What's new

Ratings vs Man City

MOTM

  • Lloris

    Votes: 7 2.2%
  • Walker

    Votes: 15 4.7%
  • Dier

    Votes: 2 0.6%
  • Toby

    Votes: 6 1.9%
  • Wimmer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rose

    Votes: 23 7.3%
  • Wanyama

    Votes: 236 74.4%
  • Dembele

    Votes: 9 2.8%
  • Eriksen

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dele

    Votes: 9 2.8%
  • Kane

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Son

    Votes: 2 0.6%
  • Winks

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Sissoko

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 6 1.9%
  • None Deserved

    Votes: 1 0.3%

  • Total voters
    317

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
You have to give City some credit their movement and intent as excellent. They don't become a bad side overnight and they had to have a reaction after the Everton game. We never played well but we weren't allowed to and that's down to the opposition. E

Its a point gained rather than 2 lost we got lucky but that's football


I've never said City are a "bad" side. They did play well, but a massive part of their playing well was us being so tactically inept that they were able to, and that should not be dismissed as "one of those things".

We cannot go from looking like genuine title challengers one week to relegation fodder the next. The very worst that should happen is we lose in a competent and competitive fashion, as we did at ManU and Chelsea.

I'm not saying that we have suddenly turned into a bad side either, what I'm saying is, we need to ensure that zero complacency exists, and that "shit happens" mentality is not acceptable if we are to be the team we look like we are becoming. And for what it's worth I don't think Poch is that type of person at all. I think that game will give nightmares, and was probably the worst, tactically, by him in a long time.
 

Strikeb4ck

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2010
4,483
9,409
Dier and Wimmer were all over the place, looked like they were strikers thrown into a back 3.

Wanyama was unreal.

Lloris had an off day.

Walker was critical.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
I disagree, I think he puts himself and the defence under pressure all the time, when always trying to play out from the back when it obviously is not on. How many times have we seen him give it to the right or left back who are immediately put under pressure and have to pass it back to him and then HE is under pressure. I agree with trying to play from the back but this has to stop.


Agree. The "we want to play it out from the back" cliché doesn't hold up, It's like saying, just because we are a possession team it's OK for outfield players to make stupid passing choices.

Yes we want to play out from the back, but we don't want to put ourselves under ridiculous pressure to do it. That's just making poor decisions.

We are poor as a team, and his mistakes were not the only factor in their goals, they were just the end segment of a string of piss poor sequences, two of many, but lets not dress them up either, both were pretty poor pieces of goalkeeping and if another keeper had made the same errors we'd be calling them what they are.
 

SUIYHA

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2017
1,723
8,579
Insane that we managed to get anything from the game. The first hour or so was genuinely Sherwood-esque. Not a single shot on goal apart from those we scored and we regularly gave the ball away in our own half in dangerous areas - we badly struggled against City's press. I knew they'd tire though as there's no way a team can keep up that kind of intensity for 90 minutes but we were lucky not to be several goals down by that point. Walker should be preparing for a ban. Now you can talk all you want about how no other team in the league could come back from that etc etc etc but the fact is if the ref doesn't inexplicably miss Walker's push and we go 3-1 down with 10 men then it's a crushing defeat on the cards and the same people praising the team's "fighting spirit" etc would be the same ones calling them bottle jobs.

The dangers of three man defences were shown up here too. When you're up against a team with two fast wing forwards then if your wing back has pushed up there is always the risk of the WF having a clear bit of space to run into and City exploited that well with Sane and Sterling.

Wanyama and Alderweireld were the only two outstanding performers in my opinion especially Wanyama. What a signing he's been. The rest were very bad. Their contributions for the goals aside, Kane and Alli were completely anonymous, as was Eriksen. Hugo kept us in it in the first half and has been brilliant all season but can you imagine the crucification Heurelho Gomes would have gotten if he'd made mistakes like those. I know City were good but overall this was probably our worst PL performance of the season.

A point very much stolen. But I never feel guilty about getting lucky against Man City. Their entire club and status is based on luck and cheating.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
That cross by Walker was the best first time cross I think Ive ever seen him hit.

The tackle by Rose defied physics.

