►►►►►► Ratings -vs- Lazio ◄◄◄◄◄◄

Spurs' Man of the Match


  • Total voters
    209

idontgetit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
6,078
#61
I'm quite pissed off with Naughton. I thought he wasn't good enough and would get found out tonight. Made me look a right bellend :)
 

playboypaul

EverTheOptimist
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
1,677
#62
It was a decent performance, wouldn't rate anyone higher than a 7 or lower than a 6. Walker was decent in defence, Dembele is a great signing. Really impressed by Lloris' positioning, even though he had nothing to do as such, he still managed to make it look like he was playing well by being involved.
Well, I think that when he came flying out, at Klose i think it was, during the first half, it looked nailed on, "Ze German" would score but Lloris' dash put him off in my opinion. He flew out like a rocket so fast even I jumped back a little! Also, the athletisism he showed when the Uruguayan fella hit that volley was amazing. I think if the ball was that little bit lower so that it would have gone in, he might have stopped it. Also, he showed solid hands, no fumbling and when he came out for the cross with that call so loud and clear it came through the tv mics on the edge of the pitch... Ahhh, quality. No danger of confusion, good clear call, no one was in danger of getting in his way.

He don't even speak the lingo yet!

Right, time to stop gushing.

Star in the making.
 

Spursh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
2,160
#63
Lloris - 7

Walker - 7
Caulker - 7
Vertonghen - 7
Naughton - 7

Sandro - 7
Dembele - 8
Dempsey - 7

Lennon - 7.5
Defoe - 7
Bale - 6.5
 

Legend10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
10,847
#64
Very very good game of football!

Anybody who thinks we are going to be 7th, 8th etc this season better think again!

We are going to be right in the mix for top 4, we are going to be a better team than before, the signs are already there!
 

Spurs_Bear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
14,175
#66
Lloris - 6.5

Walker - 5.5

Caulker - 7.5

Vertonghen - 8

Naughton - 6

Lennon - 6

Sandro - 6

Dembele - 7

Dempsey - 6

Bale - 6

Defoe - 6

SUBS:

Sigurdsson - 5.5

Townsend - 6

Hard done by for 2 of the 3 disallowed goals. That said Lazio had a couple of good chances too. As I said eleswhere that midfield 3 lacked guile.....no not in the way Dembele glides effortlessly past players or the way Sandro positions his body so well in getting in front of the opponent when covering or not even the neat way Dempsey connected the play. No we lacked the guile that big Tom cold supply with his intelligent passing. With Huddlestone not getting a minute we were laboured, predictable and playing largely in front of centre backs with a combined age around 70. Defoe played the best two balls of the night and you could hardly call him visionary as a passer. Huddlestone moves the ball quicker and more precisly than the honest hard working Sandro.....we needed to change the balance today especially in the last half an hour
I'm not a usual negger really unless someone really deserves it, but there is not one thing in this post that I genuinely agree with. Walker our worst player? Gibberish.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#67
Lloris - 6.5

Walker - 5.5

Caulker - 7.5

Vertonghen - 8

Naughton - 6

Lennon - 6

Sandro - 6

Dembele - 7

Dempsey - 6

Bale - 6

Defoe - 6

SUBS:

Sigurdsson - 5.5

Townsend - 6

Hard done by for 2 of the 3 disallowed goals. That said Lazio had a couple of good chances too. As I said eleswhere that midfield 3 lacked guile.....no not in the way Dembele glides effortlessly past players or the way Sandro positions his body so well in getting in front of the opponent when covering or not even the neat way Dempsey connected the play. No we lacked the guile that big Tom cold supply with his intelligent passing. With Huddlestone not getting a minute we were laboured, predictable and playing largely in front of centre backs with a combined age around 70. Defoe played the best two balls of the night and you could hardly call him visionary as a passer. Huddlestone moves the ball quicker and more precisly than the honest hard working Sandro.....we needed to change the balance today especially in the last half an hour
I think that is a quantum misread of what took place.

I think you need to revisit about 30 games from the last few years where Huddlestone has played at WHL against teams that have sat deep and then come back on here and tell us why he never managed to make a difference. I cannot remember ever seeing Hudd play one let alone two through balls like Defoe did last night. And that was Defoe, the least visionary player I have ever seen.
When teams sit, Huddlestone's one advantage - the long raking diagonal - is moribund because the opposition are already behind the ball, in numbers.

