Rafa or Defoe...?

[StartingPrice]

It does clarify it for me and for what it's worth I think that's exactly what Redknapp was planning/hoping for too.

This whole debate revolves around whether that was a good plan from Redknapp or a bad one. Or more accurately whether it was the best plan.

I'm certain that Redknapp set out a team he thought was the best he could to win that game. I'm sure he would have wanted to win by a hatful.

In many people's opinion, the team he selected for the objective was clearly not the one most likely to achieve it.

That is the sole bone of contention. Not that the team he set out couldn't win - it clearly could and did - but that it was not the team which maximised our chances of winning.

Then you still haven't quite got what I am saying, as I agree that the best team to set out would have been the (seemingly now fabled) 4-2-3-1.

What I am trying to go is go beyond that - I think he was trying to cause panic in their ranks from the outset, and it very nearly worked. If it had, if one of them chances had went in while they were still visibly rattled, while playing such a high line, I honestly think we could have done to them what United did at OT - I suspect that was what the Goons feared, too.

Of course, just to reiterate, again, I know we could have done that playing 4-2-3-1 - I'm not trying to defend or justify Redknapp's decision not to go with it. I am trying to rationalise it, and then analyse the game from that viewpoint rather than the he didn't choose the formation I thought he should viewpoint.

 

[SpurSince57]

Imo the passing went astray in part because of the lack of choices and them having an extra man to cover many of our close options, resulting in the long ball much of the time

BAE's average pass completion rate this season is 77%. Against Arsenal it was 57%. That says 'bad day at the office' to me. Parker, King, Kaboul and Walker all had completion rates in the 80s, Adebayor, Defoe and Modric in the 70s, so lack of choice and Arsenal's extra man seem not to have been too much of a problem for them.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Yes, he did, and we took control. Funny, that. Of course, it may have been as much to do with Sagna's injury unshackling Bale as bringing Sandro on.

We didn't exactly take control, we just gained a foothold in the game for the first time.

BAE's average pass completion rate this season is 77%. Against Arsenal it was 57%. That says 'bad day at the office' to me. Parker, King, Kaboul and Walker all had completion rates in the 80s, Adebayor, Defoe and Modric in the 70s, so lack of choice and Arsenal's extra man seem not to have been too much of a problem for them.

But many of those players also saw about half as much ball as they usually do or have been in recent weeks (Modric, Parker, Adebayor, VDV, Bale) which was undoubtedly a symptom of our tactics and the fact that most of them had to spend most of the game chasing Arsenal's players around.

 

[StartingPrice]

We didn't exactly take control, we just gained a foothold in the game for the first time.



But many of those players also saw about half as much ball as they usually do or have been in recent weeks (Modric, Parker, Adebayor, VDV, Bale) which was undoubtedly a symptom of our tactics and the fact that most of them had to spend most of the game chasing Arsenal's players around.

Modric gave the ball away several times when under no pressure whatsoever - I don't think that was anything to do with our tactics.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Modric gave the ball away several times when under no pressure whatsoever - I don't think that was anything to do with our tactics.

I do. Go look at Modric's stats for our last two games with Arsenal. Both are very similar. 75% Sunday, 77% last season. 31/41 Sunday, 27/35 last season.
Guess what ? last season we played 442 with VDV out right and we were 3-1 down after 40 minutes.

 

[sloth]

Then you still haven't quite got what I am saying, as I agree that the best team to set out would have been the (seemingly now fabled) 4-2-3-1.

What I am trying to go is go beyond that - I think he was trying to cause panic in their ranks from the outset, and it very nearly worked. If it had, if one of them chances had went in while they were still visibly rattled, while playing such a high line, I honestly think we could have done to them what United did at OT - I suspect that was what the Goons feared, too.

Of course, just to reiterate, again, I know we could have done that playing 4-2-3-1 - I'm not trying to defend or justify Redknapp's decision not to go with it. I am trying to rationalise it, and then analyse the game from that viewpoint rather than the he didn't choose the formation I thought he should viewpoint.

SP, every man and his dog can see what Redknapp was trying to do, there's never been a question over what he was trying to achieve. If discussing what he wanted to do is what you find interesting then good luck to you.

This debate continues as long as people such Loco on the previous page, continue to take an opposite view. He has an opinion I disagree with him and I would like to persuade him that he is wrong for the reasons discussed at length in this thread.

You don't have an opinion that anyone disagrees with, so by all means try to move the debate onto it, but I'll suggest that you won't get much debate because the point is frankly a bit facile.

