Match Ratings Ratings vs APOEL

BringBack_leGin said:

1. Sanchez price is irrelevant, especially when the figures we have are press produced. More likely is that it will rise to that amount if he's a success. If that's the case we won't complain.
2. Formation would look tonnes better if Dier was replaced with Wanyama, who doesn't get sucked deep; Sissoko was replaced with Dembele, who loves receiving the ball and can use it in tight situations and; Winks was replaced by Eriksen, who is more adventurous with the ball. The realty would be more cohesion and playing on the front foot more. Sadly they were all injured.
3. Pochettino deserves credit for an in game decision to change formation to one which suited the players on the pitch better and nullified the opposition.
4. People need to not fixate on the quality of opposition, this game was not easy. They were quarter finalists in this competition more recently than us.

Click to expand...

Bus-Conductor said:

I think what we've seen so far is Poch apply it over cautiously against Chelsea, with Dier, Wanyama and Dembele (with Dier and Dembele in the "8.5" roles) and then apply it too flimsily since with Dier, Sissoko and Eriksen. I think if you either swap Wanyama for Sissoko, or Dier for Wanyama you'd see it to better effect.

IE:

Trippier-----------------------Dier----------------------Davies
V V
/\ /\
----Winks--------------- ------------Wanyama/Dembele
V /\ V
< Eriksen >
V
Kane




Trippier-----------------------Wanyama----------------------Davies
V V
/\ /\
----Winks--------------- ------------Eriksen/Dembele
V /\ V
< Alli/Eriksen >
V
Kane

​

This is why I have wanted us to progress Onomah and/or buy a player like Tolisso or Keita. to play that "8" or "8.5" role now being played by Eriksen or Sissoko.

It's really more of a 3331 or 3142, and our fb's are supposed to counter their fb's in the problem you suggest, when the opposition switch it wide and take out our two forwards.

I don't think it's a catch all format, I agree with much of what you say, but I do think it could have merits if applied better tactically and with better balanced selections. And I really, really don't understand why he doesn't just play a simple 433 sometimes, which would add a body to the forward press and allow us to counter attack better. Many games I'm sure we could cope without 3cb's, and the 433 is (partly) designed to counter the 3CB system, which so many are playing these days. When we bought Sissoko I assumed it was because we would play some kind of 433 at some stage, because it's the only system he's really viable in, as a wide forward going directly at LB's and LCB's, not as a CM or CM/AM hybrid which is what he's played lately and clearly leaves massive holes when he bombs forward, and doesn't give us control when deeper because he's such a poor footballer.

Click to expand...

dudu said:

1) Aurier had just been bested on the right wing.... He just looked tired and actually Apoel had been playing a lot on the right side since the break.

Regardless of whether Trippier is our best defensive right back, he should be at a level to cope with Apoel's offensive play when sat in a back 4 so again, it made sense to move him over to his favoured side.

2) we had been the worse team since half time and clearly some kind of tactical change needed to be made. They had a number of chance to maybe 1 of ours.

So for me, Aurier was the right choice to be replaced, I even said so at the time to my friends.

And regarding formation.... while I could have also imagined a 433 with the personal on the pitch, once it was obvious we were playing a 442 I just felt like it suited the players and gave us back control of the midfield.

Click to expand...

jonathanhotspur said:

Is Tolisso the guy who signed for Monaco?

Click to expand...

scat1620 said:

Sometimes switching out a player who's being given a torrid time by an opponent will work even if on paper the 'replacement' player doesn't seem to have the attributes not to suffer the same problems against the troublemaking opposition player.

The one that really leaps to mind is that game against Villa where Ashley Young's pace was giving our normally pacy right-back (actually can't remember if it was Walker or Hutton or someone else) an absolute rinsing time and time again. In response we did a straight-swap substitution to bring on Charlie "Even Huddlestone could out sprint me" Corluka, and despite it seeming like Young would continue to blast past at speed whenever he chose, Corluka immediately just put Young in his pocket and kept him there for the remainder of the game. <insert own views about how you always liked Corluka more than any other Spurs RB of his era anyway, so of course this was no surprise, here>

Not exactly analogous, but I feel last night's Trippier-Aurier change was cut from similar cloth. Aurier's man just had the beating of him last night, and by hook or by crook Trippier dealt with him more effectively.

Click to expand...

Bus-Conductor said:

1. I agree that the price is irrelevant once the boy is through the door, it's just about judging him as a player, I just queried the decision to pay 40m - a massive amount for a club like us - on such a raw player and a CB at that, not a position that tends accrue massive inherent value, even when good. For the record, I'm not forming a definitive judgement on the kid, I can see he's got some good qualities, I'm just not sure we couldn't have found that kind of raw potential for a bit less, even in our own midst?

You think back to the summer - and I don't overly rate CCV but I'm just using this as an example - when he made a mistake in a pre season game against a top player for Juve I think, it was "clearly not ready for this level". When our 40m raw kid makes several mistakes in games against Swansea, West Ham and Apoel, no one seems to say boo. Now I think Sanchez looks better than CCV, I'm just highlighting the way perspectives get altered the minute we pay money for someone.