We were incredibly lucky that City a) wasted many great situations and didn't actually turn them into clean chances they should have b) If the chances Sterling had had fallen to Aguero we'd have lost 5-2 at best. Sterling is such a weak finisher.
 

Ionman34

SC Supporter
Jun 1, 2011
7,182
16,793
Sorry dudu, but I think this is just too glib.

And I know you are just echoing the sentiments of some others, so sorry for picking on you, but you make it sound like it was all about City, like they were the only ones with a point to prove, they held all the cards going into this game, all they had to do was turn up.

They should have been shitting themselves going into this game, they've had their weaknesses exposed, confidence knocked and we were bang in stride.

We had a point to prove too, that we could at least compete, that we are the real deal.

If we had at least competed and limited them defensively etc you could say "fair enough" coming marginally second best is acceptable, but that performance from us was tragic, probably as bad tactically as I've seen from any team in any game all season.

And it was only outrageous fortune that prevented us from getting the spanking it merited.

And I don't buy that it was character that got us a point either, it was pure fortune that we scored with our only real moments in their box.

I'm damn sure Poch might publically be giving it the "yeees dis ees fudball" but privately will be fucking fuming with himself that any team of his was such a fucking shambolic cluster fuck.

I hope so anyway. Because that performance was one of the worst during his time. As @Gilzeanking said, it was reminiscent of the very bad old days, it was schoolboy stuff and the lucky score line doesn't hide that.
BC, "pure fortune" that we scored? Absolute tosh.

They were well crafted goals. The fact that they were the only real chances we created is irrelevant to the crafting of the goals, there was no "pure fortune" involved in them at all, just quality build up and clinical execution. Had City shown half of that application we'd likely have been on the end of a cricket score.

I feel you give scant regard to the mindset of City, thet were out to send a message and, weaknesses not withstanding, they wanted blood and they wanted it for the full 90.

I think the other thing to take into account here is that Pep foresaw the back 3 and countered it very well. That put us on the back foot and forced us to firefight more or less from the off. It was an unexpected change to their manner of play so, by and large, Guardiola has to be respected for doing the unexpected, which threw us into turmoil for the majority of the first half. You cannot underestimate the mental effect this has on players with how they then proceed with the remainder of the game, particularly as City never really let up for the full 90, keeping them in a reactive rather than proactive mindset.

We should also not underestimate the fact that they set out from the off to negate our creative outlets. Eriksen didn't get anywhere near the room to operate that he has in the last few games, your "pockets of Oxygen", whilst our wingbacks were pinned back because they put balls over the top and pressed a defence that had been turned.

Poch didn't see such a fundamental change to their approach coming. I'm not sure we could have expected him to either as it was the very first time City had brought it to a game. He got caught out, we got fortunate that City would have struggled to hit a barn door from the inside in the first half, he made adjustments to counter, then Hugo made a couple of errors.

The first half performance kind of obscures that of the second half where it was a bit more even keeled, although City were still better. Yet, despite a relative battering, we still had enough craft, guile and nerve to create two well constructed goals.

So yes, we were tactically schooled first half, against one of the Worlds top managers whose pride had taken a severe denting. I can live with that and it is a further lesson learnt in the education of Pochettino. Yes we were outplayed in the main, by a team that also had its collective pride's trousers pulled down and given 6 of the best in public. They were bang up for it and Pep set them up to prevent their weaknesses being exposed. We're good, but, to use a boxing analogy, when a World class boxer is coming at you with furious intent, control and a game plan to knock you the fuck out, you have to be one of the very best to weather that and land a knock out yourself, even if the opponent has a suspect jaw.

We're not quite at that level yet, but "shambolic clusterfuck?" You really need to give the rhetoric a rest.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
BC, "pure fortune" that we scored? Absolute tosh.

They were well crafted goals. The fact that they were the only real chances we created is irrelevant to the crafting of the goals, there was no "pure fortune" involved in them at all, just quality build up and clinical execution. Had City shown half of that application we'd likely have been on the end of a cricket score.

I feel you give scant regard to the mindset of City, thet were out to send a message and, weaknesses not withstanding, they wanted blood and they wanted it for the full 90.

