Gary Neville Analysis on Arsenal v Spurs Frailties in defence.

[carpediem991]

I enjoy listening to Neville there. Good bloke!

 

[guiltyparty]

you mean a pre-broadcast beer session doesn't count as analytical research?

I think they analyse each other's shirts more than they do the games they've "watched". It's very clear they've only seen the edited highlights for most of them, same as everyone else. Read a good interview with Dixon once where he explained the amount of analysis he did before a MOTD episode. And he was given the cold shoulder. Is why MOTD is completely out of touch

 

[michaelden]

I think they analyse each other's shirts more than they do the games they've "watched". It's very clear they've only seen the edited highlights for most of them, same as everyone else. Read a good interview with Dixon once where he explained the amount of analysis he did before a MOTD episode. And he was given the cold shoulder. Is why MOTD is completely out of touch

cos they can't be bothered

 

[SpursTillIDie1882]

cheers!

 

[dimiSpur]

Neville is a great pundit, especially compared to the dinosaurs on MOTD and the idiots who judge teams on a game by game basis on Gillete Soccer Saturday's. However he did fail to point out the benefits of such a high line. We've played it all year and in the last 3 months we've got used to it better and this has led to the great run we're on. He did fail to point out how the pressure on the ball gets you possession and forces the opponent into a mistake.

Other than that he is usually spot on in what he says.

 

[Spurs1960]

And that is where I disagree with Neville, a great ball will carve open any defence, so the point is moot. With Lloris' quick reactions and the extra time that give the defence to make up ground and apply pressure to the striker, it takes a truly special pass to cut us to ribbons. Wilshire and Carzorla are two of the Premier League's better passers, yet they were not able to create a chance when one of their forwards is up there with the quickest in the league; to me at least that shows why he is wrong.

With all due repect, a former England player has a little more knowledge, experience and grasp of the subject.

 

[$hoguN]

With all due repect, a former England player has a little more knowledge, experience and grasp of the subject.

Sol Campbell is also a former England iInternational and did an atrocious job on MOTD. I'm no arguing that he doesn't have a point about playing high lines, but I am saying that he underplays the marked improvement that having a keeper sweeper makes to playing a high line, and that the argument of "a quality pass would cut them to ribbons" is bobbins as a) all defences are breach-able and b) we played against a team that are famous for exploiting space yet their best players just couldn't pick that wonder pass you and Neville elude to as it is simply not that easy.

 

[Danners9]

Sol Campbell is also a former England iInternational and did an atrocious job on MOTD. I'm no arguing that he doesn't have a point about playing high lines, but I am saying that he underplays the marked improvement that having a keeper sweeper makes to playing a high line, and that the argument of "a quality pass would cut them to ribbons" is bobbins as a) all defences are breach-able and b) we played against a team that are famous for exploiting space yet their best players just couldn't pick that wonder pass you and Neville elude to as it is simply not that easy.

Plenty of fans who watch every game still have no idea what they are watching. Plenty of ex players are useless at management. And some managers who never played the game are doing pretty well.

Not sure it's a given that a former player knows more than a keen observer.

 

[mattdefoe]

won't work now video has been removed

 

[Liquidator]

won't work now video has been removed

I saw it on You tube by searching for Gary Neville analysis Spurs Arsenal

 

[Mr Pink]

And that is where I disagree with Neville, a great ball will carve open any defence, so the point is moot. With Lloris' quick reactions and the extra time that give the defence to make up ground and apply pressure to the striker, it takes a truly special pass to cut us to ribbons. Wilshire and Carzorla are two of the Premier League's better passers, yet they were not able to create a chance when one of their forwards is up there with the quickest in the league; to me at least that shows why he is wrong.

I agree with this.

Arsenal have better tools than anyone in this league to play the killer balls - from varying areas of the pitch, high lines or not. They normally pass with real purpose and exploit the opposition with that incisive passing. Yet, bar Giroud behaving like a donkey, they didn't really carve us open. Ok second half, they had two moments...one with Ramsey and the other where Lloris does well to smother up a dangerous looking low drilled cross from the right.