2. Agree with much of this and have just posted as much above.

3. I think he does deserve some credit for changing things up. As I said in my ratings post though, you can't ignore that he got it pretty wrong for so long before changing it up, and some may disagree and point to the end result as evidence to the contrary, but I'm still not 100% his changes were brilliant. Better than what went before maybe, but I don't really know why Llorente was put on, we could have just gone 433 instead of 442. But hey, some will say it worked and if they can explain to me how and why it did, I'm happy to be persuaded.

4. Agree. And I was a tad harsh when I said they were poor. But I do think we made them look better with the initial set up and application and effort. Simple things like playing a high line but not putting enough pressure on the ball etc.

Click to expand...

Bus-Conductor said:

I think the important thing for me, was getting a LB out onto the left and pressing the ball better higher up (midfield and forward areas) to stop them being able to feed balls into lanes and channels exposing gaps left by advancing 8's and our high line. I think switching to the 442, putting Davies back to LB, and putting Sissoko and Son in front of the two FB's to protect those channels does make sense, so I'll buy that, but I think he could have done the same with a 433, with Sissoko and Son dropping to make a 451 defensive shape.

I still don't quite see his logic re Trippier/Aurier but it worked, and Trippier, IMO, ended up as the best player in the last 30 minutes of the game, so I'm happy to be proved completely wrong (after the event). But if we are saying Poch even prefers Trippier on that basis, it makes the 25m we spent on Aurier start to look a bit squeaky doesn't it ?

Click to expand...

Shadydan said:

Lamela will be back by then.

Click to expand...

fortworthspur said:

we cant rely on Lamela.

Click to expand...

M.I.B. said:

I've been one of Sissoko's biggest critics, but he was massively improved tonight. Much better 1st touch, no un-forced errors, good running into space

Click to expand...

Bus-Conductor said:

Yeah, but do we think that's less likely to happen to Trippier?

I acknowledged that it ended up being a good thing, I'm just not sure of the thought process behind it.

By going 442, with orthodox fb's and Sissoko/Son ahead of them, we we definitely no longer playing a wing back type system, and we're trying to give the fb's protection from those moves that, as you say, had just caught out Aurier.

Now, I didn't really want us to sign Aurier, and I said before he played, and everyone else was sucking each other off about getting him, that he was a good RB but he was flawed too, and would have happily stuck with Trippier and KWP. Because in the system we play, with very attacking fb's, i think their qualities (obviously with game time needed for KWP) would generally be more useful.

But defensively, I'd say Aurier definitely edges it, so in the tactical switch last night, which was primarily a defensive one, I initially (before Trippier did what he did) couldn't see the logic.

Click to expand...

guiltyparty said:

Thought Toby was pretty awful. He looked incredibly exposed without Jan

Click to expand...

Shadydan said:

Well it's either him or Barkley who I would be happy with either way.

Click to expand...

jonnyp said:

I like Trippier but he's useless against teams that park the bus because he's doesn't get the time and space to ping his accurate crosses in, and he's completely unable to create time and space for himself to cross. He's good against sides that give us more space but against sides that park the bus I'd much rather have Aurier in the team.

Click to expand...

jonnyp said:

I like Trippier but he's useless against teams that park the bus because he's doesn't get the time and space to ping his accurate crosses in, and he's completely unable to create time and space for himself to cross. He's good against sides that give us more space but against sides that park the bus I'd much rather have Aurier in the team.

Click to expand...

Bus-Conductor said:

I think that's absolutely flawed logic. We absolutely mullered bus parkers at the end of last season and Trippier was a big reason why, superseding Walkers assist tally in a third of the games.

The point of Trippier is, unlike Walker, and to a slightly lesser extent, Aurier he has the composure and trust in his technique to not need as much time and space to deliver.

Walker couldn't beat a man anyway.

Click to expand...

ohtottenham! said:

Don't agree with this. Trippier's better against the bus parkers, because he can get into advanced positions. He's going to be challenged with his crosses by packed defences, but he'll get his opportunities.

When you mention "sides that give us more space", I presume you're talking about the better sides, which can put us on the back foot, but which also means both teams possess a counter-attacking threat. Trippier generally doesn't work well in these games, because he's generally consumed defensively with protecting against pacy attackers on his flank.

His relative lack of pace means he gets pinned back, can't advance enough to use his crossing ability. He doesn't work against the pressing attacks of City, Liverpools, and doesn't work against other good teams who can vary tactics and switch from park-the-bus to quick counter attack, or have the personnel to put us under concerted defensive pressure, like the Chels, Utds. Either way, Trips is defensively occupied on his flank, and just doesn't get into those forward areas to use his crossing ability.

Trippier gets more "time and space" against the bus parkers. If we didn't have so many players out yesterday, we'd have seen a far more effective Trippier on his natural flank being very effective against a classic bus-parking team.

Click to expand...