reaction as per usual over Spurs losing yesterday. Most of it seems to be over systems played. I am quite happy to go with two up front. The bottom line is does it really matter what system, whether one up front, two up front, five in midfield, four in midfield, two widemen, holding players, when we all all know the real problems are at the back. Individual mistakes by defenders are costing Spurs time and time again, and the problems never seem to get addressed. Either they are not defending set-pieces properly, or they are making basic elementary mistakes that are costing goals most games.
You can have any formations you like but if the defence keep c...oocking up, then it will not matter one iota. Get the defence sorted first, then the rest will take care of itself.
Spurs could have probably got away with a draw yesterday, even with the midfield being outnumbered, if only the defence did not keep shooting itself in the foot.
There has been a lot of kneejerk
posted on 6/1/14
grandspurs
The biggest difference between the two sides was that we gave the ball away time and time aga
Not true, all the stats I have seen from several sources say that Spurs passed the ball better and gave the ball away less than Arsenal, as I have shown in post above.
posted on 6/1/14
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 5 hours, 20 minutes ago
The biggest difference between the two sides was that we gave the ball away time and time again. Our passing was off from the beginning and if you give a good side the ball every other minute they will hurt you in the end.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully agree with this - The amount of times we just gave up possession with sloppy passes, you just knew they were going to punish us for it.
posted on 6/1/14
Yiddo80
Spurs did give away some sloppy passes. But as all the stats says, Arsenal were more sloppy. So not sure why supporters keep saying Spurs gave the ball away a lot, when Arsenal gave it away more. .
posted on 6/1/14
While Arsenal may have completed less passes, there were consistently able to get at our defence by quickly manoeuvring it around our two-man central midfield. They didn't need to overcomplicate matters as a few neat one and two touch exchanges were enough to get at our defence.
Against most teams, we can get away with a two-man midfield if the strikers work hard to close down defenders, but against Arsenal and continental sides, we are always going to struggle.
posted on 6/1/14
IMO
2 up front works but you need the right sort of 2.
1 of them has to be a hard worker prepared to drop-in to the midfield, like Rooney, so it becomes more of a 4411 or 451 when necessary. Neither Soldado or Adebayor are this. Ade has the ability to drop deeper and create (which he does) but is less inclined to get stuck in for 90 minutes.
442 away from home with 2 proper strikers is asking for trouble IMO. Far too open and just means the CM and wide players have to work their socks off.
posted on 6/1/14
Agreed Devonshirespur, either that or you need a second striker who is comfortable moving wide into the channels and, defensively, tracks back with one of the opposition full-backs, allowing one of the wide midfielders to drop inside and create a central midfield three out of possession.
posted on 6/1/14
"Spurs did give away some sloppy passes. But as all the stats says, Arsenal were more sloppy. So not sure why supporters keep saying Spurs gave the ball away a lot, when Arsenal gave it away more. "
posted on 6/1/14
You can look at stats or you can watch the game and draw a conclusion from that....Spurs were sloppy in the final third, poor touches, poor passes, poor crosses all meant we actually created few clear cut chances. For the rest of the time we knocked it about with some ease through the midfield, but Arsenal let us do that but kept it tighter in the final third, denying space.
Its our age old problem of not being able to break down 2 banks of 4 (or a 4 + 5 in this case) and the formation we played with did not help IMO with Eriksen (who was not great on the day) in a wide position, and Rose also failing to get any decent balls in on that side, or reach the bye line. Lennon & Walker were ore effective but denied supply a lot of the time.. No great creativity centrally & very congested.
We looked better on the counter when there was more space.
posted on 6/1/14
''Hardly overrrun, sure Dembele and Bentableb were outnumbered, but all the stats I have seen suggest Spurs actually passed the ball better and had a more successful pass rate, also had more corners, as many shots at goal.''
How many passes forward did you play? How much ''negative possession'' did Spurs have? How many of those nice, neat passes came when we were already 2-0 up and you guys were trying to look for a reply? How many of those shots and possession were in your favour when we were down to 10 men for the final 10 minutes of the game?
You can manipulate the statistics however you want. When you look at the performance of both sides, you were second best in every part of the pitch. Going forward? Better. Defensively? Better. In midfield? We were better. So what exactly is wrong with me saying we were better all over the pitch?
''Spurs shot themselves in the foot defensively. I will give you Arsenal had the most telling stat, scoring 2 goals to 0, but Spurs had as much if not more of the game than Arsenal, Arsenal though were a bit more clinical when it mattered.''
How much of that possession did you use, though? You didn't. We had less possession on the whole, but we were more of a threat for the entire game than you. The only good chance you had was Eriksen's in the first half. Other than that, your attacking players posed very little threat.
I was expecting a lot more from Spurs going forward. You have some good players and following another win at Old Trafford, I expected your players to really be pumped for this game. They weren't.
posted on 8/1/14
Not true, all the stats I have seen from several sources say that Spurs passed the ball better and gave the ball away less than Arsenal, as I have shown in post above
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats the problem with stats they can and are extremely misleading.
Spurs passing from full back to centre back was ok and we completed about a 1000 of them the problem is they dont hurt the opposition.
The stats will still show 1000 completed passes.
Your opposition could have one completed pass from keeper to centre forward and win 1-0 as that pass created the goal.
As I said stats are misleading and I dont need to read them, I watched the game with my own eyes and this obsession with stats and figures will never influence what I see for myself.
We were well beaten by a better side on the day and thats that. The first half they were streets ahead of us even tho we did fight back a bit 2nd half before Rose killed the game off for them.
If the stats say otherwise then that just proves what total crap stats are.