Juande Ramos - Tactical Genius?

[southlondonyiddo]

As said Ramos will start out 4-4-2 but may well switch formations according to the situation and If he picks the right 11 to start with the future he wont have to take him off so early giving him even greater options.

It looks like Ramos has big plans for Lennon in the future 3-5-2 certainly wouldn't suit him.
Also I still think Bale is wasted at Left back although I can certainly see that playing him there gives us even more attacking options, so maybe play Bale left back at home and left mid away.

 

[SpurSince57]

It's interesting, though, that with the obvious exceptions of Bale and Kaboul, dropping Lee to the bench, and the makeshift solutions at LB after Lee's injury, he's using the same starting XI with which we finished last season so successfully. The tactics may have changed somewhat, but he appears to have come to the same conclusion as Jol as to our best available line-up. So much for the clamour for Taarabt and Prince Bong, and for Cerny to replace Robbo!

And Defoe on for Keane at 80 minutes? That's a novelty! :wink:

 

[yanno]

It's interesting, though, that with the obvious exceptions of Bale and Kaboul, dropping Lee to the bench, and the makeshift solutions at LB after Lee's injury, he's using the same starting XI with which we finished last season so successfully. The tactics may have changed somewhat, but he appears to have come to the same conclusion as Jol as to our best available line-up. So much for the clamour for Taarabt and Prince Bong, and for Cerny to replace Robbo!

Agreed. The players who do seem out of favour are Tainio (a bit surprizingly since I'd have thought he could play as a Ramos CM), and the Hud (which may be due to his new diet....).

And players who I thought would have a chance under Juande, eg Routledge (Ramos likes genuine wide players), clearly haven't impressed in training. The Spurs Odyssey report suggests Routledge had a bit of a shocker for the ressies last night.

But it's how Ramos has been using players that's so interesting. Eg Berba playing deeper - either with a striker ahead of him (2nd half in Israel) or in the hole (2nd half v Spammers). Eg Lennon being somewhat revitalized as a RM encouraged to take people on in attacking situations. Eg Steed staying wide in the LM position and producing excellent crosses with his left foot .

Interesting times.

 

[SpurSince57]

To be fair, Malbranque did seem to have discovered the difference between the left touchline and the centre circle over the summer.

Yes, Routledge seems to have been very poor last night, and Taarabt too, so I don't see either of them figuring in a hurry. The Hudd and Prince Bong seem to have done well, though, and that was against a very strong Reading line-up. I wouldn't be surprised to see either on the bench against Birmingham.

I do think the idea of Berbatov playing behind Keane is a good one, and Lennon has certainly responded very well (but it was generally believed that he and Jol simply didn't get on). What I did notice in the first half was that he seemed to have been given the go-ahead to use his inititiative and switch to the centre and left without waiting for a specific instruction. Jenas, too, has been very impressive; if he can maintain the MOTM form we've seen over the past two games he really could become our keystone in midfield.

No-one in their right mind expected miracles, but we've succeeded in stopping the rot and the confidence is back. Once King returns we'll see a real difference in defence. I just hope he can defy the gloomsters and stay returned.

 

[joey55]

I agree that I think 4-4-2 will be our medium- and long-term formation (as I stated above). Ramos' Sevilla team always played that way. I was esentially wondering whether Juande may be tempted to play 3-5-2 again in the short term. In other words, until he can get reinforcements in during January, or get some of our crocked CBs out of the treatment room.

As for who would play CB in a three, if King was fit, there'd be no need to play a three. So, assuming Ledley isn't fit, any of Dawson, Rocha, Kaboul, Gardner and Dervitte could play as the two markers, and Zokora or Huddlestone could play spare. Rocha also reads the game well enough to play spare.

As for wingbacks being exploited by opposition teams, I entirely agree. It was only due to Curbishley's total tactical ineptitude that he failed to take advantage of Lennon playing as a RWB. That said, with a bit of drilling on the training ground, our two strikers in a 3-5-2 could be assigned to stopping opposition FBs from coming out, and the player in the hole (Berba) could stop their CBs stepping up.

So, the 3-5-2 as a short term fix? Possible. Long term? Unlikely.