I think the other thing to take into account here is that Pep foresaw the back 3 and countered it very well. That put us on the back foot and forced us to firefight more or less from the off. It was an unexpected change to their manner of play so, by and large, Guardiola has to be respected for doing the unexpected, which threw us into turmoil for the majority of the first half. You cannot underestimate the mental effect this has on players with how they then proceed with the remainder of the game, particularly as City never really let up for the full 90, keeping them in a reactive rather than proactive mindset.

We should also not underestimate the fact that they set out from the off to negate our creative outlets. Eriksen didn't get anywhere near the room to operate that he has in the last few games, your "pockets of Oxygen", whilst our wingbacks were pinned back because they put balls over the top and pressed a defence that had been turned.

Poch didn't see such a fundamental change to their approach coming. I'm not sure we could have expected him to either as it was the very first time City had brought it to a game. He got caught out, we got fortunate that City would have struggled to hit a barn door from the inside in the first half, he made adjustments to counter, then Hugo made a couple of errors.

The first half performance kind of obscures that of the second half where it was a bit more even keeled, although City were still better. Yet, despite a relative battering, we still had enough craft, guile and nerve to create two well constructed goals.

So yes, we were tactically schooled first half, against one of the Worlds top managers whose pride had taken a severe denting. I can live with that and it is a further lesson learnt in the education of Pochettino. Yes we were outplayed in the main, by a team that also had its collective pride's trousers pulled down and given 6 of the best in public. They were bang up for it and Pep set them up to prevent their weaknesses being exposed. We're good, but, to use a boxing analogy, when a World class boxer is coming at you with furious intent, control and a game plan to knock you the fuck out, you have to be one of the very best to weather that and land a knock out yourself, even if the opponent has a suspect jaw.

We're not quite at that level yet, but "shambolic clusterfuck?" You really need to give the rhetoric a rest.


Not pure fortune that the goals were scored, per se. Pure fortune that those two moments actually managed to earn us the same points from that game than ManC's dominance did. Pure fortune that by those moments we could/should have already been out of touch but for their ineptitude and pure good fortune on our part (we should have been 3-1 down and playing with ten men by the time we equalised for example - that has nothing to do with our "skill")

What about our mind set ?

And I don't understand why Poch didn't foresee Guardiola's approach, it wasn't totally unexpected, it wasn't incredibly radical, especially once he'd seen the team sheet and then having watched what was unfolding his response to it didn't really solve the problems at all. It was a 433/4141 and they pressed. They have played that format 7 times this season. How tactically surprising is that ?

Why was Alli left to play as a CF the whole game when we were getting out footballed in midfield ? It didn't work at any stage of the game. He could still score his goal playing the slightly more withdrawn role he always plays (and scores from - a la Chelsea) and we might not be two goals down by then.

That was a tactically shambolic performance that we got away with. Massively.
 

Hazardousman

Audere est Facere
Jul 24, 2013
4,619
8,944
Sorry dudu, but I think this is just too glib.

And I know you are just echoing the sentiments of some others, so sorry for picking on you, but you make it sound like it was all about City, like they were the only ones with a point to prove, they held all the cards going into this game, all they had to do was turn up.

They should have been shitting themselves going into this game, they've had their weaknesses exposed, confidence knocked and we were bang in stride.

We had a point to prove too, that we could at least compete, that we are the real deal.

If we had at least competed and limited them defensively etc you could say "fair enough" coming marginally second best is acceptable, but that performance from us was tragic, probably as bad tactically as I've seen from any team in any game all season.

And it was only outrageous fortune that prevented us from getting the spanking it merited.

And I don't buy that it was character that got us a point either, it was pure fortune that we scored with our only real moments in their box.

I'm damn sure Poch might publically be giving it the "yeees dis ees fudball" but privately will be fucking fuming with himself that any team of his was such a fucking shambolic cluster fuck.

I hope so anyway. Because that performance was one of the worst during his time. As @Gilzeanking said, it was reminiscent of the very bad old days, it was schoolboy stuff and the lucky score line doesn't hide that.

I will admit that it felt rather embarrassing at times, we looked a world apart from City for the majority of the match, we didn't look like a side challenging for the title and we are much better than what we showed yesterday, the first game against City is proof of that.

