What's new

Ratings Vs Man Utd

MOM

  • Lloris

    Votes: 36 7.7%
  • Walker

    Votes: 3 0.6%
  • Dawson

    Votes: 17 3.6%
  • Chiriches

    Votes: 106 22.7%
  • Rose

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • Lennon

    Votes: 87 18.6%
  • Capoue

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • Dembele

    Votes: 6 1.3%
  • Erikson

    Votes: 93 19.9%
  • Adebayor

    Votes: 106 22.7%
  • Soldado

    Votes: 11 2.4%

  • Total voters
    467

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,562
No we did not. We didn't press at all, close down at a high tempo, move at a high tempo anywhere near enough. We got into their third about 6 times in 90 minutes.
But we're playing at a much higher tempo when in possession, which is what L10 is referring to.
 

Legend10

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2006
10,847
5,277
No we did not. We didn't press at all, close down at a high tempo, move at a high tempo anywhere near enough. We got into their third about 6 times in 90 minutes.

No we did not what?

I see so your only talking about higher tempo in terms of closing down and not when we've got possession?

6 times in 90 minutes? What is the point in saying something that you know is blatantly not true, in fact is ridiculous?
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
I'd say that we had more than 5 clear cut chances - but whatever number its a lot more than we made in most games under AVB despite AVB getting much more posession.

Erikssen has looked much more like the Ajax player that we bought in the last couple of games than any game (except maybe his debut) in scoring one and assisting another. Soldado looks really motivated and despite not scoring (and missing several decent chances - more than he has had in games under AVB) his passing, dropping off and crossing means that he's starting to look a good player. With luck he'll continue to improve. As for Adebayor, its all been said before, why could a manager exclude him totally - absolute madness.

Other players, such as Paulhino in the last game, seemed to have looked better than before.

IMO its down to spped and movement of the players making us far less predictable. Erikssen and Lennon both play a bit of inverted wingers - but both do it in bits throughout the match. So there is a lot of solid tactics, but all mixed up in different segments of the game..

As you know a traditional 442 is played with 2 orthodox wingers - Spurs play with one winger who can switch between traditional winger and invertted winger whilst Erikssen seems to alternate between a no 10 and an inverted winger, whilst Adebayor dropping deep and wide again defied the traditional rules of 442. After Soldado went off, the formation changed to a 4231.

Whilst Sherwood is definitely the boss, I suspect that Ramsey suggests a lot of the formation and tactics - its a partnership which was notorious for changing the formationn and tactics several times during the u21 and u19 NextGen games, something not that commonly done. Both guys (and Ferdinand) seem highly regarded by the development squad, so I suspect that each of them is seen as playing a part in the management of that squad.

IMO they have done well in the initial tranche of games, and its highly likely that the systems being used will evolve over the rest of the season.

It should be an interesting ride to watch.


I think Soldado was actually bloody good yesterday. Apart from the Lennon chance, it was him dropping off and feeding the ball toboth Eriksen and Lennon for the goals. He is benefitting from having Adebayor up there bullying and dragging defenders around for sure.

I am a well publicised admirer of Adebayor's abilities, and I wish to god AVB had got him working, could have saved his bacon, but it's not really the biggest shock in the world that AVB ostracised him is it ? His last team virtually paid us to take him, three weeks about 90% of SC would have flogged him, we had ITK in the summer that most of the players didn't like him, and the bloke himself saying he didn't want to train some days.

I am more miffed that AVB didn't use the kids last year. Which is something I am pleased that Sherwood is doing.

The formation and system used the last two games has merits, and I'm not overly concerned about formations, more players, method and application. There have been moments when it has been effective, but lots of moments when it hasn't because of poor application. AVB made some strange and poor choices at times too though, it has to be said, in fact they more than anything are possibly why he's not here.
 

Legend10

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2006
10,847
5,277
But we're playing at a much higher tempo when in possession, which is what L10 is referring to.

Of course i was!

As for the pressing, any team can press like headless chickens, i don't want to see us do that, i want to see us thinking about it and doing it when its appropriate

We should pick our moments and times to press and then go for it all out, but thats not something i see as should be done constantly. If the pressing doesn't have a purpose or a good chance of regaining possession then i prefer to see us drop off into 2 banks with 1 of the front 2 dropping in slightly. This is important when you are playing against good teams and quality players, if they pass through us why we are blindly pressing we will find ourselves in a lot of difficult situations.

