Ratings v Arsenal

[Mr Pink]

I think its been a terrible discussion, its just a corral of posters who love Sandro and want him in the team so desperately, thats all this is. Its crazy. If this was about formations, then you'd say Lennon on the right in a 4-2-3-1 but it isn't, its just people upset that the team is performing really well without Sandro.

Forgive me for stating the obvious here...but why on earth are you taking part in the discussion then?

As for the rest of this post its absolute bullshit, after several pages of discussion your grasp of this side of the argument is a Sandro love in :roll:

akin to me claiming your argument is a Sandra love in :wink:

 

[Coyboy]

It's also a very English obsession, 4-4-2, you'll rarely see it in La Liga/Serie A which are far more tactically varied and interesting leagues.

How?

 

[ShelfSide18]

How?

Take a look at this which I've borrowed from the excellent ZonalMarking.net showing the wealth of different systems used in 09/10 in Serie A...

• 4-4-2: Used throughout the season by Bari
• 4-2-3-1: Used throughout the season by Fiorentina
• 4-2-3-1 with no central striker: Generally Roma’s first-choice shape
• 4-2-1-3: Used in the second half of the season by Milan, and throughout by Catania
• 4-2-2-2: Sampdoria’s shape, and often Atalanta’s
• 4-3-1-2 (or diamond): Used by numerous sides, including Chievo
• 4-3-2-1 (Christmas tree): Used on ocassion by Milan
• 3-4-3: Genoa’s formation
• 3-4-1-2: Juventus played this when Zaccheroni first arrived
• 3-4-2-1: Napoli’s most-used formation
• 3-5-1-1: Bottom club Livorno’s system
• 3-5-2: Parma for most of the campaign, and Lazio towards the end of it

This compared to the Premiership which largely relies on the 4-4-2 or the 433/451 (one lone man supported by 2 wide players etc). Of course there is variation, and tactical nuances, but I don't think our league is as tactical - it's far more direct, with pace, power and strength that other leagues can't match - this is not to say I dislike the EPL, I love it, but I also love watching the more tecnhical and tactical continental leagues, and of course the Champions League which pits these together. The other day I really enjoyed watching Man City failing to get their head around Napoli's 3 man central defence - something they just don't come up against in the Prem, and it was clear they struggled.

As for La Liga, Barca are experimenting with the 3-4-3 this season with mixed results so far, and played out a classic just recently with Valencia where both managers, Guardiola and Emery, were constantly moving players around the pitch in order to get the upper hand - it ended 2-2, and was a great tactical battle. I am also interested in how Athletic Bilbao do this season with Marco Bielsa and his favourite 3-1-3-3 formation - I think it's extremely fair to say that you don't get this sort of variation and tactical interest in the EPL, and I'm not even saying that's necessarily a bad thing.

Can I leave you with this from Mike Bassett...

[yt]EDMx3kYe7ZY[/yt]

 

[jonathanhotspur]

As for the rest of this post its absolute bullshit, after several pages of discussion your grasp of this side of the argument is a Sandro love in :roll:

I agree. What a load of guff.

 

[steve]

This is the forum's new mania [now Redknapp isn't speaking to the media as much]... You realise you're arguing over and about nothing?

There was no tactical dimension to the match that was worth discussing for 20 pages. It puts one in mind of the council of Nicaea - except you people don't have an empire in which to propagate your particular doctrine of the holy trinity.

I don't understand it... well, in BC's case I do... a multimillionaire in his early 20s with nothing to better to do. He's no Eustathius of Antioch, that lad.

Stav your intellectual bollocks has never hidden your lack of insight when it comes to the intricacies of the game - hence your inability to understand why some of us discuss it at length. Thanks for the positive contribution mind you - coming into a thread you're not interested in to tell us we've discussed summink more than we should have...the Eustathius of Antioch line is pure gold though...

To some extent though I sort of agree with you - don't we all know that it's 442 with Modric and Huddlestone in the middle by now?

 

[Phil_2.0]

Forgive me for stating the obvious here...but why on earth are you taking part in the discussion then?

As for the rest of this post its absolute bullshit, after several pages of discussion your grasp of this side of the argument is a Sandro love in :roll:

akin to me claiming your argument is a Sandra love in :wink:

Right okay, i thought this was an argument about Sandro, if you agree that you'd want to see this '4-2-3-1' with Modric/Huddlestone/Sandro alongside Parker, then thats fine, I disagree with your argument but whatever.