I think the pressure got to the players again, Lloris and his performance shows that for me, they need to believe they truly are capable of being champions, we just dominated Chelsea a few weeks back, I know it's harder to do on the road than at home but still, we need to show that same mentality away.

Our away form this year hasn't been as good as in recent seasons and I think I know why, Newcastle away is still sitting in the players minds and quite frankly, if luck would have gone City's way and they were more clinical it could have been a Newcastle scoreline.

Still we have to give credit to our players for getting back into the game because spurs teams of the past would have rolled over and it would have been 5 or 6 even with all their missed chances.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
Pep's formation did not cause problems, it was the shift in tactics to play long-ball, and by-pass the midfield that caused problems. That - from a Pep squad - was not foreseeable.

Man City, and Guardiola, have wanted to play a possession-based game all season. They want to build from the back, and work the ball up the field. Yesterday, they went with many more long-balls from both Bravo and the defense - trying to utilize the pace of Sane, Aguero, and Sterling to get behind the defense.

When Poch saw those tactics, and the problems they were causing, he shifted to the back 4, and kept the fullbacks deeper. At half-time, Poch made the sensible choice to get better personnel on the pitch for the 4231 - thus Son for Wimmer.
 

Ionman34

SC Supporter
Jun 1, 2011
7,182
16,793
1. Not pure fortune that the goals were scored, per se. Pure fortune that those two moments actually managed to earn us the same points from that game than ManC's dominance did. Pure fortune that by those moments we could/should have already been out of touch but for their ineptitude and pure good fortune on our part (we should have been 3-1 down and playing with ten men by the time we equalised for example - that has nothing to do with our "skill")

2. What about our mind set ?

3. And I don't understand why Poch didn't foresee Guardiola's approach, it wasn't totally unexpected, it wasn't incredibly radical, especially once he'd seen the team sheet and then having watched what was unfolding his response to it didn't really solve the problems at all. It was a 433/4141 and they pressed. They have played that format 7 times this season. How tactically surprising is that ?

4. Why was Alli left to play as a CF the whole game when we were getting out footballed in midfield ? It didn't work at any stage of the game. He could still score his goal playing the slightly more withdrawn role he always plays (and scores from - a la Chelsea) and we might not be two goals down by then.

5. That was a tactically shambolic performance that we got away with. Massively.
1. Fair point, now that you have clarified it better.
I'm not a believer in luck, but it's a subjective term so I won't argue the toss over it. They were inept in front of goal in the main and, as anyone in Football will state, that kind of ineptitude will punish you. We've had more than our fair share of that going against us, so I'll not lose sleep when it goes in our favour.

2. I've already covered our mindset, reactive rather than proactive because we didn't foresee their approach coupled with their intensity. Guardiola out thought Poch for the opening exchanges.
I've stated before that Football, like most "games" we play, is based on War. In any engagement in War, the opening exchanges often dictate the outcome of a battle. The General who does the unexpected, particularly when he's displayed a trend towards a certain approach, will often gain a serious advantage with the opposition having to resort to damage limitation.
I've studied a number of Generals throughout history and this is an overriding theme with them.
This pretty much happened with Pep and Poch, forcing our players to change their mindset and approach rapidly. This drains confidence with a great deal of confusion occurring until discipline reasserts itself.
As I said, credit has to go to Guardiola for that, to deny it would be churlish.

3. At what point has Guardiola had his team playing long balls over the top with an intense press to follow up?
You get caught up with the formation and lose sight of the fact that it is just a formation, not a tactic. The tactic is not in HOW you set up but in how you USE it. He used the long ball tactic to turn our defence and followed it up with an intense press whilst we were facing our own goal. Simple but extremely effective. Where I will point the finger is at how we played into their hands, almost literally. We tried to play intricate Football out from the back when a long ball into the channels would have, in turn, had them turning. But we were reacting by then, fighting fires and, as I touched on with the boxing analogy, you need to be amongst the absolute best to weather that calmly and turn it to your advantage. We aren't there just yet.

4. That one I can't offer an argument for in truth, particularly if we weren't going to put the ball into the channels and use him and Kane to harry (excuse the pun) their defence once we'd turned them.

