4-4-2 next season, I have no clue

[joey55]

So less than a player that cost 18m ? What about all the players that are in there ? Gerrard, lampard, Mackalele, Carrick, Fabregas, Gilberto, Alonso, etc, etc. Please provide me with the stat for Hargreaves then so we can compare.

It was over the first couple of months of the season, which was when I compiled it. I didn't state it to be any different.

You are perfectly welcome to amend it.

Just forget the whole thing - it's worthless. Let me put it into perspective for you. Zokora's minutes were accumalated in 4 games against Sunderland, Everton, Bolton and Villa. In those games we won 2 pts. We largelly dominated possession but played at such a slow tempo we couldn't stretch those teams. I rememeber arguing with you at the time and using video clips to illustrate my point. He was even dropped after the first 2 games. Your stats don't show anything useful. The comparisons are with players in different teams against different opposition. If you are going to compare in that way, you need a far bigger sample of results. It's not worth ammending, just accept that it has, at the most, limited value (and that's being kind).

As for Hargeaves, worthless as it is, he played 3 games in which he made 188 passes and 12 tackles. His passing rate was therefore 1.4 and tackling 22.5, both better than Zokora's, but really this shows nothing. Also his passing succes rate was 90%, but this stat in particular is totally useless, as Hargreaves is an average passer of the ball at best.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I don't what you are trying to prove. The post was made when it was made. I posted the minutes played so far in the season. I didn't portray it as anything different.

For the record here is the post:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=21254&highlight=Zokora+Gerrard+lampard+stats

I even stated that I wasn't saying Zokora was fantastic.


Out of interest Joey, (I know I'm probably going to regret asking) what did you think of Zokora's performance in the Final ?

 

[joey55]

I don't what you are trying to prove. The post was made when it was made. I posted the minutes played so far in the season. I didn't portray it as anything different.

For the record here is the post:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=21254&highlight=Zokora+Gerrard+lampard+stats

I even stated that I wasn't saying Zokora was fantastic.


Out of interest Joey, (I know I'm probably going to regret asking) what did you think of Zokora's performance in the Final ?

I'm not rying to prove anything, but simply reply to a point you raised in an earlier post, which was,

"As far as Zokora goes I assumed you were aware of my most time consuming peice of research a few months back (you were maybe on your hiatus) where I compiled the stats for just about every CM in the EPL worth a wank (and some that aren't). It showed Zokorahad the joint highest pass completion (89% I think) in the EPL, the third highest pass attempt (proving it wasn't just through lack of attempts) and his tackling was pretty good too (can't remember but something like 6-8th)."

To reply properly to this surely it is only fair I point out the inaccuracies and that ultimatley what you posted in that thread was pretty worthless. You seem to think I'm trying to have a dig at you when all I'm doing is responding to your posts. If you hadn't reffered to that thread, then I would never have responded.

Also, I didn't say you were trying to portray anything different, I just said I hadn't previously noted that the stats were taken over such a limited period of time and that seeing as they were, on top of what I'd previously said, they were of very limited value. You are the one who criticised the use of stats and I was just pointing out that it's those kinds of posts that cause many people to reject and be critical of the use of stats. You even state that the reason you are using the stats is:
"I've done it to highlight what I think is an injustice and miss perception by many on here about the viability and ability of Zokora"
But, the stats you provided do little, if anything, to support your hypothesis.

As for Zokora in the final - limited. I thought he improved after the Hudd came on. As I've said many times before, i don't see him as a 442 midfielder. In fact you could say it pretty much summed up why I don't rate Zokora as a 442 CM. Before the introduction of the Hudd, we were very predictable and never really felt like we were going to score. Had we lost, given the chance he had to score and the easy pass he had to put Keane (I think) in on goal, but failed on both occassions, I think I'd have been seriously angry with him. But it doesn't matter now. When he had a lesser role and just had to keep things tight and stop Chelsea playing I thought he did very well.