I think the 352/442 debate is at the crux of the real problems we have at the club. Because we have a new coach with a good reputation people only want to look at the positives, whilst had we had the same result and performance a month ago, the coach would have been massively criticised. The reallity of Ramos's change weren't those of tactical genius, but of tactical blunder. We essentially got lucky. The truth is at half time we were ahead in possession stats and by the end of the game we were down to 42% of possession compared to Spams 58%. This has to largelly be down to the change in formation. Secondly and most importantly look at the chances created after the changes:

60 mins - Boa Morte heads wide
72 mins - Cole heads over the bar
77 mins - Steed shot saved by Green
79 mins - Cole shoots wide
81 mins - Parker shoos wide
83 mins - Parker shot saved by Robbo
88 mins - Ashton shot saved by Robbo

So positivity aside, the truth is we made changes and after which Spam dominated possession and had 6 attempts to our 1. We score from a set piece and all is forgotten. I think if anything the game showed that perhasp 352 isn't a viable option.

However, and this is why I said the debate is at the crux of our problem, had Ramos not made the change, would we have gone the rest of the game without conceding? Essentially did a change in formation that had a negative effect on our overall performance in fact save us a point? Until the change we were more or less in control of the game, but conceded mainly because of an individual error. This has been the story of our season and where our real problems lie. People have ridiculously moaned about our fitness, tactics, organistation and defending. But the facts tell a very different stroy. The facts show a team dominating possession in nearly all their games, 4th highest passes, second highest tackles, scoring more goals than most teams and crucially giving away less chances than all but 4 sides. Given those facts (and that is what they are) it shows we are a superbly drilled 442 outfit. But we were losing games because of a catalogue of stupid individual errors.

On Sunday we saw the same thing happening again. We were the better side but found ourselves behind due to an error. It was always going to happen, even during the 4-0 win at Wigan the errors were clearly their for all to see. So did Ramos really have any choice but to make the changes he did? And therefore what are the reparcutions of this. 352 didn't really work, despite the fact we rescued a point. If anything it showed it isn't a viable option. But at the same time, we saw our problem of erros aren't going to go away with different coach, so is 442 a viable option? The recent examples of Pompey and Everton both show, that coaches don't improve defences, better defenders do. The real problems at this club weren't to do with coaching, they were/are to do with transfer dealings. Unless Ramos gets reinforcements in Jan, we have no chance of UEFA Cup football. We are and have been right from the start of the seaon a very decent 442 team. We are the 5th best side in the country. But, we will be vulnerbale at the back until we can bring in more experienced players.

 

[yanno]

Joey - interesting post as always. I won't use up space by quoting it.

As you know, I was musing about 3-5-2 as a short-term fix, not as the medium- and long-term future for Spurs under Ramos. The stats about chances after Ramos' tactical switch are revealing, and of course it's true that we got a goal from a freekick due to a goalkeeping blunder from Green. And that's the same Green who's being touted for England after saving Defoe's penalty...

I agree that we are a decent to good 4-4-2 team. But with Chimbo and Bale as attacking FBs, and Dawson and Kaboul lacking confidence, a flat back four made up of those personnel is also going to be vulnerable. And we both agree that sticking Zokora in as spare CB gave us extra defensive protection and enabled Zoko to have one of his very best halves for Spurs.

Once Kaboul seemed in danger of completely losing it, Juande did well to haul him off. But as both SS57 and I have said, the logical change would have been to put Lee on at RB, switched Chimbo to CB, and kept the same 4-4-2 shape. It would also have made sense to tell Dawson to mark Carlton Cole, but instead he was inexplicably left as RCB against Boa Morte.

I think Ramos switched to a 3-5-2 to get the pacy Bent on to stretch their backline, to play Berba deeper to get him more involved, and to have an extra CB to protect our defence. The match stats you cite suggest it didn't have this effect. Once again, it will be interesting to see how Ramos sets us up between now and the transfer window.

 

[tRiKS]

It's interesting, though, that with the obvious exceptions of Bale and Kaboul, dropping Lee to the bench, and the makeshift solutions at LB after Lee's injury, he's using the same starting XI with which we finished last season so successfully. The tactics may have changed somewhat, but he appears to have come to the same conclusion as Jol as to our best available line-up. So much for the clamour for Taarabt and Prince Bong, and for Cerny to replace Robbo!