Last night was about being cohesive, dynamic, about movement and ball retention. Huddlestone would not have helped those qualities, he would have hindered.

We scored 2 good goals last night, and were very unlucky with a third one. Two of those were about beating their defences with clever passing and movement. We also got behind their defence 4 other times with Lennon clean through.

It was very much the final act that let us down, and the ref, not our approach.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
18,847
#68
Lloris seems brave and commanding. He also has very quick hands and good distribution.

Walker played some lovely passes through to Lennon and he is improving, but I still felt that he made a few poor choices.

Caulker looks confident and very accomplished. Is he really only 19?

Vertonghen continues to impress me. Defensively a rock and great at bring the ball out. A fair bit quicker than I gave him credit for too.

Naughton was better and he looked more comfortable on his left than I expected.

Sandro tired but he was immense for the most part and I really do expect him to become the best player of his type.

Dembele seems to have everything. What a complete midfielder we have, I have no idea what he's best at because he's brilliant at so much.

Lennon made some great runs in the first half and seemed our biggest threat but he didn't follow those runs up with good crosses, and then in the second half he ran into dead ends too often.

Dempsey should not be judged yet as he's clearly rusty, but he scored a good goal, got involved and looks very neat. More to come I'm sure.

Bale put in some very tasty crosses, he worked very hard and he tried to unlock them. Improved, despite at one stage having four markers!

Defoe worked hard, linked well and was good on the ball, but he didn't have any chances against a Lazio side who came for a point.
 

Sanj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
1,661
#69
The Daily Fail just gets better and better "youngsters Andros Townsend and Ryan Mason also aquitted themselves well..." Mason played for 2 seconds! Do they watch matches at the Daily Fail?
His warm-up was something to behold......
 

southlondonyiddo

My eyes have seen some of the glory..
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
7,671
#70
Can Naughton actually kick with his left foot or does he just use it to stand up?

I'm amazed some are rating his performance so highly. Not his fault but he his clearly a right back and DOES NOT look comfortable on the left

Still very young though for a defender and is doing well considering he's out of his natural position
 

StartingPrice

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
32,568
#71
1) I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinion, 2) fact is in the Reading Ratings Thread 9 people disagreed with my ratings and none agreed!! (Despite these not being "crazy" or "offensive"). 3) After those users disagreed with me, I did not go and find the last post from each and every one of them to administer a negative or dumb rating out of spite. 4) That in my opinion would have been childish, and petty. 5) I took the disagreements on the chin as 6) they were genuine from users who did not agree with my assessment of the game - 7) that is fair enough.

8) I disagreed on this thread because I disagreed with his match ratings (shock horror) - 9) I fail to see how this is problematic? 10) Omar gave a dumb to my post on the Reading match day thread in response to my disagreement with him on this thread, not based on an opinion or reasonable argument but based on the fact that I hurt his emotions by disagreeing with him.

11) To be honest I am not that fussed about who agrees with me or not, 12) I am not here to blow smoke up your arse Omar’s arse or anyone else’s. 13) But if you are going to rate posts then do it genuinely, based on what is stated rather than doing it in spite.
1) Are you suggesting I do. I was making a point of principle, based on the consistent application of set standards. Why do you have to interpret that as something petty?

2) TBH, I'm not really sure to say about that. On the one hand, I haven't actually seen it so can't comment on it's inherent craziness or otherwise. On the other hand, for nine posters to <DISAGREE> with you on one post on a ratings thread does actually suggest that there was something outlandish or unreasonable about it in some way that you have failed to recognise. I could be wrong, of course...if you give me a link I will have a look and see if I can make sense of it for you.

3) That is slightly different to my meaning. If one person gave you a neg in a way that seemed unreasonable, then I would say, for the sake of the consistent application of the agreed standard, maybe you should have done. But for nine posters to do so, again, suggests that it was something more than you saying Player X had a good game when it was only average. The main part of my point being that if you get one unreasable neg then, in my opinion, as it is a <DISAGREE> over a reasonable subjective opinion, it is apparent that you disagree with the negger, also, and it is only fair to apply the same standard for consistency sake. But if you get lots of negs on one post you do look kinda pathetic negging everyone that negged you because it doesn't show up much for them, whereas it does for you, and you look like a feeble child shaking your fist at the teachers for giving you an F on your report. And, again, for nine (NINE) posters to neg you over one ratings post suggest that you didn't just state a bare opinion on performance as Omar did in his post, here.