Charge charge pressing is both naive and stupid.

I'm really liking our tempo with the ball!
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
But we're playing at a much higher tempo when in possession, which is what L10 is referring to.
No we did not what?

I see so your only talking about higher tempo in terms of closing down and not when we've got possession?

6 times in 90 minutes? What is the point in saying something that you know is blatantly not true, in fact is ridiculous?


I think by and large you are mistaking breaks for high tempo football. Certainly where that game is concerned.
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2007
12,636
15,834
People are very fond of posthumously declaring wins like this pragmatic genius. For me there was too much wrong with that performance to be the perfect execution of an intentional tactical master plan. That would have involved us stopping them creating much (like at home) and/or creating more than 4 chances and relying less on fortune and a benevolent ref.

I don't think too many are declaring this a 'perfect performance' - indeed Sherwood said we should be able to play better.

However I think there has ben real change in just a few games. To me the biggest change has been the speed and movement of our attacking - gone is the ponderous build up play under AVB which meant that the opposition .defence was well prepared for Spurs attack - and the result has been many more chances created rather than almost none under AVB.

At the end of the day, under Sherwood/Ramsey we create chances. Under AVB we were getting high posession % by passing backwards and sideways. Without enough chances we cannot score goals - and goals win games.
 

gushayes11

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2007
6,824
13,003
Only criticism I had towards the end was Chadli should've gone to the left to help Rose and free up Eriksen. Vlad mom for me. Ade is a massive plus ATM, popping up all over the place.
 

theShiznit

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2004
17,800
23,813
I think you are trying to tell me that goal was completely undefendable?

He could have taken a step back and got goal side of Welbeck then he would have seen his run as soon as it started. If you can't defend the ball in behind then you do have to get touch tight and goal side because that way you will always start the race for the ball ahead of the attacker.

I will be honest, I saw what was going to happen (and so did Michael Dawson and Danny Welbeck) but Vlad didn't.

He never does.
So once again, he should have seen the man running behind him? if he looks over his shoulder for even a split second that makes his reaction time for the goal even worse, as you say Dawson saw it all the way (he should have he ran past him) but what did Dawson do about it?

Answers on a post card.

The fact is, when he starts making his run, he is literally right next to Michael Dawson, to suggest in your superior coached opinion it is nothing to do with Dawson is really quite laughable, he actually barges into Dawson at the start of his run (only saving grace on Daws' part) which makes him stumble.
To be fair neither does the attacker? :confused:. It's about anticipation, reading the game and from set plays attacking the ball.

In my opinion their goal was poor play by us not a good bit of play by them. A simple slide rule pass and a run off the back of a defender, you can see those most sunday mornings. Not wanting to get into a great debate about the goal, but both CBs should have dealt with that situation, for me.

Vlad is ball watching, you say he doesn't see Welbeck but he really should be aware of him, imo. Also i'm not sure who is over on the left but they have to get tighter to the man on the ball, you can't give a player that much space to pick out those passes.

Between the two CBs and who ever is over on our left, nearest to the player with the ball should have dealt with it much better.

As for the striker being psychic, the striker is the one dictating the pass with his movement, if he's not there making that run, the pass is not played.
 
Last edited:

Legend10

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2006
10,847
5,277
I think by and large you are mistaking breaks for high tempo football. Certainly where that game is concerned.


Really, i'd be surprised that anybody can't see that we're moving the ball quicker, looking to get forward quicker and utilising the pace of our quicker players better.

Maybe you think high tempo football only relates to your favourite football term 'pressing'?
 

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,562
I think by and large you are mistaking breaks for high tempo football. Certainly where that game is concerned.
How on earth is breaking with pace, moving the ball quicker and pinging the ball around the park a lot faster than previously not part of playing at a higher tempo? I've never really got into a discussion with you, L10 and the rest before, but seriously, tempo is applicable to attack as well, it's not all about pressing.
 

