense is attack' chestnut doesn't apply either.

yes, keeping them at a distance is better, you'll notice that after an initial flurry their biggest threat were the shots from distance..

but really it's just more kneejerkery after one game. we haven't reached our destination, yet. 3 deep midfielders provides a platform for attack, a way of exploiting the phsyical and technical superiority of your players. but it requires everyone to in very good shape and it requires a lot of co-ordination. we're not there yet.

on the plus side, Mancini clearly got the Hart call 100% correct. And his change in the second half, swapping tevez in the hole, using swp and silva as dummy strikers making runs on the inside of their fullback, worked instantly, within a couple of minutes their offside trap had been broken and SWP should have scored. we ran the midfield in the second half but as it went on it became clear we needed a target, on went Ade (and missed two good chances). it was a game that showed we lacked match practice and sharpness, but not tactical guidance.

I really wonder about the level of tactical sophistication on this board. I know that some people much prefer the English model but it leads to people jumping all over our tactics whenever we don't get the result we want....in this case I think we did get a good result but it makes no difference, people will have a go and trot out the same old stuff, opinion presented as self-evident fact. Better get used to it, we will use Zonal defence, a deep line, with as many as three players closing off the angles in front.

I bet you that this year we score more and concede less than we've managed in fourty years (in the top flight at least). (just like we did in the second half of last year). are you taking that bet? doesn't that tell it's own story?

p.s. your game theory is wrong as well.
because the other team is a rival, who could finish within 6 points of us
0 points is really -3.
that's why you have to avoid losing to them. if we'd have done it last year......

350 million plus pounds spent on players - I should fucking hope we score more and concede less than we've ever done.

Your tactical sophistication aside - I'm sure the people who are complaining simply don't like the brand of football Mancini served up last season, and against Spurs on Saturday, regardless of how "effective" it can be perceived to have been...

 

[fathellensbellend]

Anyone who thinks we ground out a draw because of great tactical nouse (and there are some) is deluded. We got a draw in spite of the tactics, not because of them.

If we continue to play good teams with three midfielders protecting the back four, we are going to end up losing the vast majority.

The midfield three did not protect the back four as shots rained in left, right and centre, so there's that myth debunked.

The fact of the matter is, if you set your stall out to defend, then you invite the opposition on to you and you build up their confidence. At the end of the day, they will have sustained pressure because of those tactics and the chances are that pressure will result in them scoring.

These tactics will cost us dearly. The best way to defend is to do it from the halfway line, and keep the ball in their half, not to camp out near our own box and hope that the number of bodies will keep them out and that the ricochets will all go our way.

If we are a team worthy of the top four, then we should not be going anywhere afraid of playing to our strengths. Too often, we are tailoring our game to suit the opposition ('suit' being the appropriate word) rather than letting them think about how they are going to tackle us.

Liverpool at home last year was a glorious example of a time when we could have won if we'd have gone for it. On our own soil, we decided to play it tight, and whilst they didn't have a shot, neither did we. Some buffoons on here had it down as a tactical masterclass. In reality, it was tactical fuckwittery of the highest order. Given the attacking players we have now got, if we see that same tactic next Monday, then I will have lost all faith in this manager. The difference between 3 and 1 is double that between 1 and 0, and if we don't start taking a few more risks to get those 3 points, then we are not going to make the top four and that is a fact.

rubbish, I don't even know where to begin with a post like that. that's someone's personal view, but it's just not backed up by what happened, or the bigger picture. tottenham's confidence waned badly as the game went on, so, err.... that's half the post ruined.

when we play this way we concede very few goals, so that old chestnut 'the best form of defense is attack' chestnut doesn't apply either.

yes, keeping them at a distance is better, you'll notice that after an initial flurry their biggest threat were the shots from distance..

but really it's just more kneejerkery after one game. we haven't reached our destination, yet. 3 deep midfielders provides a platform for attack, a way of exploiting the phsyical and technical superiority of your players. but it requires everyone to in very good shape and it requires a lot of co-ordination. we're not there yet.

on the plus side, Mancini clearly got the Hart call 100% correct. And his change in the second half, swapping tevez in the hole, using swp and silva as dummy strikers making runs on the inside of their fullback, worked instantly, within a couple of minutes their offside trap had been broken and SWP should have scored. we ran the midfield in the second half but as it went on it became clear we needed a target, on went Ade (and missed two good chances). it was a game that showed we lacked match practice and sharpness, but not tactical guidance.

I really wonder about the level of tactical sophistication on this board. I know that some people much prefer the English model but it leads to people jumping all over our tactics whenever we don't get the result we want....in this case I think we did get a good result but it makes no difference, people will have a go and trot out the same old stuff, opinion presented as self-evident fact. Better get used to it, we will use Zonal defence, a deep line, with as many as three players closing off the angles in front.

I bet you that this year we score more and concede less than we've managed in fourty years (in the top flight at least). (just like we did in the second half of last year). are you taking that bet? doesn't that tell it's own story?

p.s. your game theory is wrong as well.
because the other team is a rival, who could finish within 6 points of us
0 points is really -3.
that's why you have to avoid losing to them. if we'd have done it last year......

i will cut to the chase, what kind of tactical genius sends out a team that is the envy of most, and yet barely musters a shot against the top sides.

