Ratings v Forest

MOTM?


  • Total voters
    234

sloth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,993
#81
I think because DM's assessment shows a lack of tactical nous. Mason wasn't the tactical ammonium per se. Our play really wasn't showing massive signs of improving after he came on, because the same dimwits were still floating around the attacking third (I like Kane but he's no brain surgeon either).

He hit a worldie. Then Soldado used his instinct to divert yet another misguided pot shot that shouldn't have even been taken. Nothing of quality was being produced. Still plenty of huffing and puffing.

Forest got a bit tired and then (when we got the second) had to open up and we finally, with Lamela, played the only intelligent piece of football in 90 minutes, punishing that new found bit of open space in the final third.

It wasn't that a switch flicked and we became more tactically vivacious with Mason on. It's not like we were getting outplayed either before hand, they were just playing the deep waiting game and our fuckwits were making it easy. Then we get two lucky breaks in reasonably quick succession and at the same time Forest are tiring and also then needing to chase a game.

This isn't a dig at Mason either, I'd have started him (and said so).
I think if you read what I said, I said I didn't think it was tactics that made the difference. I agree that it was Mason's goal which really ignited the our play, rather than simply him per se, but you've got to allow a bit of poetic licence. What made the difference was the mind-block which had befallen us for the past 200+ minutes of football suddenly fell away and the team poured forward as a unit, they pressed together, they tried things, they made more ambitious passes and runs and did it all with more zip, and yes there was a feedback loop due to forest tiring and being disheartened, but whatever it was, Poch's task is to get us playing with the same lack of fear, purpose and determination from the start of matches and not need it to be ignited by a moment of genius. we've seen it already in fits and spurts, both pre-season and against QPR, and for the first ten minutes against Sunderland and the last 20 against Forest, but we've also seen its severe lack for over a season under AVB, and then for large periods if not whole matches this season (I leave TS out because under him we faced issues of an entirely different variety).
 

buttons

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,382
#82
I wont rate as i only watched the second half but Naughton looked the best of the starters, he reallky should play on saturday, and i thought the three subs all did well.

What was apparent tho, and maybe it was more to Forest being tired than our tactics, was that the younger players i.e. Naughton, Bentaleb an the 3 subs all seemed to embrace/get Poch's high press tactics far more than Pauli, Bobby etc. when the subs came on the pressure was much better (as demonstrated by the 3rd goal) and the recycling of the ball was much quicker and incisive.
 

eddiebailey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,848
#83
Which is a good point, and one of the things which I feel makes our play so slow. Basically our players are looking around all the time trying to pick the pass in reaction to some indication of what's happened or going to happen, except while they're thinking and looking the opposition are doing the same and reacting to the same indicators. If we were properly choreographed there'd be much less of that, player A would think to himself that player B with the ball is likely to play it into this area, therefore I'm going to get myself there now, and player B would know that if he played it into this kind of area player A is likely to be making the run there. It's quicker than looking, thinking, reacting, it's just looking and reacting.
This is a great point. Much of modern football is about training drills rather than passing vision. You should not need to look to see where a team mate is, you just have put the ball where you expect him to be, because that is what you have both worked on in practice.
 

Gilzeanking

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
4,613
#84
I'd just like to emphasise what many have pointed out . Forest became seriously tired in the last 20 .

I take the first 70 as a more accurate indicator of where we stand .
 

mpickard2087

Fantastic Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
19,219
#85
@Bus-Conductor I agree largely with what you are saying, I stick up for the kid a lot, and there were times last night where he broke up play and came forward with the ball really well. However there were also a number of times where he didn't even look when he received the ball and it was just the default of laying it back to the centre backs. I'm not saying the movement was fantastic but there were definitely times where a forward ball was on and he didn't even look. Last night at times he did seem to become ultra conservative. I think its just a case of another part of his game affected by him needing to keep his concentration and switched on and to be aware of what is happening around him. Something that wont develop overnight, not should we expect it to aged 19.