 

[woodstock36]

I'm not convinced by the tactical nous of any Prem coach. You watch the better sides and their managers seem to make as many odd tactical decisions as those at the bottom. It's just so mush easier for tactical changes to come off, when you have great players at your disposal. I think tactics and their importance, beyond foramtion and player selection for that formation, are in general grossly over rated in the impact they have. If you make a change and it works, even via a deflected goal, you are a genius, but if you don't you are an idiot. Avram Grant can testify to that.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[SpurSince57]

I really don't think it's possible to say until all this summer's transfers are done and dusted. I remember that two years ago we were debating whether Jol would switch to a 4-3-3 for 2006-2007, but the players that could have made it possible never arrived.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

But one of the most annoying things about Jol was that we could all see - and I think there was pretty much uniform agreement here - that to get the best from our midfielders it would have been worth trying a proper 5 in midfield. And I don't mean the "Keane flapping around getting in everybody's way" 5 that Jol tried a couple of times.

Especially away from home where we were abysmal at times. At home it wasn't so neccessary. But we actually had the midfielders to play it really well. It needn't have been the ultra defensive mode employed by some, but could have been a poor man's Arsenal type with Lennon, Malbranque, Jenas, Huddlestone, Taarabt, all capable of attacking. At the same time it would have compensated for the deficiencies in the individual midfielders.

This was less relevant this season under Jol & Ramos as we seemed to have good possession home and away this year, probably as a result of the team having a whole a season to bed in and get to know each other. In fact away from home this year, with a couple of exceptions, we were far less painful to watch. But I'm stil surprised that neither man really tried it properly at least once.

I think saying tactics matter less when you have quality players is an obvious truism, in that quality intelligent footballers are more adaptable, but I don't agree that further down the food chain they are virtually irrelevant.

I do think that the formation/tactics question is a big one. It will hugely depend on the personnel at the club come August.

I think it may be a case of no definate set formation/tactics in the begining of next season as Ramos feels out what we have and as with this season we may see tactics adjusted to fit opposition. You would expect that somewhere in there though a "favourite" would form which would become our default. But I honestly haven't got a clue what that might be. And I think that there is a good possibility that the "Ramos like to play this way brigade" may be surprised. But as said before I think alot will depend on who comes and who goes.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I'm not rying to prove anything, but simply reply to a point you raised in an earlier post, which was,

"As far as Zokora goes I assumed you were aware of my most time consuming peice of research a few months back (you were maybe on your hiatus) where I compiled the stats for just about every CM in the EPL worth a wank (and some that aren't). It showed Zokorahad the joint highest pass completion (89% I think) in the EPL, the third highest pass attempt (proving it wasn't just through lack of attempts) and his tackling was pretty good too (can't remember but something like 6-8th)."

To reply properly to this surely it is only fair I point out the inaccuracies and that ultimatley what you posted in that thread was pretty worthless. You seem to think I'm trying to have a dig at you when all I'm doing is responding to your posts. If you hadn't reffered to that thread, then I would never have responded.

Also, I didn't say you were trying to portray anything different, I just said I hadn't previously noted that the stats were taken over such a limited period of time and that seeing as they were, on top of what I'd previously said, they were of very limited value. You are the one who criticised the use of stats and I was just pointing out that it's those kinds of posts that cause many people to reject and be critical of the use of stats. You even state that the reason you are using the stats is:
"I've done it to highlight what I think is an injustice and miss perception by many on here about the viability and ability of Zokora"
But, the stats you provided do little, if anything, to support your hypothesis.

As for Zokora in the final - limited. I thought he improved after the Hudd came on. As I've said many times before, i don't see him as a 442 midfielder. In fact you could say it pretty much summed up why I don't rate Zokora as a 442 CM. Before the introduction of the Hudd, we were very predictable and never really felt like we were going to score. Had we lost, given the chance he had to score and the easy pass he had to put Keane (I think) in on goal, but failed on both occassions, I think I'd have been seriously angry with him. But it doesn't matter now. When he had a lesser role and just had to keep things tight and stop Chelsea playing I thought he did very well.

When he had the lesser role ? We dominated that game whilst Zokora was in a 4 v 5 midfield. It was against the run of play that they scored. We didn't look any more like scoring when Huddlestone came on except for the one great chance that Zokora made by intercepting (for the umpteenth time) and playing a one two with keane. He did waste a good chance to put Keane in but defensively he was outstanding that day. To the extent that a far more expensively assembled 5 man midfield was never able to dominate.