4) I disagree. There is nothing childish and petty in ensuring an agreed standard is adhered to. To me, what is petty is the giving of negs, ever, on subjective opinions about players when you could discuss them, instead, and this is, after all, a place for discussion.

5) Meaning? I've took far more than <DISAGREE> on the chin in my life, you aren't a superior being or holding any moral ground jsut because you didn't make yourself look foolish in negging nine (NINE - can't get over that) posters in retaliation, for what seems to have been something that must have riled people in some way.

6) Well, if all you did was gave a fair assessment of the game, they should have explained why not, and I would have been the first to defend you on those grounds. If all you did was list players and grade their performance, or stated that player X, Y or Z had a good, bad or indifferent game, even if I totally disagreed with your assessment, I would ahve said it smacked of cyber-bullying for so many members to neg you at the same time. But, again, I can't really say whether it was a wholly outlandish post or not, because I haven't seen it. Bearing in mind, of course, that there would be a big difference between you saying Dembele earned a 5, and just average, against Reading if I thought it was more like 7, on the one hand, and you saying he was an anonymous :censored: and giving him a 1 (in which case I would probably grade it <DUMB>, too, as being totally outlandish).

7) Was it? Why was it? Was it because you did say something totally outlandish? Or because you don't see that the whole system will actually become something petty and childish if it isn't applied consistently?

8) And I comment, on that basis only, to explain why it is problematic doing so, without any background information. Shock horror. Now, if it transpires that your post that got nine (NINE :eek:) negs was wholly outlandish, whereas there is nothing outlandish in Omar's post whether you disagree with it or not, I would say my point stands - there was no reason to give Omar a neg. If, on the other hand, you said nothing outlandish and yet still got nine negs, I would again say it seems a bit like cyber-bullying.

9) I explained in the post you quote why it is problematic. I also suggest you visit the thread discussing the rating system where you will find a debate discussing these issues, and more, in detail.

10)
A: If your only reason for rating Omar's post as <DUMB> when it clearly wasn't was because he rated your post as such elsewhere, then you are being a bit more vengeful than you pretend. Especially if there is nothing <DUMB> about his post (I can't see anything) but there was something outlandish about yours (the one that got NINE negs :eek:).
B: Sorry, but that doesn't actually make sense: he gave you a neg there (earlier on the linear time scale), in response to something you did here later on the linear time scale?

11) Neither am I, are you implying I am? I've argued the piont on a range of issues here, where I was virtually the only one taking a given line. But the key point word here is argued - I am happy and willing to debate my viewpoint, I don't see the need to give negs to every single subjective opinion that disagrees with mine.

12) See 11, above - are you suggesting I am only here to blow smoke up anyone's arse, or have it blown up mine? I have taken a stance on some issues when seemingly the whole forum disagreed with me. I just don't see the point in distorting and potentially destroying the forum by misapplying the rating system. It is much more conducive to harmony to give a positive to someone who does agree with your viewpoint, if that was all that was at issue, here, than to indulge in petty vendettas.

13) I agree. You don't seem to have done this here. And, as suggested in 12, above, if everyone just rates every single, simple subjective opinion they disagree with as negative the place will soon descend into a chaos of petty vendettas and confrontations.

Again, I would suggest you check out the ratings thread, and take your discussion there...or, if you did say something utlandish elsewhere (to earn NINE negs on one post) then finally just accpet that, rather than carrying a righteous anger at everyone who pointed this out to you, into other threads.


No offence, and I'm not going to neg it, but that is literally fucking mental.

Sorry, Bear, to intrude on a personal disagreement, but the fella was agreeing with me, and I never said that Naughton had some kind of perfect game, just that he was one of many who I would put on a similar grading (perhaps reflecting how much of a team game it was last night), and on that basis I would give him MOM largely because I think there is too much crap being spouted on this forum about a young player appearing in the team for the first time and playing out of position, who has played reasonably well. And this is something that has carried over from the season before last, when certain posters where, basically saying crap, sell/will never make it as an EPL player, when they could hardly have seen him play and therefore have any idea of how good (or otherwise he would be).