Not going to happen overnight though as I say, and there were worse performers than him over 90 mins. I also don't understand why so many get on his back... I have come to the conclusion that some people I think just don't like youth products coming in to the team, they feel as if them being there has deprived us of a £10/15/20m signing.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,463
#86
I think if you read what I said, I said I didn't think it was tactics that made the difference. I agree that it was Mason's goal which really ignited the our play, rather than simply him per se, but you've got to allow a bit of poetic licence. What made the difference was the mind-block which had befallen us for the past 200+ minutes of football suddenly fell away and the team poured forward as a unit, they pressed together, they tried things, they made more ambitious passes and runs and did it all with more zip, and yes there was a feedback loop due to forest tiring and being disheartened, but whatever it was, Poch's task is to get us playing with the same lack of fear, purpose and determination from the start of matches and not need it to be ignited by a moment of genius. we've seen it already in fits and spurts, both pre-season and against QPR, and for the first ten minutes against Sunderland and the last 20 against Forest, but we've also seen its severe lack for over a season under AVB, and then for large periods if not whole matches this season (I leave TS out because under him we faced issues of an entirely different variety).

I don't agree. I think within the framework of a performance that was generally dominating without ever looking dangerous, we ended up getting lucky.

Why must we not have fear ? A little fear is healthy. If Pochettino's Southampton last year had had a little more fear they may have achieved more.

I want every player to fear losing his personal battle every minute of every game. To fear not playing next game because he's not given enough. I want them to fear wasting the football. Fear the consequences of bottling it - bottling a tackle, bottling a pass, bottling a run.

You can't mirror the emotion felt when you are losing at home to a championship reserve side with 20 minutes to go in the first 20 min when you are away to Liverpool. It just doesn't work that way.

What we need to understand as fans is that some boring basics need to be learnt first. They are foundations. And they must be endemic from the first minute to the last of every game. They may not be thrilling to watch, but you get those right first.

What we saw against QPR was superior players being given the pitch to do what they want in. I learnt nothing from that game at all. I was more impressed with the 90 minutes at Sunderland.
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,993
#87
This is a great point. Much of modern football is about training drills rather than passing vision. You should not need to look to see where a team mate is, you just have put the ball where you expect him to be, because that is what you have both worked on in practice.
It's a very noticeable facet of Brendan Roger's teams imo, but also the likes of Dortmund and some of the other successful European sides...
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,463
#89
It's a very noticeable facet of Brendan Roger's teams imo, but also the likes of Dortmund and some of the other successful European sides...
I'm not sure I agree about the whole drills and passing to a team mate or where you expect him to be stuff (I'd need to ponder this more) but I do agree that Liverpool are the closest we have to Dortmund in the EPL.

Both play a very counter attacking game, even when having more of the ball, both press well in various areas, sometimes dropping it deeper. But they rely on a cohesive press then transitioning very quickly.
 

mpickard2087

Fantastic Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
19,219
#90
This is a great point. Much of modern football is about training drills rather than passing vision. You should not need to look to see where a team mate is, you just have put the ball where you expect him to be, because that is what you have both worked on in practice.
I agree with this and have stated it many times before over the last couple of years. I never see any evidence of what I would call 'pattern play' that looks like it has come off the training ground, neither do you get interconnected moves/runs between two or three players in little units.

However on the other hand, I get infuriated with players that seem unable to think for themselves in the heat of the moment and often do stupid things that look like they are sticking religiously to some training ground keep ball session rather than playing the game that is happening. For example, when we try and play out from dangerous, congested areas on the pitch instead of just putting our foot through it and getting it up pitch, players immediately returning the ball to the guy who has just given it to them (who usually is still under pressure from getting rid of the ball previously), or taking short freekicks when we are losing a game and its the 89th minute.

I dunno what conclusion to draw - Substandard training and players taking away the wrong things from it?
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
12,636
#91
I think because DM's assessment shows a lack of tactical nous. Mason wasn't the tactical ammonium per se. Our play really wasn't showing massive signs of improving after he came on, because the same dimwits were still floating around the attacking third (I like Kane but he's no brain surgeon either).

He hit a worldie. Then Soldado used his instinct to divert yet another misguided pot shot that shouldn't have even been taken. Nothing of quality was being produced. Still plenty of huffing and puffing.

Forest got a bit tired and then (when we got the second) had to open up and we finally, with Lamela, played the only intelligent piece of football in 90 minutes, punishing that new found bit of open space in the final third.

It wasn't that a switch flicked and we became more tactically vivacious with Mason on. It's not like we were getting outplayed either before hand, they were just playing the deep waiting game and our fuckwits were making it easy. Then we get two lucky breaks in reasonably quick succession and at the same time Forest are tiring and also then needing to chase a game.

This isn't a dig at Mason either, I'd have started him (and said so).
Think Mason did actually change the play as well as scoring.