And Defoe on for Keane at 80 minutes? That's a novelty! :wink:

and with good reason too. A starting XI that should have got a result against his team in both legs of the cup and certainly over the 2 legs. He's not silly and aprt from Madrid, Valencia and Barca -Spurs were the best team his Seville team played last season so why wouldn't he use those players?!

 

[camaj]

I'm not sure I've seen any noticeable improvement over Jol. Still making some silly mistakes. We did close down players a lot against Wigan (IIRC) but not against WH. Jol has played 3 or 4 strikers on numerous occasions and at least once he's taken a defender off for a striker. Short memories it seems

 

[southlondonyiddo]

and with good reason too. A starting XI that should have got a result against his team in both legs of the cup and certainly over the 2 legs. He's not silly and aprt from Madrid, Valencia and Barca -Spurs were the best team his Seville team played last season so why wouldn't he use those players?!

In the first game the ref gave them a disgusting penalty decision and in the second game Steed kicked the ball in his own net, but lets not dwell on the past!!

 

[joey55]

I'm not sure I've seen any noticeable improvement over Jol. Still making some silly mistakes. We did close down players a lot against Wigan (IIRC) but not against WH. Jol has played 3 or 4 strikers on numerous occasions and at least once he's taken a defender off for a striker. Short memories it seems

Had we drawn 1-1 with West HAm under Jol and had less chances and less possession which we did on Sunday, a lot of our fans would have been furious and spoken of his tactical stupidity etc. I'd hate to think what they'd have made of Jol playing Lennon as a wing back.

 

[walworthyid]

I think the 352/442 debate is at the crux of the real problems we have at the club. Because we have a new coach with a good reputation people only want to look at the positives, whilst had we had the same result and performance a month ago, the coach would have been massively criticised. The reallity of Ramos's change weren't those of tactical genius, but of tactical blunder. We essentially got lucky. The truth is at half time we were ahead in possession stats and by the end of the game we were down to 42% of possession compared to Spams 58%. This has to largelly be down to the change in formation. Secondly and most importantly look at the chances created after the changes:

60 mins - Boa Morte heads wide
72 mins - Cole heads over the bar
77 mins - Steed shot saved by Green
79 mins - Cole shoots wide
81 mins - Parker shoos wide
83 mins - Parker shot saved by Robbo
88 mins - Ashton shot saved by Robbo

So positivity aside, the truth is we made changes and after which Spam dominated possession and had 6 attempts to our 1. We score from a set piece and all is forgotten. I think if anything the game showed that perhasp 352 isn't a viable option.

However, and this is why I said the debate is at the crux of our problem, had Ramos not made the change, would we have gone the rest of the game without conceding? Essentially did a change in formation that had a negative effect on our overall performance in fact save us a point? Until the change we were more or less in control of the game, but conceded mainly because of an individual error. This has been the story of our season and where our real problems lie. People have ridiculously moaned about our fitness, tactics, organistation and defending. But the facts tell a very different stroy. The facts show a team dominating possession in nearly all their games, 4th highest passes, second highest tackles, scoring more goals than most teams and crucially giving away less chances than all but 4 sides. Given those facts (and that is what they are) it shows we are a superbly drilled 442 outfit. But we were losing games because of a catalogue of stupid individual errors.

On Sunday we saw the same thing happening again. We were the better side but found ourselves behind due to an error. It was always going to happen, even during the 4-0 win at Wigan the errors were clearly their for all to see. So did Ramos really have any choice but to make the changes he did? And therefore what are the reparcutions of this. 352 didn't really work, despite the fact we rescued a point. If anything it showed it isn't a viable option. But at the same time, we saw our problem of erros aren't going to go away with different coach, so is 442 a viable option? The recent examples of Pompey and Everton both show, that coaches don't improve defences, better defenders do. The real problems at this club weren't to do with coaching, they were/are to do with transfer dealings. Unless Ramos gets reinforcements in Jan, we have no chance of UEFA Cup football. We are and have been right from the start of the seaon a very decent 442 team. We are the 5th best side in the country. But, we will be vulnerbale at the back until we can bring in more experienced players.

Totally agree, he made the changes for the same reason he has before, because he does not trust Kaboul. I am not sure about the reinforcements though. We have 5 centrebacks, plus 2 youngsters who are knocking on the door, plus Chimbo , but none of that does us any good if 3 of them get injured.