5. Again with the rhetoric. He got it wrong from the off, that we can agree on, for reasons I've already gone over. He adjusted and, in the main, made the right adjustments. It was 2 errors that cost us in the second half which had nothing to do with his tactics. You have to expect a team like City to create chances even when you've finally got your setup into reasonable shape, especially when they already have their tails up, can smell blood and are playing at the top of their game. Poch and the team deserve credit that, although they were under constant pressure, they still managed to find that chink in the armour that allowed them to find a response. He could have taken the WBA approach and played for 0-0. Instead he changed formation a put in Son in an attempt to put some attacking pressure on them. Granted it didn't quite work out ideally with us wresting control and initiative, but it was a tactical change that allowed us to take a share of the spoils.

It wasn't a masterclass, but it wasn't a shambles either.
 

dannythomas

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2004
3,757
2,813
Not pure fortune that the goals were scored, per se. Pure fortune that those two moments actually managed to earn us the same points from that game than ManC's dominance did. Pure fortune that by those moments we could/should have already been out of touch but for their ineptitude and pure good fortune on our part (we should have been 3-1 down and playing with ten men by the time we equalised for example - that has nothing to do with our "skill")

What about our mind set ?

And I don't understand why Poch didn't foresee Guardiola's approach, it wasn't totally unexpected, it wasn't incredibly radical, especially once he'd seen the team sheet and then having watched what was unfolding his response to it didn't really solve the problems at all. It was a 433/4141 and they pressed. They have played that format 7 times this season. How tactically surprising is that ?

Why was Alli left to play as a CF the whole game when we were getting out footballed in midfield ? It didn't work at any stage of the game. He could still score his goal playing the slightly more withdrawn role he always plays (and scores from - a la Chelsea) and we might not be two goals down by then.

That was a tactically shambolic performance that we got away with. Massively.


Maybe so, but you have to sometimes grind out results playing badly. How about the pure fortune City had for both of their goals which Lloris uncharacteristically gifted them ? How you finish is part of the team's performance and we scored 2.quality goals . We have had many frustrating games in the past where we have outplayed the opposition and not finished well enough. Yesterday City had that experience. Their finishing was shit. Ours wasn't.
 

dk-yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2011
4,489
8,020
TBH, I don't think he's being scapegoated. I rate Wimmer highly and I think he's been extremely capable in the vast majority of the games he has played this season, I even rated him higher than Toby in an earlier game (Watford I think it was).
But he was below par yesterday and, if any of the back line were to be hooked, it was going to be him.

Wimmer is a quality CB, which I have no doubt he will demonstrate in the coming weeks whilst he deputises for Vertonghen.

Agree fully. It was the fact that he was being singled out as the only poor showing that I found odd....
 

Ionman34

SC Supporter
Jun 1, 2011
7,182
16,793
Agree fully. It was the fact that he was being singled out as the only poor showing that I found odd....

I think he had "moments" that stood out, one being him robbed from behind, just outside our pen area, that nearly led to a goal. His distribution was woeful too which again stood out because his passing is normally excellent.

There's always an element on here that have polar reactions to a player during a match. If he's playing well then he should be a shoe-in starter, if he's playing poorly then he should be sold or our squad depth is lacking. They're usually the ones that call a player "shit" if he has one bad game.

Generally I treat those posters like White noise, in the background and largely ignored.
 

dudu

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2011
5,314
11,048
Sorry dudu, but I think this is just too glib.

And I know you are just echoing the sentiments of some others, so sorry for picking on you, but you make it sound like it was all about City, like they were the only ones with a point to prove, they held all the cards going into this game, all they had to do was turn up.

They should have been shitting themselves going into this game, they've had their weaknesses exposed, confidence knocked and we were bang in stride.

We had a point to prove too, that we could at least compete, that we are the real deal.

If we had at least competed and limited them defensively etc you could say "fair enough" coming marginally second best is acceptable, but that performance from us was tragic, probably as bad tactically as I've seen from any team in any game all season.

And it was only outrageous fortune that prevented us from getting the spanking it merited.

And I don't buy that it was character that got us a point either, it was pure fortune that we scored with our only real moments in their box.