The difference he made was in his forward passing - and doing it with vision of where other players were and speed. Aside from his goal he made the passes to feed both the players credited with the assists for the other 2 goals. He also made 2 or 3 other fast accurate passes to players which did not result in a goal, but created a decent attacking move. He's also decent defensively in his tackling, interceptions and generally not afrais to put his foot in and covers a lot of ground - maybe not as good as Capoue or Stmbouli defensively (although its still to be tested) but certainloy no slouch either

In fact I'd suggest that he made more forward passes in his 25 minutes or so on the pitch than amy other player on the pitch.

He's not an instant cure for the team - but he would solve a problem which has plagued Spurs for 2 seasons now, which is how to transition play quicly. As far as I can see he's the only players Spurs have got right now who can do that (both Capoue and Stambouli's passing is ok but not fat enough and neither have <Mason's vision), other than maybe Eriksen if we moved him from No 10 to CM (but not sure he's good enough defensively for that).
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
12,636
#92
I've said this above, but as I've quoted you in my reply to sloth I feel it's only fair to tackle you directly, but your assessment of Bentaleb is a lot less hysterically wrong than many to be fair.


Do you not think that the biggest problem was not Bentaleb slowing us down but the poor movement around him. Bentaleb generally looks to move the ball quite quickly, he's not a twirly ditherer like Dembele (or even Praker before him). And I've seen Bentaleb play decent incisive passes when presented with the opportunity.

Davies, Lennon particularly on his side of the pitch are so insipid and conservative, and then we had Paulino and Soldado ahead. And lets be honest, Stambouli is a newbie, but already we can tell his strength is more his tenacity than his wit. His options for making progressive and incisive passes were severely limited, especially against a side sitting deep and making forward passing difficult.

I think what slows us down as team, and this applies to the first team group as well a lot of the time, is a general lack of intelligent and dynamic movement. Not Bentaleb's dithering.
I'd agree with you on the lack of movement up front - which is a surprise as pre-season we looked quite good at that (albeit against poor oppossition)
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,993
#93
I don't agree. I think within the framework of a performance that was generally dominating without ever looking dangerous, we ended up getting lucky.

Why must we not have fear ? A little fear is healthy. If Pochettino's Southampton last year had had a little more fear they may have achieved more.

I want every player to fear losing his personal battle every minute of every game. To fear not playing next game because he's not given enough. I want them to fear wasting the football. Fear the consequences of bottling it - bottling a tackle, bottling a pass, bottling a run.

You can't mirror the emotion felt when you are losing at home to a championship reserve side with 20 minutes to go in the first 20 min when you are away to Liverpool. It just doesn't work that way.

What we need to understand as fans is that some boring basics need to be learnt first. They are foundations. And they must be endemic from the first minute to the last of every game. They may not be thrilling to watch, but you get those right first.

What we saw against QPR was superior players being given the pitch to do what they want in. I learnt nothing from that game at all. I was more impressed with the 90 minutes at Sunderland.
In both replies you've said you don't agree with me, but then haven't really addressed what I've said. In fact it's weird because I can agree with what you write in that first sentence and not feel any conflict with what I've written. We got lucky with the goal, and even with the second one, plus Forest seemed to tire/lose heart, and yet that doesn't say anything about the release from the collective mind-bock I think I saw.

It also doesn't agree, contradict, or in anyway address the central thesis of mine and other's arguments which is that it seems like it's fear, or over-thinking, or whatever you want to call it, which is the issue... with a sub-argument that an unwanted side-effect/pit-fall with getting a team to play highly structured football is that they may become mentally constipated, and that the art/science of it is to keep the structure but get them to play with freedom (this in contrast to Sherwood or Redknapp who's only solution to more freedom is to throw away the structure completely), but that the process of getting there might take some time as it did with Rogers who had to follow Dalglish at Liverpool.

In terms of your fear argument, of course it goes without saying you can use fear to describe many different aspects of the game and a player and yes of course it can be a useful as well as useless emotion depending on the context.
 

degoose

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
2,139
#94
I think he was injured.

He's been held back by injuries for quite a while, because otherwise he would probably have made the breakthrough much sooner - he was always a talented kid. every manager/head coach is different and will look for slightly (or drastically) different attributes - especially when they have just joined a club. I think Mason is just a player that Poch saw straight away as offering attributes he likes. He said at the start of the season that he was part of his plans (which was while Mason was out injured).
ah i see i didn't realise he got injured after the pre season, i thought it might have been harsh with him not being picked as he did a really good job in pre season and looked like he was showing heavily what he can do.
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,993
#95
I'm not sure I agree about the whole drills and passing to a team mate or where you expect him to be stuff (I'd need to ponder this more) but I do agree that Liverpool are the closest we have to Dortmund in the EPL.