How many centrebacks are we going to buy? I don't really think we are short in any other area, you could argue that we need BETTER players in the centre of midfield, but that is not the same as reinforcing the team.

Ramos may or may not be a tactical genius, we certainly can't make that judgement based on sunday's game, but fortune does very often favour the brave and Ramos has shown that he is not afraid to take matters into his own hands.

One thing we can say is that whatever Ramos does, it works, genius or not.

 

[batigol]

I'm not sure I've seen any noticeable improvement over Jol. Still making some silly mistakes. We did close down players a lot against Wigan (IIRC) but not against WH. Jol has played 3 or 4 strikers on numerous occasions and at least once he's taken a defender off for a striker. Short memories it seems

Well, we had 2 straight clean sheets before West Ham and we haven't conceded any goals in the last 10 minutes since he took over so I think that is a marked improvement. Before that, we were wobbling very visibly whenever it hits 80th minute but I think there are alot more solidity in us now and the higher defensive line with greater attacking intent showed when we were the team who actually had the chance to win it in the 90th minute instead of our opponents. That is surely a noticeable difference. You may say the teams were not strong but Famagusta (Jol reign), which no one can seriously consider it stronger than Boro or Wigan, scored against us home and away.

Of course, the mistakes are still there but it is gradually reducing. Other than Kaboul, I can see an improvement in Dawson of late and we can all see greater confidence in Robbo as well. He may have messed around with the system when he took Kaboul off but like some posters said, it is probably more due to the limitations of the players we have which forces him to make such drastic changes.

 

[SpurSince57]

One difference the higher line and more pressing game does make is that we're denying the opposition the opportunity to attack. But we can't press the better sides like we did Wigan, and West Ham's game plan seemed to be to play as if they were the away side, sit back and hit us on the break, which helped enormously. Until King and Rocha come back Ramos is going to be forced into expediency to protect the central defence. Fortunately, Aalborg, Birmingham, Anderlecht and City, who have been as poor away as they've been invincible at home, aren't going to give us too much trouble (said he, hopefully). But then we've got Pompey away, City away in the CC and Arsenal away. If we're still trying to turn Dawson and Kaboul into a semblance of a decent partnership by then, or are using an ad hoc solution, we're liable to be well and truly stuffed.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Joey,

You make a very valid point about the efficacy of the substitutions. But there are a couple of points, regarding your post that I would disagree with. Where did you get you possession stats from because according to Sky we had 57% ? Certainly my perception was that we pretty much dominated the game and the reason we struggled to create was that (apart from still lacking top drawer creative flair) they sat back and made it hard to do so. And the were always going to eake out chances on the break that's how games like that are when one side pushes more and more for a goal. And our defensive reshuffle certainly didn't help this either.

I also think that Moyes is a great example of how a manager CAN improve a defensive record not vice versa. he did it by initiating very defensive tactics and playing effectively two rows of defense in a 451. And most importantly by extracting maximum effort off the ball from all his 10 outfield players. Are you seriously suggesting that you would have wanted any of Moyes early defensive purchases or defenders in situe ? What he has also proved is that by having better defenders you actually improve your ability to attack as you no longer have to "budget" quite such a high effort/manpower ratio to defensive frailty. It is the corner stone of SAF's sides I think.

I think we may have already seen a very slight difference in work rate and coaching instruction on our side. (I could of course be wrong and we are only seeing the effect of extra effort due to fear of the managers chop, but only time will tell).

I agree that had we ended up losing that game we could all have been saying what the fuck was that all about. But what did make sense to me was that e were losing a game we needed to get some points from and Wham were offering virtually nothing offensively, and what Jol often did was put an extra striker on and then take off Malbranque which was one step forwards two back as it's pointless puting on a striker and then taking off the guy thats going to create the ammo for him.

I do think that good managers can achieve better results with the same bunch of players though. But we clearly need a quality experienced CB (or 2) and a RB that can defend.

But I do agree that 352 is definately not the answer to our problems, and indeed would probably exasperate them. i don't htink ramois would entertain it for a second.