Legend10

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2006
10,847
5,277
BC, I'm sorry that's rubbish.


Im not sure if I'm more concerned by the 'we only got in their last third about 6 times' comment or describing Lennon's cross for Soldado in the first half as a 'decent attempt'.

That cross from Lennon was top draw, Soldado even pointed to where he wanted it and Lennon delivered it right in the danger zone between keeper and defender without giving either of them a sniff at it, with the pace on it if Soldado can divert it towards the goal he almost certainly scores. The only thing that stopped a goal and was unlucky for both Lennon & Soldado was that it skipped up just in front of him. Was a great piece of wing and forward play!
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
I don't think too many are declaring this a 'perfect performance' - indeed Sherwood said we should be able to play better.

However I think there has ben real change in just a few games. To me the biggest change has been the speed and movement of our attacking - gone is the ponderous build up play under AVB which meant that the opposition .defence was well prepared for Spurs attack - and the result has been many more chances created rather than almost none under AVB.

At the end of the day, under Sherwood/Ramsey we create chances. Under AVB we were getting high posession % by passing backwards and sideways. Without enough chances we cannot score goals - and goals win games.


That's an exaggeration on both counts. We didn't create many chances against West Brom or West Ham under Sherwood. And there were games where we created chances under AVB.

That has to be balanced off against the chances and openness we are allowing that we - mostly - didn't with AVB.

It is early days, Sherwood may have all the answers, but I think saying things are great now is an exaggeration. We played two games on the break and allowed the opposition way too much open pitch IMO. One game took a pretty identical format to many of AVB's home games where we struggled to create anything against a shit bus parker and one game we played well and hit a very shit team for 3 (a lot like we have in Europe, and did with Norwich at home).
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2007
12,636
15,834
That's an exaggeration on both counts. We didn't create many chances against West Brom or West Ham under Sherwood. And there were games where we created chances under AVB.

That has to be balanced off against the chances and openness we are allowing that we - mostly - didn't with AVB.

It is early days, Sherwood may have all the answers, but I think saying things are great now is an exaggeration. We played two games on the break and allowed the opposition way too much open pitch IMO. One game took a pretty identical format to many of AVB's home games where we struggled to create anything against a shit bus parker and one game we played well and hit a very shit team for 3 (a lot like we have in Europe, and did with Norwich at home).

The West Ham game, just 2 days after Sherwood took over, is a bit unfair to analyse as Sherwood's game, he had too little time to have enough influence. and even now after 4/5 games under Sherwood/Ramsey I'd suggest that the players are still adapting to new tactics.

However against Southampton and Stoke Spurs scored 3 goals (something AVB hadn't in the previous games this season) and against ManU 2 goals - yet overall AVB was averaging just under a goal a game. So I'd suggest that the evidence is strong that we are creating and scoring more goals than under AVB.

Sherwood/Ramsey are playing with AVB's squad and one criticism of that I'd make is that despite having 4 very good CM's in Paulhino, Sandro, Dembele and Capoue we don't have anyone to pass around a 'parked bus defence'. Tom Carroll would be an excellent candidate for that role. Without such a CM, I think we will always struggle against a West Ham 460 tactic no matter who the manager.
 

Damian99

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2005
7,687
4,771
So once again, he should have seen the man running behind him? if he looks over his shoulder for even a split second that makes his reaction time for the goal even worse, as you say Dawson saw it all the way (he should have he ran past him) but what did Dawson do about it?

Answers on a post card.

The fact is, when he starts making his run, he is literally right next to Michael Dawson, to suggest in your superior coached opinion it is nothing to do with Dawson is really quite laughable, he actually barges into Dawson at the start of his run (only saving grace on Daws' part) which makes him stumble.


As for the striker being psychic, the striker is the one dictating the pass with his movement, if he's not there making that run, the pass is not played.


No, you said from a corner about an attacker having the advantage, not from open play. And even then a good player can see what's unfolding in front of him and if he can read the game, then he should be able to anticipate where an attacker will run and where the ball "may" be played. Sometimes it blatantly obvious what pass is on. He can also dictate where an attacker can run, by denying him space.