That was it. For me the difference was we were able to exploit their defensive frailty, where as they really struggled to do likewise. We were better defensively and our high line wasn't looking completely exploitable, hence their limited impact. Some might say bad day at the office for them, not me though - you only have to look at how few chances we concede these days.

I don't agree with Neville in all honesty. And another thing, our movement for our first goal was first class - Abebayor and Bale's runs where totally integral to that goal - without Ade's run Bale can't produce the exact run he ends up doing, his run feeds off Ade's run. Our second was much worse for them from a defensive point of view.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I appreciate what you are saying, but that wasn't really the point I was trying to get across in my praise of him.

I don't necessarily agree with everything he says - that would be plain daft and the disagreement/discussion is half the fun - but at least he argues his viewpoints with intelligence and shows some kind of understanding of the game.

It is more that compared to some of the "expert opinions" we have had to endure over the years someone with an inkling of insight is refreshing and makes for good viewing.

But surely the point is, it's great sounding like you know what your talking about, but if the substance doesn't quite match the rhetoric then all he is is Alan Hansen with a working class northern accent and better touch screen skills.

 

[ShelfSide18]

I didn't see the bit Neville did on the Spurs v Arse game but would certainly agree with those in saying he has been a breath of fresh air to the world of football punditry, which I accept wasn't a hard job.

The thing is, I actually disagree with the guy a lot on little things, but that's almost the point - he actually initiates a bit of debate rather than the pointless, ill prepared waffle you get from your Alan Shearer's, the sneery cynicism of Lawro and Hansen, and the pointless existence of Robbie Fucking Savage. Neville works hard at what he does, he shows an element of preparation and also passion and positivity to what he does - I'm a big fan, at last I can disagree with a pundit who has put a decent debate out there, not just roll my eyes at Sol Campbell saying nothing in particular on MOTD2 last week. It's the banality I can't stand, and at the moment Neville is one of the few who are worth listening too.

 

[Mr Pink]

I didn't see the bit Neville did on the Spurs v Arse game but would certainly agree with those in saying he has been a breath of fresh air to the world of football punditry, which I accept wasn't a hard job.

The thing is, I actually disagree with the guy a lot on little things, but that's almost the point - he actually initiates a bit of debate rather than the pointless, ill prepared waffle you get from your Alan Shearer's, the sneery cynicism of Lawro and Hansen, and the pointless existence of Robbie Fucking Savage. Neville works hard at what he does, he shows an element of preparation and also passion and positivity to what he does - I'm a big fan, at last I can disagree with a pundit who has put a decent debate out there, not just roll my eyes at Sol Campbell saying nothing in particular on MOTD2 last week. It's the banality I can't stand, and at the moment Neville is one of the few who are worth listening too.

Indeed. He's the best by a long shot and at least he has the ability to stimulate proper debate. I find myself disagreeing with a few things he said in relation to us, but that's not to say I don't rate him as a pundit - I certainly do, he's excellent.

At the end of the day as well, the game is mostly about opinion so there is no complete wright or wrong level to be at it. Gary Neville, with all his experience, actually bothers to think about what he brings to the table in a pretty methodical away. The majority of the rest of them just roll out the clichés.

 

[$hoguN]

Gary Neville has been the only pundit this season to actually point out that Defoe's shoot on sight tactic costs us at times. Rather than the rest saying, I thought he would have scored that, he is a natural finisher.

 

[Ironskullll]

Neville is a great pundit, especially compared to the dinosaurs on MOTD and the idiots who judge teams on a game by game basis on Gillete Soccer Saturday's. However he did fail to point out the benefits of such a high line. We've played it all year and in the last 3 months we've got used to it better and this has led to the great run we're on. He did fail to point out how the pressure on the ball gets you possession and forces the opponent into a mistake.

Other than that he is usually spot on in what he says.

Small point but I thought he was saying that without the pressure on the ball, the high line can bring its own problems, and went on to highlight both teams' vulnerabilities at times when they didn't pressure the ball in midfield; rather than dismissing the entire tactic of holding a high line. Or maybe that was me saying it to myself, in my head (I'm a great pundit in my head, when no-one else is listening)