 

[joey55]

Joey,

You make a very valid point about the efficacy of the substitutions. But there are a couple of points, regarding your post that I would disagree with. Where did you get you possession stats from because according to Sky we had 57% ? Certainly my perception was that we pretty much dominated the game and the reason we struggled to create was that (apart from still lacking top drawer creative flair) they sat back and made it hard to do so. And the were always going to eake out chances on the break that's how games like that are when one side pushes more and more for a goal. And our defensive reshuffle certainly didn't help this either.

I also think that Moyes is a great example of how a manager CAN improve a defensive record not vice versa. he did it by initiating very defensive tactics and playing effectively two rows of defense in a 451. And most importantly by extracting maximum effort off the ball from all his 10 outfield players. Are you seriously suggesting that you would have wanted any of Moyes early defensive purchases or defenders in situe ? What he has also proved is that by having better defenders you actually improve your ability to attack as you no longer have to "budget" quite such a high effort/manpower ratio to defensive frailty. It is the corner stone of SAF's sides I think.

.

BBC said 58%-42% as did ESPN :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/live_text/5264206.stm

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/match?id=221337&cc=5739

The point about Everton is that they weren't a great defensive team before last season. Even in their CL qualifying season they still conceded 46 goals. The problems of the 2005/6 season lay in defence where they conceded 49 goals. He didn't improve this by coaching, he simply brought in Howard, Lescott and Stubbs. The other great recent example of deffensive improvement comes at Pompey. It was suggested on here that this may have come at the hands of Toney Adams coaching, but a look at the mess of the deffence he made at Wycombe, suggests in all likleyhood the solution was a much simpler and far more reasonable one - they bought Sol Campbell and David James. But even this season, in terms of team set up, deffensively neither have been as solid as us. We've given away less chances than either of those teams. So Moyes 451 hasn't helped prevent chances. It's just when those chances have been conceded Everton and Pompey have solid players to deal with them. You yourself have been an outspoken critic of Robbo and Dawson. You could hardly claim Kaboul and Chimbonda have helped matters. So with the same team shape we have employed all season, had we had better defenders, like those at Pompey, we'd be in a totally different postion. I know David James has his critics, but I'm sur he wouldn't have been close to as error prone as Robbo this season. i just can't see Distin making the same erros as Kaboul and likewise Campbell is a hell of a lot more reliable than Dawson or Gardner.

 

[southlondonyiddo]

BBC said 58%-42% as did ESPN :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/live_text/5264206.stm

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/match?id=221337&cc=5739

The point about Everton is that they weren't a great defensive team before last season. Even in their CL qualifying season they still conceded 46 goals. The problems of the 2005/6 season lay in defence where they conceded 49 goals. He didn't improve this by coaching, he simply brought in Howard, Lescott and Stubbs. The other great recent example of deffensive improvement comes at Pompey. It was suggested on here that this may have come at the hands of Toney Adams coaching, but a look at the mess of the deffence he made at Wycombe, suggests in all likleyhood the solution was a much simpler and far more reasonable one - they bought Sol Campbell and David James. But even this season, in terms of team set up, deffensively neither have been as solid as us. We've given away less chances than either of those teams. So Moyes 451 hasn't helped prevent chances. It's just when those chances have been conceded Everton and Pompey have solid players to deal with them. You yourself have been an outspoken critic of Robbo and Dawson. You could hardly claim Kaboul and Chimbonda have helped matters. So with the same team shape we have employed all season, had we had better defenders, like those at Pompey, we'd be in a totally different postion. I know David James has his critics, but I'm sur he wouldn't have been close to as error prone as Robbo this season. i just can't see Distin making the same erros as Kaboul and likewise Campbell is a hell of a lot more reliable than Dawson or Gardner.

Only 1 problem with the Pompey example

NOE PAMEROT mg:..........Oh Jesus I need to lie down again!

 

[joey55]

To be honest I thought Paramot was a useful player to have, as he could play CB aswell as RB.

 

[southlondonyiddo]

To be honest I thought Paramot was a useful player to have, as he could play CB aswell as RB.

Never could spell his bloody name properly


.......Sorry but for me Pam went in the same bracket as Lacey & Pratt

 

[Juande_Ramos]

The recent examples of Pompey and Everton both show, that coaches don't improve defences, better defenders do.