I'm damn sure Poch might publically be giving it the "yeees dis ees fudball" but privately will be fucking fuming with himself that any team of his was such a fucking shambolic cluster fuck.

I hope so anyway. Because that performance was one of the worst during his time. As @Gilzeanking said, it was reminiscent of the very bad old days, it was schoolboy stuff and the lucky score line doesn't hide that.

I get how it could sound like that however I did say i thought we were out smarted, out played and out fought - much like our CL games at Wembley this year. Im just taking a bit of a pragmatic approach following a good few weeks of proving some points...

There is no doubt that as a collective Poch/the players will not be happy with the performance - none of us should but the draw does soften the blow and a bad performance doesn't dampen my feelings about our ability or potential.

I felt the Chelsea game was a bit of a coming of age moment for us but by no means does that mean I think we are the finished article. Yesterday was another lesson to be learned but the positive is that those kinds of days are becoming fewer and fewer. The fact you are amazed that a spurs team is capable of playing so well one week but so badly the next is truly a testament to just how far we have come ;)
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
1. Fair point, now that you have clarified it better.
I'm not a believer in luck, but it's a subjective term so I won't argue the toss over it. They were inept in front of goal in the main and, as anyone in Football will state, that kind of ineptitude will punish you. We've had more than our fair share of that going against us, so I'll not lose sleep when it goes in our favour.

2. I've already covered our mindset, reactive rather than proactive because we didn't foresee their approach coupled with their intensity. Guardiola out thought Poch for the opening exchanges.
I've stated before that Football, like most "games" we play, is based on War. In any engagement in War, the opening exchanges often dictate the outcome of a battle. The General who does the unexpected, particularly when he's displayed a trend towards a certain approach, will often gain a serious advantage with the opposition having to resort to damage limitation.
I've studied a number of Generals throughout history and this is an overriding theme with them.
This pretty much happened with Pep and Poch, forcing our players to change their mindset and approach rapidly. This drains confidence with a great deal of confusion occurring until discipline reasserts itself.
As I said, credit has to go to Guardiola for that, to deny it would be churlish.

3. At what point has Guardiola had his team playing long balls over the top with an intense press to follow up?
You get caught up with the formation and lose sight of the fact that it is just a formation, not a tactic. The tactic is not in HOW you set up but in how you USE it. He used the long ball tactic to turn our defence and followed it up with an intense press whilst we were facing our own goal. Simple but extremely effective. Where I will point the finger is at how we played into their hands, almost literally. We tried to play intricate Football out from the back when a long ball into the channels would have, in turn, had them turning. But we were reacting by then, fighting fires and, as I touched on with the boxing analogy, you need to be amongst the absolute best to weather that calmly and turn it to your advantage. We aren't there just yet.

4. That one I can't offer an argument for in truth, particularly if we weren't going to put the ball into the channels and use him and Kane to harry (excuse the pun) their defence once we'd turned them.

5. Again with the rhetoric. He got it wrong from the off, that we can agree on, for reasons I've already gone over. He adjusted and, in the main, made the right adjustments. It was 2 errors that cost us in the second half which had nothing to do with his tactics. You have to expect a team like City to create chances even when you've finally got your setup into reasonable shape, especially when they already have their tails up, can smell blood and are playing at the top of their game. Poch and the team deserve credit that, although they were under constant pressure, they still managed to find that chink in the armour that allowed them to find a response. He could have taken the WBA approach and played for 0-0. Instead he changed formation a put in Son in an attempt to put some attacking pressure on them. Granted it didn't quite work out ideally with us wresting control and initiative, but it was a tactical change that allowed us to take a share of the spoils.

It wasn't a masterclass, but it wasn't a shambles either.


Good post, some interesting food for thought, we agree in some areas but not in others. I hope you appreciate that I don't just think the tactical battle was all about shape, I think I even used the word application several times in my OP. But shape played a part, and shape was the first thing that Poch shifted when attempting to address the problems. I think it was partly our failures of tactical application that influenced some of City's as much as it was City doing things well as well and I don't think that Poch addressed them particularly well, and the Alli thing was one example I gave.