BAE's average pass completion rate this season is 77%. Against Arsenal it was 57%. That says 'bad day at the office' to me. Parker, King, Kaboul and Walker all had completion rates in the 80s, Adebayor, Defoe and Modric in the 70s, so lack of choice and Arsenal's extra man seem not to have been too much of a problem for them.

Isn't it funny how the pass rate goes down against opposition who dominate possession. On an extreme note I remember watching Arsenal playing Barce last year and barely a player in Arsenal's usually slick passing midfield could find another in red. You could say this is because those players had an off day, I prefer to think it was due to Barcelona's amazing pressing game closing down the options. And if you disagree then I'd point out how remarkable the coincidence is that players in teams which come up against Barcelona always seem to save their worse days for them.

 

[SpurSince57]

But many of those players also saw about half as much ball as they usually do or have been in recent weeks (Modric, Parker, Adebayor, VDV, Bale) which was undoubtedly a symptom of our tactics and the fact that most of them had to spend most of the game chasing Arsenal's players around.

Isn't it funny how the pass rate goes down against opposition who dominate possession. On an extreme note I remember watching Arsenal playing Barce last year and barely a player in Arsenal's usually slick passing midfield could find another in red. You could say this is because those players had an off day, I prefer to think it was due to Barcelona's amazing pressing game closing down the options. And if you disagree then I'd point out how remarkable the coincidence is that players in teams which come up against Barcelona always seem to save their worse days for them.

I would expect there to be fewer passes. I would also expect their accuracy to be reduced. However, seven of our outfield players' pass completion rates were either excellent or only slightly reduced from normal, so our overall completion rate was a still pretty decent 75% against Arsenal's 82%. The three Spurs players who blotted their copybooks were BAE, Bale and VdV, and, as SP pointed out in Modric's case, some of their passes went adrift when they were under no pressure at all. That's good old-fashioned sloppiness, hence my neighbours getting treated to several 'WTF do you think you're doing, you planks?'

You're comparing Arsenal's pitty-patty passy-passy watch-us-as-we-walk-the-ball-into-the-net to Barça?

If you want to look for simplistic answers and blame the formation alone for this catastrophe, go ahead.

 

[StartingPrice]

I do. Go look at Modric's stats for our last two games with Arsenal. Both are very similar. 75% Sunday, 77% last season. 31/41 Sunday, 27/35 last season.
Guess what ? last season we played 442 with VDV out right and we were 3-1 down after 40 minutes.

:shrug:
Modric stood on the touchline with no Goons players within a 10 metre radius of him and mishit his pass - I don't see what that has got to do with stats or formations.

SP, every man and his dog can see what Redknapp was trying to do, there's never been a question over what he was trying to achieve. If discussing what he wanted to do is what you find interesting then good luck to you.

This debate continues as long as people such Loco on the previous page, continue to take an opposite view. He has an opinion I disagree with him and I would like to persuade him that he is wrong for the reasons discussed at length in this thread.

You don't have an opinion that anyone disagrees with, so by all means try to move the debate onto it, but I'll suggest that you won't get much debate because the point is frankly a bit facile.

:shrug:
Every man and his dog, as has been stated, can see what Redknapp should have done in the first place (see SS57s post, above, and Pinky's response), so it would seem that your discussion is, likewise, moribund (don't know if it can be qualitiatively more so, but it yes, then it is :razz.

When I stated that this was what Redknapp was trying to do (IMHO - didn't know everyone would agree with me), BC , followed by you, explained to me what he should have done. So, rather than simply interpreting my post and agreeing, I hadto make more and more and more posts :bang: :razz:

Anyway, the crux of what I am saying isn't what he was setting out to do, so, seemingly, you still haven't quite got the gist of it. I was explaining what he was trying to do, and then interpreting from there - as I felt that his failure to change things at half-time was far more of an error - on that basis that it was 0 - 0 at kick off, and we didn't actually know how the game would pan out and whether his gambit would work; whereas at half-time, we were 1 - 0 up, so closing the game down by bringing Sandro on certainly wouldn't hurt, whereas we could see the way the game had unfolded, that his gambit hadn't worked, and that they had gained control of the midfield.
That is very different to simply explain what he was trying to do with his starting line-up - which somefolk seemingly didn't understand, anyway, as they think his only reason for playing it was that Defoe is his favourite (not as clear cut as you suggested, then :razz.

 

[ealingspur]

People seem to be incorrectly equating Arsenal having a lot of the ball with Arsenal dominating the game. We dominated. They had 3 shots worth talking about: the goal, gervinho's miss and maybe walcott's left foot drive (that's at a stretch). We had 2 goals, Bale's 1 on 1, Ade's 1 on 1, VDV's quasi-1 on 1, parker's 1 on 1, modric's drive, Defoe's shot.