You might disagree with making him MOM on that basis, which is fair enough, or even that he was one of several players on similar grades, which, again, is fair enough, but there is nothing mental about it at all.

Also, he may have hung back on occasion (do you know what instructions he was given?), but it is just not true that he didn't get forward or that he was ineffective when he did.
 

robbiedee

Mama said knock you out
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
2,246
#72
Good game to watch for the neutral. I thought the team played well when they had the ball. When Lazio had possession I thought we stood off their players a bit too much, giving them too much time and space but they did have that much possession really so not a problem this time.

Gutted with the final scoreline when we should have had 1 if not 2 goals.

I thought Lloris looked good when he was called upon and Caulker did well for his 1st game of the season. My man of the match goes to Naughton though. Young, relatively inexperienced and playing out of position...the boy done good.

Lennon needs to grow a pair and taek on a shot occassionally.

Loving the Sandro/Demele combo in the middle.

Happy days!
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
8,196
#73
Lloris - 8 (didn't put a foot wrong IMO)
Walker - 7 (solid but dropped off in 2nd half)
Vertonghen - 8 (solid - he really is filling Kings boots well)
Caulker - 8 (that was a goal as such he should've been our match winner)
Naughton - 7 (getting to grips with it nicely)
Sandro - 8.5 (beast)
Dembele - 7.5 (thought he was a bit sloppy on a couple of occasions)
Lennon - 7 (caused problems for their defense but not enough end product - same old story)
Dempsey - 7.5 (not sure that role really suited him, but did well to cause Lazio some trouble)
Bale - 6 (very average performance from him, i think 6 is even a bit kind)
Defoe - 6 (tough team and an average performance, so no change there for Defoe)
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
44,701
#74
Its why I started the thread about who should be LB for the QPR game and was surprised that nearly everybody thought Naughton should be a shoe in for it. I'm not saying that he should be over looked, no way, but I think we were lop sided at times last night.

I agree with Bear that he's filling in well enough, but we are losing impetus down that left hand side on the ball.
 

Legend10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
10,847
#75
Its why I started the thread about who should be LB for the QPR game and was surprised that nearly everybody thought Naughton should be a shoe in for it. I'm not saying that he should be over looked, no way, but I think we were lop sided at times last night.

I agree with Bear that he's filling in well enough, but we are losing impetus down that left hand side on the ball.

You remember how much abuse I took in the daily ITK discussions in the final week when I said we really need to buy a back up LB in case BAE gets injured?

Well here we are and we are desperately short of a back up LB, not knocking Naughton as he is equipping himself well, however he is clearly a RB and at the moment we have no experienced FB cover on either flank.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#77
SB's right. He was competent last night but no more. And that was an improvement on Reading. Not his fault, I actually think he's good footballer who will make a very good right back, but as a left back will always be compromised.
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
44,701
#78
You remember how much abuse I took in the daily ITK discussions in the final week when I said we really need to buy a back up LB in case BAE gets injured?

Well here we are and we are desperately short of a back up LB, not knocking Naughton as he is equipping himself well, however he is clearly a RB and at the moment we have no experienced FB cover on either flank.
to be honest mate, I think people just wanted to abuse you :)

Only messing, I remember indeed mate - unfortunately you were right.
 

Spurs_Bear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
14,175
#79
Can we please stop with this thing about how Kyle Naughton is some kind of 16 year old child who should get higher marks because he is 'young'. He's a month off being twenty-fucking-four! He has made nearly 150 senior club appearances and has made more than a few appearances for England U21s!

Jesus we have some proper wet fish around the plaice at the moment...
 

StartingPrice

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
32,568
#80
Its why I started the thread about who should be LB for the QPR game and was surprised that nearly everybody thought Naughton should be a shoe in for it. I'm not saying that he should be over looked, no way, but I think we were lop sided at times last night.

I agree with Bear that he's filling in well enough, but we are losing impetus down that left hand side on the ball.
Was that a failure on Naughton's part, or on Bale's - who, several posters have pointed out, is not always punctilious in his defensive duties, and hasn't ben firing on all cylinders himself?

What were Naughton's instructions?

And he did actually get forward and did put some good balls in - just because some posters noticed and remembered that he hung back on occasions and that is what stuck in their minds, doesn't mean he never did anything attacking at all.
 
Top