Having it must be Sandro and Parker, is too narrow a viewpoint imo and i thoughts that what it was

 

[WhiteHart4Ever]

Just watched the game again yesterday, and have a few observations:

1. Modric did not have a good game. Sloppy in possession, inefficient and slow in the box on a couple of occassions, poor defensive performance as well.

2. Adebayor had a terrible game by the standards we should expect from him. Even if Pav put in that performance there'd be a riot. He's got two good passes the entire game, nearly never won a header, poor link-up play and general poor effort. Really should've scored his one-on-one, and also really sloppy not to be awake enought to catch Bale's (I think) cut-back towards the end of the game. Defoe must've covered four times the ground Ade did.

3. VDV struggled to track back on several occassions. For most of the game it seemed it was Defoe playing RM, and he was a lot more efficient defending than VDV. For the goal VDV drifted almost all the way over to LM before tracking back across the field for Song.

4. Parker put in a really good performance, but he's hardly the most imaginative passer. I fear a CM of him and Sandro would struggle a bit for creativity. It would certainly rely heavily on the players ahead of them.

5. Friedel isn't the best goalkeeper in the world, and he can't play a pass on the ground, but there's something about him, especially with King at CB as well, that really gives the team security.

6. Kaboul's a beast and King is King.

7. Finally: We were more in control than I felt watching the game live. The spells with Arsenal domination didn't last that long, and at the end of the day it could only be one winner in this game. It also really looked like the players were confident that they'd end up winning - it was a bit of a Man U-attitude from the playersr I thought..

 

[Bus-Conductor]

It always feels like your more in control when you watch a replay of a game you know you won. It's called the "sphincter relaxation complex".

 

[DixieNormous]

It's called the "sphincter relaxation complex".

a condition you must have great familiarity with given the amount of shit you come out with

 

[Spurs_Bear]

It always feels like your more in control when you watch a replay of a game you know you won. It's called the "sphincter relaxation complex".

It also works in the other sense where you become more critical and look for things that aren't there.

 

[Paolo10]

Yes Modric was poor and VDV didn't track back which had a large part of the goal, Ekotto's passing was sloppy too and Adebayor wasn't up to par and on a better day could have had 2 or 3 goals. Yet we still created more better chances and still won, still Harry gets it in the neck from some.

Parker, Defoe, Bale and VDV all contributed very well and offensively were our stand out players (with King and Walker performaing well too in defence IMO), yet one of these attacking players (most likely Defoe) is said to should not have started and how with Sandro on we had 'more possession' etc. Relatively to what we did have before he came on that might very well be true, at home, against a tiring side, then chasing the game with one of their best defenders off injured.

However, to say we should have started with 5 in the middle of the park to get more of the ball is far too simplistic a view, especially against a side like Arsenal who rely on possession and whose passing game has been rightfully (IMO) labelled as over-playing.

The Defoe/Ade partnership is looking promising and we were at fucking home...what is there to not understand? In fact, who was our best striker? Attack at home.

If it's just about Sandro, then who should he have started in place of? Defoe who played very well, Parker who was the best player on the pitch, VDV who scored the first goal or who? Please let me know.

This formation crap being thrown up seems to be another thinly veiled pop at HR, after a NLD win...even though he changed it anyways (not to 5 in the middle either) and is all around the inclusion of a young (talented) player only returning from injury.

We're making chances, winning without all of our best players performing and on a run of games and what do some of you want to do? Have a moan about fucking formations and who should start where...

If we'd lost and been really up against it then I'd possibly be contributing to this debate a touch more than to question the usual suspects' motives, but as it was we had the better chances, conceded a poor goal defensively and won the game.

Bale, VDV, Adebayor, Parker, Defoe all had GOOD chances...another day it's 4-1 or 5-1...but you couldn't whinge about that kind of result could you?

Maybe you could...

 

[tobi]

So because were at home, that means that we have to play with two upfront otherwise it'll be deemed a defensive formation?

 

[Paolo10]

Does Defoe deserve to lose his place after the way he's been playing lately?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Does Defoe deserve to lose his place after the way he's been playing lately?