Having useless, harmless possession in positions that do not affect us is not dominating a game.

 

[Mr Pink]

People seem to be incorrectly equating Arsenal having a lot of the ball with Arsenal dominating the game. We dominated. They had 3 shots worth talking about: the goal, gervinho's miss and maybe walcott's left foot drive (that's at a stretch). We had 2 goals, Bale's 1 on 1, Ade's 1 on 1, VDV's quasi-1 on 1, parker's 1 on 1, modric's drive, Defoe's shot.

Having useless, harmless possession in positions that do not affect us is not dominating a game.

I take your point but they did dominate possession more and ultimately their equaliser did hurt us at the time :wink:

Yes we had more chances, no doubt, but I would loved to have seen us 4-2-3-1 against them - in terms of the pattern game and how it would of developed.

Personally I think we would of controlled the game better, had more of the ball and created more chances with VDV central, where he took his goal, and probably kept a clean sheet with a more balanced and solid base protecting the back four.

Collectively just better on and off the ball, that's how I want us to roll :grin:

 

[ealingspur]

Their equaliser came after a half-time team talk, when Im sure they they were told to play for the manager, and they decided to buck up their ideas. In most games, even a losing team will have around 10 or so minutes with the wind behind their sails.

It definitely wasn't the case that their possession resulted in their goal. It was an increased work ethic, and a realisation of "what the f---, we're losing in a NLD". Their possession for those 15 minutes was more advanced, in more dangerous positions. For the rest of the game, the majority was Arteta deep lying passing to the right or left back. They can do that all game. They then didn't change their style of play because Sandro came on, they changed after conceding the second goal, sending that lumbering german oaf up front.

At no point did we dominate possession, that's true. But having 75% of the ball between your back 6 means nothing. We had all the chances, we looked more dangeous, we passed with more intent, more forwards, more precise. We had a counter-attack game plan. It worked.

 

[Paolo10]

​

 

[ealingspur]

good point paolo.

 

[degoose]

Their equaliser came after a half-time team talk, when Im sure they they were told to play for the manager, and they decided to buck up their ideas. In most games, even a losing team will have around 10 or so minutes with the wind behind their sails.

It definitely wasn't the case that their possession resulted in their goal. It was an increased work ethic, and a realisation of "what the f---, we're losing in a NLD". Their possession for those 15 minutes was more advanced, in more dangerous positions. For the rest of the game, the majority was Arteta deep lying passing to the right or left back. They can do that all game. They then didn't change their style of play because Sandro came on, they changed after conceding the second goal, sending that lumbering german oaf up front.

At no point did we dominate possession, that's true. But having 75% of the ball between your back 6 means nothing. We had all the chances, we looked more dangeous, we passed with more intent, more forwards, more precise. We had a counter-attack game plan. It worked.

yep fully agreed and we won which to me is the most important part . I have no idea why people still pick at stuff if we are winning and against a team who until redknapp took charge we did not beat for years.

 

[sloth]

People seem to be incorrectly equating Arsenal having a lot of the ball with Arsenal dominating the game. We dominated. They had 3 shots worth talking about: the goal, gervinho's miss and maybe walcott's left foot drive (that's at a stretch). We had 2 goals, Bale's 1 on 1, Ade's 1 on 1, VDV's quasi-1 on 1, parker's 1 on 1, modric's drive, Defoe's shot.

Having useless, harmless possession in positions that do not affect us is not dominating a game.

Their equaliser came after a half-time team talk, when Im sure they they were told to play for the manager, and they decided to buck up their ideas. In most games, even a losing team will have around 10 or so minutes with the wind behind their sails.

It definitely wasn't the case that their possession resulted in their goal. It was an increased work ethic, and a realisation of "what the f---, we're losing in a NLD". Their possession for those 15 minutes was more advanced, in more dangerous positions. For the rest of the game, the majority was Arteta deep lying passing to the right or left back. They can do that all game. They then didn't change their style of play because Sandro came on, they changed after conceding the second goal, sending that lumbering german oaf up front.

At no point did we dominate possession, that's true. But having 75% of the ball between your back 6 means nothing. We had all the chances, we looked more dangeous, we passed with more intent, more forwards, more precise. We had a counter-attack game plan. It worked.

You're trying to extrapolate from a single game the value of an entire system.

You cannot judge a system's efficacy based on the result from a single game.

Presumably you think that Harry set us out the best way possible given the resources he had? But equally you don't think that because of what happened, but because a priori it is the best system he could have played.

In other words even if we'd lost, it was still the best system he could play because it was the one most certain to get us a victory ahead of the game.