Both play a very counter attacking game, even when having more of the ball, both press well in various areas, sometimes dropping it deeper. But they rely on a cohesive press then transitioning very quickly.
I remember an interview with Rogers when he was at Swansea when he spoke about movement drills, and how they drilled incessantly where players needed to be to show for the ball in relation to the guy holding the ball. I think you can often get it just with good players, or teams who've played together a long time, it's about being on the same wave-length, and it applies to the press, to movement off the ball, to it all.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
26,146
#96
I think the dynamic of the game changed when we went 442 which coincided with Mason coming on.
Did we go 442?

Or was Kane just pushing up more, because Paulinho was playing high up as well but Kane dropped deeper. Don't forget that kane is a No. 10 not a striker for the youth team
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
18,349
#97
Did we go 442?

Or was Kane just pushing up more, because Paulinho was playing high up as well but Kane dropped deeper. Don't forget that kane is a No. 10 not a striker for the youth team
Not sure where all the 442 stuff has come from. Until Soldado came off Kane was clearly behind him. Then after the substitution, Kane went up front and Lamela went to number 10.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,463
#98
Think Mason did actually change the play as well as scoring.

The difference he made was in his forward passing - and doing it with vision of where other players were and speed. Aside from his goal he made the passes to feed both the players credited with the assists for the other 2 goals. He also made 2 or 3 other fast accurate passes to players which did not result in a goal, but created a decent attacking move. He's also decent defensively in his tackling, interceptions and generally not afrais to put his foot in and covers a lot of ground - maybe not as good as Capoue or Stmbouli defensively (although its still to be tested) but certainloy no slouch either

In fact I'd suggest that he made more forward passes in his 25 minutes or so on the pitch than amy other player on the pitch.

He's not an instant cure for the team - but he would solve a problem which has plagued Spurs for 2 seasons now, which is how to transition play quicly. As far as I can see he's the only players Spurs have got right now who can do that (both Capoue and Stambouli's passing is ok but not fat enough and neither have <Mason's vision), other than maybe Eriksen if we moved him from No 10 to CM (but not sure he's good enough defensively for that).

I disagree about Capoue. He is nothing like Stambouli. I think he's a much better option in a CM2 than Mason (although maybe him and Mason could work ?), and his passing is very good and not slow or unprogressive. I'm not sure who we are comparing Capoue to when people say his passing isn't good enough ? Which teams have got CM's who's passing is better ?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,463
In both replies you've said you don't agree with me, but then haven't really addressed what I've said. In fact it's weird because I can agree with what you write in that first sentence and not feel any conflict with what I've written. We got lucky with the goal, and even with the second one, plus Forest seemed to tire/lose heart, and yet that doesn't say anything about the release from the collective mind-bock I think I saw.

It also doesn't agree, contradict, or in anyway address the central thesis of mine and other's arguments which is that it seems like it's fear, or over-thinking, or whatever you want to call it, which is the issue... with a sub-argument that an unwanted side-effect/pit-fall with getting a team to play highly structured football is that they may become mentally constipated, and that the art/science of it is to keep the structure but get them to play with freedom (this in contrast to Sherwood or Redknapp who's only solution to more freedom is to throw away the structure completely), but that the process of getting there might take some time as it did with Rogers who had to follow Dalglish at Liverpool.

In terms of your fear argument, of course it goes without saying you can use fear to describe many different aspects of the game and a player and yes of course it can be a useful as well as useless emotion depending on the context.

OK, what I'm saying is I didn't see a release from a collective mind block. I saw circumstances change. But we were still encountering similar problems - i.e. a lack of intelligent movement, carelessness, etc - How's that ? We just got lucky with that and then finally did actually do something intelligent - as a result of Lamela coming on and Forest chasing it and abandoning their tactics.

I don't think fear or over thinking is why players aren't moving more intelligently and doing more intelligent things in general - I think it's a general lack of intelligence and cognitive ability.

I don't think Redknapp improved this, he just had more intelligent players like Modric & VDV.

I definitely don't think Sherwood improved this, he just reinstalled Adebayor who hit some form running and his lack of tactics opened the pitch up which gave stupid players more time and space. You could argue that was clever, I think it was just a fortuitous by product and over time would prove less effective than actually teaching players some structure and discipline.

That's a very simplistic answer I know, and it is never just a simple as that, but that's the bite size version.
 
Top