Let's look at Vlad for the goal if you want to get into it, which it appears you do. For a start off he is stood square on, he should really be on the half turn, anybody should know that. How on earth can you turn and give chase to a player running towards you and expect to win anything, you must be on the half turn as a defender to give yourself a better chance.

And to say Vlad doesn't see Welbeck is plain bollocks, if you watch before the ball is played Vlad does take a look to his right, so yes he does know he's there.

I am not saying it's all Vlads fault, so keep you hair on. I am saying it was poor play by both CBs and at least one other player over on the left, for not getting closer to the man with the ball. If you a suggesting a CB is not aware of players around him, then i must suggest you are talking out of your arse(no offence) You should get your body shape right, which gives you a better understanding of players making runs off you, from the back of you, or on fucking top of you. Top players see everything and see it as it unfolds NOT afterwards. We see that on MOTD



Please show me where i have ever said Dawson is not to blame, you are making shit up now. I am putting blame on more than one player. Dawson stumbles with Welbeck and that gives him(Welbeck) the half yard he needs, maybe if that doesn't happen Dawson could have dealt with it. But if Vlads not stood square on like he is but on the half turn, maybe he could have reacted better and cut out the pass.
 
Last edited:

theShiznit

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2004
17,800
23,813
No, you said from a corner about an attacker having the advantage, not from open play. And even then a good player can see what's unfolding in front of him and if he can read the game, then he should be able to anticipate where an attacker will run and where the ball "may" be played. Sometimes it blatantly obvious what pass is on. He can also dictate where an attacker can run, by denying him space.

Let's look at Vlad for the goal if you want to get into it, which it appears you do. For a start off he is stood square on, he should really be on the half turn, anybody should know that. How on earth can you turn and give chase to a player running towards you and expect to win anything, you must be on the half turn as a defender to give yourself a better chance.

And to say Vlad doesn't see Welbeck is plain bollocks, if you watch before the ball is played Vlad does take a look to his right, so yes he does know he's there.

I am not saying it's all Vlads fault, so keep you hair on. I am saying it was poor play by both CBs and at least one other player over on the left, for not getting closer to the man with the ball. If you a suggesting a CB is not aware of players around him, then i must suggest you are talking out of your arse(no offence) You should get your body shape right, which gives you a better understanding of players making runs off you, from the back of you, or on fucking top of you. Top players see everything and see it as it unfolds NOT afterwards. We see that on MOTD

Oh and shove you post card up yer ring, no need to be a smart arse.

Please show me where i have ever said Dawson is not to blame, you are fucking making shit up now. I am putting blame on more than one player.

To be honest dude the only thing I was addressing from you was the psychic thing so keep your hair on ;)

(smart arse mode) you see the top bit, that was addressing a conversation i'm involved in with main man, as for you, you addressed my point and i answered it (the bottom bit) if that bottom bit in which i directly addressed your comment really made your blood boil then i suggest you go for a walk.
Although while we're here i agree with your point in bold, unfortunately Wellbeck was behind him and standing on Daws' toes a split second later Dawson has stumbled and he's in behind Chiriches.

As for corners, you don't think a corner taker can see an attacker making a run? Or even better still know the plans they'd laid out in training, is it fair to assume that the defenders are not privy to those plans?
If a good run is made and found (from a corner just to be clear) there is very little a defender can do to (legally) prevent it.
 
Last edited:

Damian99

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2005
7,687
4,771
To be honest dude the only thing I was addressing from you was the psychic thing so keep your hair on ;)

(smart arse mode) you see the top bit, that was addressing a conversation i'm involved in with main man, as for you, you addressed my point and i answered it (the bottom bit) if that bottom bit in which i directly addressed your comment really made your blood boil then i suggest you go for a walk.
Although while we're there i agree with your point in bold, unfortunately Wellbeck was behind him and standing on Daws' toes a split second later Dawson has stumbled and he's in behind Chiriches.

As for corners, you don't think a corner taker can see an attacker making a run? Or even better still know the plans they'd laid out in training, is it fair to assume that the defenders are not privy to those plans?
If a good run is made and found (from a corner just to be clear) there is very little a defender can do to (legally) prevent it.