You say their goals were luck but the fact that those situations developed weren't all luck, they were part of an ongoing situation that was partly as a result of Poch's failure to get to grips with what was happening on the pitch. Did you really think throwing Son solved anything ? His dribbling straight into their player (a usual occurrence) cost us the second goal, and putting him into a game we were already struggling to gain any foothold or momentum in midfield was really tactically dubious. Having got away scot free by half time, surely the smart move was to try and get to grips with what was happening in midfield, compress the game, close out all the spaces and channels and avenues that ManC were being allowed to move the ball around in, get bodies in and around their 4 ball players in midfield and start making it uncomfortable for them. The Son substitution didn't address this at all. Leaving Alli up top with Kane and adding Son just stretched things further at times or at best maintained an inadequate status quo.

The long ball thing is as much about how we set up yesterday, and is a tactic that Poch himself uses frequently, so he could and possibly should have anticipated it, it's a fairly well used tactic against teams that like to overload advanced areas, push up or play high lines etc, especially as I think Guardiola did use a similar tactic against both ManU and Arsenal at times (hitting 27 and 22 long balls respectively compared to 27 yesterday), he's possibly used it in other games this season but I haven't watched them all, those two were just two big games against the type of opposition that aren't just going to sit deep, making the tactic more viable, just as we do.

The point is, our goals weren't a consequence of our "tactical application" so you can't hijack them for your thesis. They were very isolated moments of individual reactivity that the rub of the ball presented. Their pressure was as a result of the tactical application by them and failed tactical application of Poch.

As I said in my OP, if we are going to call games like Chelsea and WBA tactical masterclasses, and I did, then I can't imagine Poch getting it tactically much worse than he did yesterday, so I don't think it's not over stating it to call it shambolic. IMO.
 
Last edited:

Dannyspur

I just don't know anymore!
Aug 17, 2004
10,127
13,799
It doesn't matter what tactics the teams play if one side can't string a few passes together. I thought Eriksen was the biggest culprit for misplaced passes. Lloris had a 'mare - his kicking was atrocious. Wanyama was our MOTM by far.
 

Colonel_Klinck

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2004
12,637
23,218
That cross by Walker was the best first time cross I think Ive ever seen him hit.

The tackle by Rose defied physics.

We were incredibly lucky that City a) wasted many great situations and didn't actually turn them into clean chances they should have b) If the chances Sterling had had fallen to Aguero we'd have lost 5-2 at best. Sterling is such a weak finisher.

I wish he'd do that more often. So difficult to defend against but all too often he wants to take a touch or cut back.
 

jonathanhotspur

Loose Cannon
Jun 28, 2009
10,292
8,250
All square in Pochettino and Guardiola’s battle of high-speed philosophies
Michael Cox

In a game between two sides using high defensive lines, runs in behind the opposition were always likely to be crucial … and controversial


There are many similarities between the footballing philosophies of Pep Guardiola and Mauricio Pochettino, and for the second time this season, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur contested a fast-paced, exciting game based around pressing and high defensive lines. Whereas Tottenham ran out 2-0 winners in October, however, City failed to translate their superiority here into three points.

Guardiola has often played a 4-2-3-1 in recent weeks but on Saturday used a 4-3-3 – and an extremely attack-minded 4-3-3 at that. Leroy Sané, Sergio Agüero and Raheem Sterling played high up the pitch, pressing Tottenham’s centre-backs, while David Silva and Kevin De Bruyne returned to the deeper roles they played at the start of the campaign, with Yaya Touré deployed on his own in the holding role. This might have been disastrous – Touré’s tactical discipline has rightly been questioned in recent years – but Silva and De Bruyne demonstrated wonderful skill and composure in possession to ease past Tottenham’s midfield press, and put City in charge.

In a game between two sides using high defensive lines, runs in behind the opposition were always likely to be crucial. Sterling was the first man to break through, when running on to one of De Bruyne’s countless superb penetrative passes, although Sterling’s inability to actually get a shot away, when it had briefly appeared a one-on-one opportunity, summarised Manchester City’s frustrating lack of killer instinct. That’s been a problem throughout the season but in last weekend’s 4-0 defeat by Everton and the first half here it has reached new heights.