And better coaches too. Otherwise anyone could coach a team. Just get the best players you can and sorted...
A better coach can organise the defense better, can teach a player to defend better, can pick up the best defenders to face a particular opponent, can spot quicker how the opposition are hurting his team and act accordingly. Even not touching the defense he can improve it by making the rest of the team work harder and better on defensive tasks.

On another note when Ramos went 3-5-2 I think he wanted his three best passers in midfield playing close to each other. Berbatov found more space to operate a few meters behind and Malbranques's perfomance improved tenfold. The proble was at the back where the CBs didn't know at times who was supposed to mark who allowing West Ham shots without having to work for them.

But let's give it a bit of time. After all Ramos has only been around for 1 month with no preseason to fully work the different systems he is trying to implement.

 

[sloth]

I think the 352/442 debate is at the crux of the real problems we have at the club. Because we have a new coach with a good reputation people only want to look at the positives, whilst had we had the same result and performance a month ago, the coach would have been massively criticised. The reallity of Ramos's change weren't those of tactical genius, but of tactical blunder. We essentially got lucky. The truth is at half time we were ahead in possession stats and by the end of the game we were down to 42% of possession compared to Spams 58%. This has to largelly be down to the change in formation. Secondly and most importantly look at the chances created after the changes:

60 mins - Boa Morte heads wide
72 mins - Cole heads over the bar
77 mins - Steed shot saved by Green
79 mins - Cole shoots wide
81 mins - Parker shoos wide
83 mins - Parker shot saved by Robbo
88 mins - Ashton shot saved by Robbo

So positivity aside, the truth is we made changes and after which Spam dominated possession and had 6 attempts to our 1. We score from a set piece and all is forgotten. I think if anything the game showed that perhasp 352 isn't a viable option.

However, and this is why I said the debate is at the crux of our problem, had Ramos not made the change, would we have gone the rest of the game without conceding? Essentially did a change in formation that had a negative effect on our overall performance in fact save us a point? Until the change we were more or less in control of the game, but conceded mainly because of an individual error. This has been the story of our season and where our real problems lie. People have ridiculously moaned about our fitness, tactics, organistation and defending. But the facts tell a very different stroy. The facts show a team dominating possession in nearly all their games, 4th highest passes, second highest tackles, scoring more goals than most teams and crucially giving away less chances than all but 4 sides. Given those facts (and that is what they are) it shows we are a superbly drilled 442 outfit. But we were losing games because of a catalogue of stupid individual errors.

On Sunday we saw the same thing happening again. We were the better side but found ourselves behind due to an error. It was always going to happen, even during the 4-0 win at Wigan the errors were clearly their for all to see. So did Ramos really have any choice but to make the changes he did? And therefore what are the reparcutions of this. 352 didn't really work, despite the fact we rescued a point. If anything it showed it isn't a viable option. But at the same time, we saw our problem of erros aren't going to go away with different coach, so is 442 a viable option? The recent examples of Pompey and Everton both show, that coaches don't improve defences, better defenders do. The real problems at this club weren't to do with coaching, they were/are to do with transfer dealings. Unless Ramos gets reinforcements in Jan, we have no chance of UEFA Cup football. We are and have been right from the start of the seaon a very decent 442 team. We are the 5th best side in the country. But, we will be vulnerbale at the back until we can bring in more experienced players.

Very good post.

I agree with most of that. As an add on, I also wonder if Ramos did it for similar reasons to the ones he used to explain that time he took a player off without bringing on a replacement. Obviously nothing as dramatic as that, but to try and inject some dynamism into the side, shake the team out of its on-setting lethargy. There was a fatalism to spurs after the goal went in, a sense from everyone that we'd been here before and that despite the recent optimism it was happening again. By switching it around so dramatically he really made the players switch on mentally, there was no time to dwell and mope, they had to really focus on what they were doing and without realising it that made them spirited.

That we equalised soon afterwards may also be due to confusion in West Ham's ranks and from their bench. Sun Tzu always said you have to confuse the enemies general and for a time he did. After the quick fix of course West Ham began to find their feet and we unsurprisingly looked vulnerable to their counter-attacking play but by then we'd done the damage.

There was also luck of course, but bad luck as well over the 90.

Lastly, if Ramos can convince the players of his Voodoo skills by pulling off stunts like this every now again we'll be half-way towards fostering the winning mentality we've always seemed to lack.