Yes i realised that and deleted(i apologize). We will have to disagree on the corner part of the debate. Regardless of training, the corner taker will not always put the ball exactly where he wants it. I will stand by my opinion about reading and attacking the ball. We could get into Zonal and man marking here, but for me if a defender attacks the ball and his timing is right, there is no reason he should be at a disadvantage.

Enjoy (y).
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
54,776
99,340
I don't think that should be the overriding point. I don't like us sitting back and having so little control of the ball but if we are going to play passive football the least we can do is work hard off it and press the ball properly, this will actually create more than the 4 (in 90 minutes) chances we created.

How can you call AVB's tactics "defensive" and call sitting back in your own third making a handful of breaks an "attacking" tactic.

Our two games with ManU are very interesting. Both yielded similar possession split. But the home game didn't feel as negative. That's because our high line and pressing condensed the play into the middle third. The territory split was very even at home 51.5 to 48.8, yesterday was 58/42. Again this is because we were far more disciplined, pressed better and were more coherent without the ball.

Both games we were 2-1 up, the big difference being the home game Walker gifted Rooney and they were awarded a dubious penalty and in the away one they weren't given a stonker. We also had a couple of other great chances (Soldado clean through for example)

The home game they hit 3 successful crosses from 27 tried. Yesterday they hit 9 from a wapping 48.
They went through twice on the first 4 minutes. Welbeck was put through early in the second half (which was as good a chance as the ones we scored from). Lloris also made two or three great saves later on, including the one at close range from Hernandez and Lennon cleared one off the line.

After 30 minutes they'd made 54 passes in our 3rd, we had made 14 in theirs.

The chance created when Soldado played the ball (intentionally ???) through the legs of Evans for Lennon was virtually the first time we'd been in their half.

I think there is a lot of nonsense talked about wins like yesterday. I felt the same last year (AVB) and the same on other occasions (Liverpool at home last year for example under AVB) Arsenal away under Redknapp, and home the year we qualified for the CL amongst others. If you are going to set up to play a pragmatic, passive aggressive game you still press the ball and work really hard off it. You don't allow 48 crosses into your box and you don't allow nearly 60% of the game to be played in your third.

People are very fond of posthumously declaring wins like this pragmatic genius. For me there was too much wrong with that performance to be the perfect execution of an intentional tactical master plan. That would have involved us stopping them creating much (like at home) and/or creating more than 4 chances and relying less on fortune and a benevolent ref.

I get some of what you're saying and don't disagree with all of It necessarily but I do take issue with the way you're summarising the game in general. Honestly, if we don't concede that goal straight away and lose Adebayor seconds later it would of been of more comfortable. We played plenty of football in their half in the middle part of the game...from 20 -65 minutes. I mean plenty, and we looked threatening. The first 20 minutes was sloppy but that was individual carelessness...not the way we were collectively set up.

You can bring the home game into it to compare if you like, but you're not going to convince me that we had better chances in that game, we simply didn't - not even close. They were pretty much the same, second half a lot of sterile domination - they didn't create much in that game either, two errors gave them a point. We deserved to win both games, but in terms of chances created we definitely deserved to win that last night.

I don't think anybody is getting ahead of themselves - we simply deserved to win that football match, it doesn't mean that we've found the holy grail in terms of set up/formation/strategy - call it what you like.

Sherwood is a couple of games in, we're creating better quality chances - that much is fact, lets see how we build from here. You can't deny the improvement in quite a few of the players either. No coincidence that playing with a little more freedom and getting more bodies forward has brought the best out of several of them lately either.

He may well find a really good balance in weeks to come.
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
54,776
99,340
Another point on Walker....it was he who found Soldado who then slides it to Eriksen for the first goal. Make no mistake, that goal does not come about if not for Walker though...in a really tight situation, gets himself out of it superbly and plays a really good forward ball to Soldado. That is passing with purpose, could of easily just knocked it back that point.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
Another point on Walker....it was he who found Soldado who then slides it to Eriksen for the first goal. Make no mistake, that goal does not come about if not for Walker though...in a really tight situation, gets himself out of it superbly and plays a really good forward ball to Soldado. That is passing with purpose, could of easily just knocked it back that point.

Are you saying that no defenders passed the ball forward under AVB now ?
 
Top