Any system will win or lose, whether it's the best system or the worst. What happens in a single game therefore cannot be the judge of "best" or "worst".

If we can agree on the above, then we can move onto to the next part of your argument. You claim having possession for its own sake will not alone win games and you cite the extreme example of a team passing the ball around ad infinitum in its own defensive third.

But there is no suggestion this is what Arsenal were doing. The heat-maps show something very different in fact. What we can say is that Arsenal this season, without the creativeness and incision of Nasri and Fabregas have been pretty toothless up front.

But back to the possession stat. Here are the possession stats, team by team, for last season's Premier League: http://www.whoscored.com/Regions/25...5/Statistics/England-Premier-League-2010-2011

Note that the teams which had the top six possession stats finished in the top six places. And in general the better your possession stat the higher they finished, thus Liverpool finished 6th and had the sixth best possession statistic, Spurs fifth and had the fifth best, Man City third and had the fourth best, Chesea second and had the third best etc etc. the anomaly being Arsenal who had the best but only finished fourth.

Go back a year and you see the correlation between points and possession again.

Look at the current year and it's repeated.

So it's fairly clear that in a general sense conceding possession and hitting teams on the break is not the way the better teams have success.

And if we think about it for moment we can see the truth of that. Nobody, for example, would suggest we let Wolves have 60% possession only to hit the on the break. In fact we all loved the Liverpool match because we dominated from start to sending-off and then dominated them even more. We watched that game and saw how dangerous we were and Liverpool's only threat, funnily enough, was from hitting us on the break. Had Suarez's goal gone in would Liverpool have been justified in claiming that they played a game to absorb our pressure and hit us on the break. Would we have accepted that the possession football we were playing in their half was an inferior strategy to one of letting them have the ball and creating chances on the break?

We wouldn't.

In fact the only reason anyone is making the argument that the way we played against Arsenal was the best way is because a. we won, b. people don't like the usual suspects having a go at Harry and c. a lot of people argued for the 4-4-2 set-up and so now they have to find a reason for our failure to control the game that does not include an admission by them that the got it wrong.

Anyway, back to the match and a relatively minor aside - we all agree Arsenal are this season have been a bit toothless in attack. How much more toothless would they be with less of the ball than with more of it?

 

[millsie]

IMO quite a few players had a fairly average day at the office. It seems to me that this had more to do with Arses "domination" of possession, than HR's selection/tactics.
Arse can count themselves lucky that some of our guys were a bit off, otherwise they'd have been completely shafted.

 

[jurgen]

Its fairly clear from that stat that arsenal are an anomaly who have a lot of the ball but use possession rather inefficiently therefore one would deduce this may give clues of how to beat them. One could also watch inumerable matches where Man Utd, Chelsea and even Liverpool have also let them pass it inefficiently and create many goals and chances through incisive play - much like we did. But hey ho - we currently have the hex on them for once so long may our 'luck' continue.

 

[Paolo10]

IMO quite a few players had a fairly average day at the office. It seems to me that this had more to do with Arses "domination" of possession, than HR's selection/tactics.
Arse can count themselves lucky that some of our guys were a bit off, otherwise they'd have been completely shafted.

Even with players off form, it could have been 4 or 5...tsk tsk, such bad tactics, letting Arsenal pass it about, creating little...

 

[Spurs_Bear]

You're trying to extrapolate from a single game the value of an entire system.

You cannot judge a system's efficacy based on the result from a single game.

Presumably you think that Harry set us out the best way possible given the resources he had? But equally you don't think that because of what happened, but because a priori it is the best system he could have played.

In other words even if we'd lost, it was still the best system he could play because it was the one most certain to get us a victory ahead of the game.

Any system will win or lose, whether it's the best system or the worst. What happens in a single game therefore cannot be the judge of "best" or "worst".

If we can agree on the above, then we can move onto to the next part of your argument. You claim having possession for its own sake will not alone win games and you cite the extreme example of a team passing the ball around ad infinitum in its own defensive third.

But there is no suggestion this is what Arsenal were doing. The heat-maps show something very different in fact. What we can say is that Arsenal this season, without the creativeness and incision of Nasri and Fabregas have been pretty toothless up front.

But back to the possession stat. Here are the possession stats, team by team, for last season's Premier League: http://www.whoscored.com/Regions/25...5/Statistics/England-Premier-League-2010-2011

Note that the teams which had the top six possession stats finished in the top six places. And in general the better your possession stat the higher they finished, thus Liverpool finished 6th and had the sixth best possession statistic, Spurs fifth and had the fifth best, Man City third and had the fourth best, Chesea second and had the third best etc etc. the anomaly being Arsenal who had the best but only finished fourth.