Huddlestone made no difference to Zokora's performance whatsoever.

We basically beat chelsea by working our nuts off and out chelseaing them. No piece of individual brilliance was involved in any of our goals, two scruffy set pieces (well taken I might add). Where we won that game was in the middle of the park, by not letting Chelsea ever get a grip of the game. Zokora for me was our best performer in that department on the day.

 

[SpurSince57]

But one of the most annoying things about Jol was that we could all see - and I think there was pretty much uniform agreement here - that to get the best from our midfielders it would have been worth trying a proper 5 in midfield. And I don't mean the "Keane flapping around getting in everybody's way" 5 that Jol tried a couple of times.

Especially away from home where we were abysmal at times. At home it wasn't so neccessary. But we actually had the midfielders to play it really well. It needn't have been the ultra defensive mode employed by some, but could have been a poor man's Arsenal type with Lennon, Malbranque, Jenas, Huddlestone, Taarabt, all capable of attacking. At the same time it would have compensated for the deficiencies in the individual midfielders.

This was less relevant this season under Jol & Ramos as we seemed to have good possession home and away this year, probably as a result of the team having a whole a season to bed in and get to know each other. In fact away from home this year, with a couple of exceptions, we were far less painful to watch. But I'm stil surprised that neither man really tried it properly at least once.

I think saying tactics matter less when you have quality players is an obvious truism, in that quality intelligent footballers are more adaptable, but I don't agree that further down the food chain they are virtually irrelevant.

I do think that the formation/tactics question is a big one. It will hugely depend on the personnel at the club come August.

I think it may be a case of no definate set formation/tactics in the begining of next season as Ramos feels out what we have and as with this season we may see tactics adjusted to fit opposition. You would expect that somewhere in there though a "favourite" would form which would become our default. But I honestly haven't got a clue what that might be. And I think that there is a good possibility that the "Ramos like to play this way brigade" may be surprised. But as said before I think alot will depend on who comes and who goes.

In theory, it would have been a great idea—but in practice? For starters, you'd have had three very pissed-off strikers, because in 2006-2007 only Berbatov was capable of playing on his own up front, and last season only Berbatov and Bent. Added to which, whilst it would have compensated for individual deficiencies as far as defence was concerned, we had no genuine LM, and Lennon's final ball… No, 4-5-1 doesn't have to be ballsachingly dull, but to make it an effective, exciting attacking formation you need players of the calibre we had in 1987, which is what I suspect you're thinking of. Our current midfield looks decidedly anaemic by comparison.

In practice, I suspect that what we'd have seen would have been Robbo and Dawson humping long balls up to Berbatov (or Bent). Whilst I accept that Jol could be predictable in terms of substitutions and tended to err on the side of caution and circle the wagons, listening to his analyses during the last WC left me in no doubt that, in terms of tactics, he was nobody's mug, and right up there at the cutting-edge of modern thinking. If he'd been able to get hold of the players he really wanted (and I don't blame that on Comolli for a moment) we might have seen a very different Spurs. As it was, he had to cut his coat according to his cloth. You often criticise him for utilising Carrick in the way he did. Did he have any other option?

For me the biggest advantage of Ramos, so far, has been in his pulling power. We've seen more imaginative substitutions, some of which have paid off, some of which haven't. Early on some people were purporting to see a higher line, but if that was the case, it didn't last long. With a couple of notable exceptions, he's largely stuck with the same players and the same basic formation Jol employed. In other words, making do with what he has.

 

[stevenqoz]

Organisation and discipline are elements often underestimated in debates over formations and tactics. I still coach male and female players from young beginner levels through to state representative teams. Blending players with a variety of skills / attributes is at the heart of team coaching. Obviously, work on technique does prepare the player but willingness to listen and work for the team is not to be taken for granted. The ability to 'win' games is not particualrly politically correct in todays grass roots game. For those who still put value on it as an objective, getting players to do a particular job is vital. Too often I have players turn up who have been told by parents and coaches what they are and what they should be doing. Convincing them otherwise for the team is a job in itself.
I hope that we will be playing the range of formations our squad composition seems to suit best. Ramos, a game coach, will play what his squad suits 442, 451 or even 352!