It's relative. Defoe playing "really well" still isn't as good the as VDV playing very poorly, in terms of usefulness to the team dynamic.

VDV had, by his standards, a poor game on Sunday, yet still scored one, created a 1v1 for Parker and had a hand in a couple more and saw more of the ball than Defoe. And was played out of position.

Six months ago most people wouldn't think twice about picking Pav ahead of Defoe. Defoe runs around a bit for a couple of games and he's worth dropping Sandro and playing VDV out of position for ?

 

[Paolo10]

Yeah, runs about a bit. That's what he does.

BC, you're a fucking bore now.

 

[sloth]

This formation crap being thrown up seems to be another thinly veiled pop at HR, after a NLD win...even though he changed it anyways (not to 5 in the middle either) and is all around the inclusion of a young (talented) player only returning from injury.

Paolo, he was generously praised for his decisions in some of the other recent matches, by people you would like to believe just criticise for the sake of it.

If there's anyone guilty of blind, knee-jerk responses it is you.

I suspect if Harry started with the following:

Modric
Corluka Kranjcar Parker Rose
Adebayor VdV Livermore Friedel
Defoe Caroll​

You'd think about it for a minute or two and then come on here saying how you can see exactly what he was trying, who said he couldn't do tactics, the line-up would have set the opposition players into gales of laughter and while they were rolling on the floor Defoe would have scored, Harry's a genius and if you disagree it's because you've got a vendetta against him.

Fair enough you think the sun-shines out of his arse, but if your only opinion is Harry's right and anyone who thinks different can go to hell then I think we've got it and maybe you'd like to save yourself some typing in the future and just paste something like "Harry's right, you're wrong!" whatever the subject.

Quick question to you, while we're on the subject, have you been like this with every manager, or just Harry?

 

[Paolo10]

No, what I'm saying is people like you are too quick to call Harry wrong, despite us winning and playing well. Have we lost or won all our important games since the Manchester sides?

 

[tobi]

Does Defoe deserve to lose his place after the way he's been playing lately?

That depends on how well people think he has played but to answer your question, yes I would drop him.

By his standards he has done well and worked hard but that's not enough for me especially when there are others that can offer more to the team.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

No, what I'm saying is people like you are too quick to call Harry wrong, despite us winning and playing well. Have we lost or won all our important games since the Manchester sides?

But we didn't play well, that's the point. When we played well (liverpool, Wigan eg) I said so, and gave Redknapp the credit he deserved.

 

[sloth]

No, what I'm saying is people like you are too quick to call Harry wrong, despite us winning and playing well. Have we lost or won all our important games since the Manchester sides?

Here we go then:

CC and Europa League matches - Harry's got it dead right, totally understood what the competitions are for, not made the obvious choices and not done what a lot of other coaches would have and has been completely vindicated. Well done him.

Utd V Spurs - Harry got it right

Spurs V City - Harry got it disastrously wrong, couldn't have been more wrong if he'd tried. Cost us any chance of a result, the single biggest limiting factor on our chances that day

Wolves V Spurs - Harry got it right

Spurs V Liverpool - Harry got it right

Wigan V Spurs - Harry got it right and to the relief of all claimed that it was his best team he'd put out that day.

Spurs V Arsenal - Harry got it wrong. It was no major error however, to send out the team the way he did, I wouldn't have for the reasons we've gone into, but it was a legitimate call for hi to make. Got it dead wrong at H-T which directly led to Arsenal getting back into the game. Showed a worryingly one dimensional understanding of the game and his old fault of being wedded to Defoe and 4-4-2.

For each of those games I and others (BC et al) have come on here and praised or criticised in equal measure depending on whether we thought he was right or wrong.

You on the other hand, no matter what he does, say he got it right. In fact you and others declaim us as arm-chair tacticians, you say you're not smart enough to have an opinion of your own.

In fact your only opinion is Harry's right.

You're a born side-kick mate. Ideas, thoughts, opinions they're for people cleverer than you aren't they? Go to the doctor and don't question what he tells you. Politician says something, he must be right. Scientists know what they're talking about so no point thinking about those kinds of things. You don't vote, buy a newspaper, or in fact think anything about anything unless an expert tells you what to think first. Have I got that right?

I notice, btw, that despite commenting in the VdV/Defoe thread, you didn't actually vote, too difficult I suppose, without knowing what Harry thinks first?