Go back a year and you see the correlation between points and possession again.

Look at the current year and it's repeated.

So it's fairly clear that in a general sense conceding possession and hitting teams on the break is not the way the better teams have success.

And if we think about it for moment we can see the truth of that. Nobody, for example, would suggest we let Wolves have 60% possession only to hit the on the break. In fact we all loved the Liverpool match because we dominated from start to sending-off and then dominated them even more. We watched that game and saw how dangerous we were and Liverpool's only threat, funnily enough, was from hitting us on the break. Had Suarez's goal gone in would Liverpool have been justified in claiming that they played a game to absorb our pressure and hit us on the break. Would we have accepted that the possession football we were playing in their half was an inferior strategy to one of letting them have the ball and creating chances on the break?

We wouldn't.

In fact the only reason anyone is making the argument that the way we played against Arsenal was the best way is because a. we won, b. people don't like the usual suspects having a go at Harry and c. a lot of people argued for the 4-4-2 set-up and so now they have to find a reason for our failure to control the game that does not include an admission by them that the got it wrong.

Anyway, back to the match and a relatively minor aside - we all agree Arsenal are this season have been a bit toothless in attack. How much more toothless would they be with less of the ball than with more of it?

Erm no it isn't sloth.

The top 6 if you search by possession is:

City
United
Chelsea (All tied on 58%)
Arsenal (with 57%)
Liverpool
Swansea

We are 7th, that's having played against 3 teams in the top 6 of the possession table.

So basically, one....you're actually trying to prove a point by lying, and two....it would appear that if Redknapp decided that the best way to beat Arsenal was to give them as much possession as they wanted in the middle, he wouldn't actually be wrong would he? As it would appear by the stats that they have achieved the square root of fuck all this season by having the second highest (which effectively the top 3 all having the same) possession percentage.

If you then take that a bit further and look at the individual analysis you can see this:

+ Tottenham's Strengths

Scoring from fast break situations
Very Strong

- Arsenal's Weaknesses

Defending fast break situations
Weak

What's the best way to obtain a 'fast break situation'........give the other team the ball? Maybe.

Stats can try and prove anything you want them to can't they?

 

[sloth]

So basically, one....you're actually trying to prove a point by lying, and two....it would appear that if Redknapp decided that the best way to beat Arsenal was to give them as much possession as they wanted in the middle, he wouldn't actually be wrong would he? As it would appear by the stats that they have achieved the square root of fuck all this season by having the second highest (which effectively the top 3 all having the same) possession percentage.

If you then take that a bit further and look at the individual analysis you can see this:

+ Tottenham's Strengths

Scoring from fast break situations
Very Strong

- Arsenal's Weaknesses

Defending fast break situations
Weak

What's the best way to obtain a 'fast break situation'........give the other team the ball? Maybe.

Stats can try and prove anything you want them to can't they?

I'm sorry you think I'm trying to prove a point by lying.

I provided the link however which might suggest my goal wasn't to make stuff up.

I felt that last year's stats, this year's and the statistics from 09/10 all proved the general point that the top six teams are those who enjoy the most possession.

The reason for making that point is to show the clear correlation between possession and points. If you think this year's stats don't add evidence to that thesis fair enough, if you think they do though, you might want to ask yourself what point it is you're trying to make.

Unless it's just the asinine (or should it be Ursine?) playground style argument that truth lies in what's said rather than what's clearly understood to be meant?

As for the wider point about use of statistics. The company of which I'm MD uses statistics to bet on sport. In a very real way I know the dangers of misusing statistics, but also (more than anyone on this message board I'd hazard) the meaning and 'truth' which can be extracted from careful study of them.

There is often a fairly jaundiced, cynical attitude people take to statistics, this, as a rule of thumb is wise, unfortunately it regularly leads to the baby being throw out with bath-water; statistics are often misused ergo use of statistics is useless. Which is wrong for the opposite reason.

On the analysis of this year, it shows we're good at playing on the break this year, but from memory that only includes a single match where we've scored despite not having the lions-share of possession, the last one against Arsenal.

The point I and others have made repeatedly across several threads now is that playing 4-2-3-1 facilitates counter-attacking football. The more you rob the opposition of possession the more chances you'll have to counter attack. That we're so strong on the break despite dominating the majority of the games we've scored in, suggests this is born out by the evidence.

People advocating 4-4-2 seem to be of the lazy opinion that effective counter-attacking football requires the other team to have more of the possession. In fact it requires you to be adept at winning the ball off the opposition and turning defence into attack very quickly - nothing more. No requirement to concede possession to the opposition at all in that equation.