 

[GStar]

I'm not talking about fans, I'm talking about Mancini continuing to talk about Bellamy in interviews, even when not asked about him.

Ah, apologies then :)

 

[persvenality cult]

rubbish, I don't even know where to begin with a post like that. that's someone's personal view, but it's just not backed up by what happened, or the bigger picture. tottenham's confidence waned badly as the game went on, so, err.... that's half the post ruined.

when we play this way we concede very few goals, so that old chestnut 'the best form of defense is attack' chestnut doesn't apply either.

yes, keeping them at a distance is better, you'll notice that after an initial flurry their biggest threat were the shots from distance..

but really it's just more kneejerkery after one game. we haven't reached our destination, yet. 3 deep midfielders provides a platform for attack, a way of exploiting the phsyical and technical superiority of your players. but it requires everyone to in very good shape and it requires a lot of co-ordination. we're not there yet.

on the plus side, Mancini clearly got the Hart call 100% correct. And his change in the second half, swapping tevez in the hole, using swp and silva as dummy strikers making runs on the inside of their fullback, worked instantly, within a couple of minutes their offside trap had been broken and SWP should have scored. we ran the midfield in the second half but as it went on it became clear we needed a target, on went Ade (and missed two good chances). it was a game that showed we lacked match practice and sharpness, but not tactical guidance.

I really wonder about the level of tactical sophistication on this board. I know that some people much prefer the English model but it leads to people jumping all over our tactics whenever we don't get the result we want....in this case I think we did get a good result but it makes no difference, people will have a go and trot out the same old stuff, opinion presented as self-evident fact. Better get used to it, we will use Zonal defence, a deep line, with as many as three players closing off the angles in front.

I bet you that this year we score more and concede less than we've managed in fourty years (in the top flight at least). (just like we did in the second half of last year). are you taking that bet? doesn't that tell it's own story?

p.s. your game theory is wrong as well.
because the other team is a rival, who could finish within 6 points of us
0 points is really -3.
that's why you have to avoid losing to them. if we'd have done it last year......

350 million plus pounds spent on players - I should fucking hope we score more and concede less than we've ever done.

Your tactical sophistication aside - I'm sure the people who are complaining simply don't like the brand of football Mancini served up last season, and against Spurs on Saturday, regardless of how "effective" it can be perceived to have been...

yeah, tactical sophistication was the wrong phrase, I was scraping around and came out with a cliche. I'm still not sure what I meant. I just don't see how anyone can honestly see the 90 minutes as a tactical disaster. Pre-concieved notions are trotted out time and time again, regardless of what happened or the history.... like the suggestion we should hold a high line against spurs when doing exactly that was the number one reason we got thumped 3-0 last time out.

I'm not pretending people have to like it. But maybe give it a week or two before we start judging the whole thing.

as for 350m... Mancini's on what.... 100?

we do have some very good players, but the sad truth is about 150m has been thrown away on players who aren't at all committed, or aren't fit enough, or, ultimately, can't play technical football, can't be clinical. Hughes failed to get enough technique for his money (not hindsight, I said so at the time). I don't see why you would hold that over the next guys head. But yes, I do expect much much more entertainment going forward.<br /><br />-- Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:39 pm --<br /><br />

i will cut to the chase, what kind of tactical genius sends out a team that is the envy of most, and yet barely musters a shot against the top sides.

give it time. I'm not calling him a genius. But that's not really what's happened. Last year we did get quite a few shots in against chelsea and utd (admittedly not so many in the league game).

anyway, did you see Arsenal Liverpool? that's the usual standard of these matches. the managers know they can't afford to lose. they shut down the opponent first, worry about scoring second. always has been, always will, as long as losing gives their rivals such a big advantage (this is the flip side of 3 points for a win, it applies to both teams)

 

[dctid]

What i found most worring was the lack of passion to compete - Spuds were first to the ball - more determined to win the 50 / 5 0 tackels and closed us down - we did very little of that we looked lazy and lethargic.

Tatically playing Tevez as a lone striker dont work and Silva still not decided where his best position is.

All in all disappointing

 

[Ricktee76]

You could argue the tactic was to defend quite deep let spurs throw everything at us (while burning energy) then make the changes required i.e. moving tevez, bringing on SWP + Ade to go for the counter punch.

It almost worked, if SWP had slotted that home, or Ade had his shooting boots on we'd be saying great away tactic, great timing of the subs.

It's all irrelevant, 2 key things that went to plan, we didn't concede, we didn't lose.

 

[fathellensbellend]

You could argue the tactic was to defend quite deep let spurs throw everything at us (while burning energy) then make the changes required i.e. moving tevez, bringing on SWP + Ade to go for the counter punch.

It almost worked, if SWP had slotted that home, or Ade had his shooting boots on we'd be saying great away tactic, great timing of the subs.

It's all irrelevant, 2 key things that went to plan, we didn't concede, we didn't lose.

you telling me we played like that out of choice, christ, that is worrying.