Tottenham’s defensive play was unusually poor here, with gaps between the three centre-backs so inviting that even the City right-back Pablo Zabaleta charged through on goal at one point. Toby Alderweireld produced an outstanding, if desperate, last-man challenge to deny him, while Danny Rose’s tackle on Sterling was even better. However, Spurs were relying on last-ditch defending far too much, which convinced Pochettino to change shape dramatically.

601.jpg

Spurs’ back three couldn’t cope with the runs of Sane and Sterling, forcing Pochettino to switch to a 4-2-3-1 after 25 minutes. Photograph: Michael Cox
Having started with a three-man defence, his default shape in recent weeks, Pochettino switched to a 4-2-3-1. Eric Dier moved forward from centre-back to central midfield, with Mousa Dembélé going to the top of the triangle. This initially worked effectively, as Tottenham got numbers into midfield and finally had a spell of possession, while Rose and Kyle Walker retreated into defence, and Tottenham had four against three to provide support against City’s three forwards. This move stabilised the game and stopped City’s onslaught, although the combination of Dier and Victor Wanyama in midfield was hardly the most creative and Tottenham created little.

That lack of guile in midfield, combined with Kevin Wimmer’s poor first-half performance, meant Pochettino made a substitution at half-time, with Son Heung-min replacing Wimmer. Dier returned to defence, Dembélé dropped into a deeper midfield role again and now Spurs were using the XI Pochettino would have named had he started with a four-man defence.

They looked considerably more comfortable in that system – but now, surprisingly, City struck. Yet another of De Bruyne’s balls in behind found Sané racing through and after Hugo Lloris’s disastrous attempt at a sweeping, headed clearance only sent the ball against Sané, the City winger tapped into an empty net. Another inexplicable Lloris mistake gave De Bruyne, the game’s outstanding player, a tap-in to make it 2-0. It was seemingly game over.

Tottenham’s resilience was hugely impressive, however. Dele Alli made a good late run into the box for what is fast becoming his trademark goal, pulling Spurs back into the game. The departure of Alderweireld, arguably the Premier League’s best defender this season, might have been catastrophic but somehow this worked out brilliantly for Tottenham – it forced Pochettino to introduce the midfielder Harry Winks, with Wanyama switched to centre-back alongside Dier. Spurs’ previous midfield partnership was now their centre-back partnership. Winks demonstrated remarkable composure in possession, not misplacing any of his 13 passes, and Tottenham built a spell of genuine pressure for the first time. Son’s equaliser was not entirely unexpected.

The post-match talking point was Walker’s blatant, unpunished push on Sterling, with the City winger through on goal 15 minutes from time from an Aleksandar Kolarov through ball. In a game between two teams using such high defensive lines, through balls and speed in behind were always likely to produce major incidents.

Guardiola will be more concerned, however, about Manchester City’s poor performance in the penalty boxes. Here they recorded 17 shots to Tottenham’s six, seven on target compared to Tottenham’s two. Claudio Bravo was not at fault for the two goals but he again did not make a single save, while at the other end Sterling’s lack of end product once more underlined City’s profligacy.

Guardiola’s emphasis upon technical ball-players has its benefits but merely dominating matches, rather than actually winning them, is plainly not enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-speed-philosophies-manchester-city-tottenham
 

jonathanhotspur

Loose Cannon
Jun 28, 2009
10,292
8,250
I get how it could sound like that however I did say i thought we were out smarted, out played and out fought - much like our CL games at Wembley this year. Im just taking a bit of a pragmatic approach following a good few weeks of proving some points...

There is no doubt that as a collective Poch/the players will not be happy with the performance - none of us should but the draw does soften the blow and a bad performance doesn't dampen my feelings about our ability or potential.

I felt the Chelsea game was a bit of a coming of age moment for us but by no means does that mean I think we are the finished article. Yesterday was another lesson to be learned but the positive is that those kinds of days are becoming fewer and fewer. The fact you are amazed that a spurs team is capable of playing so well one week but so badly the next is truly a testament to just how far we have come ;)
I think the silver lining from yesterday is that it should keep us grounded. Maybe the hype had become excessive and for me there is a question mark over our ability to handle expectation. Poch is good at learning from his mistakes and the training camp is just what the doctor ordered.
 
Top