Ratings v Maribor

[Spurs_Bear]

I understand the points you're making but this is completely false.

Not really if you had the displeasure of watching the game.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Lloris - 5
Walker - 6
Dawson - 6
Verts - 6
Naughton - 5
Huddlestone - 6.5
Carroll - 7
Lennon - 7
Bale - 8.5
Adebayor - 8
Defoe - 7.5

I'm not going to neg rep but I fail to see how you can give the hat trick scorer a whole mark less than a guy who didn't score or assist?

Here's a weird smiley that doesn't really serve any purpose

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I think that if we had some of our injured personnel available then 4231 would be worth far more of a look. If we could play something like this:

Parker Sandro​

Lennon Dembele Bale​

Adebayor​

Then all of a sudden you're looking at the right mix of tigerish players who win the ball back early and often, clever players to enable you to play the possession game better, damaging/dangerous players to create the goal-scoring chances, and goal-scorers to finish them off.

Dempsey is a slow thinker, Gylfi is just slow, neither add much in the way of aggression or powerful off the ball work. Huddlestone is also no good for the pressing game, and while Carroll might be an option, he too is not suited to that kind of job, even if I could see AVB going for it... which I can't.



I don't think the game serves as proof of anything, it's a one off against weak opposition, what we can say is that it serves to illustrate the points being made now and previously. That doesn't mean arguments that more often it would work out differently are invalidated or even addressed, just that it shows "this is what we were talking about!".

Nobody was saying evidence of his methodology, only evidence of a change in tactics and strategy from previous matches under him. It seemed clear to me that after Wigan the instruction had gone out to shift the ball to the wide-men as soon as possible. It's also obvious that having two men to aim for in the centre is a simpler proposition for wide-men. And that having two strikers to defend against is a harder proposition for defenders. We all know that Defoe is unsuited to playing the lone striker, and that if played he will do best as part of a pair.

The argument against 442 is not that two strikers are worse than one, but that by sacrificing a midfielder, you will have less possession, and win it less often, usually in deeper areas, and thus you won't have so many opportunities to work goal-scoring opportunities for your two strikers to take advantage of. Against Maribor however, possession wasn't an issue, holding onto it wasn't an issue, winning it back wasn't an issue, creating goal-scoring opportunities wasn't an issue, thus having two strikers rather than one was clearly the right thing on the day.

All of the above can also be contrasted with our previous match against Maribor, also with the recent matches against Norwich and Wigan. And indeed the home games against Norwich, QPR and West Brom.



I agree. All the sites I have seen claim Maribor went with a 4231. Their best chance was to stifle us.

All valid points Sloth. The only thing I would say is that IMO, playing with Dempsey is effectively playing with two strikers. AVB said as much himself. The biggest difference for me is more one of personnel than shape. There is very little difference between 4231 and 442 using the same players and detailing one of the strikers to drop a little when we don't have the ball (which is what happened last night). Maybe last night Bale and Lennon were instructed to stay wider, but both still came in sometimes (Bale's chip for Adebayor e.g.) and swapped sides facilitating coming inside.

Biggest difference for me was one of personnel. Adebayor in. He saw the ball 89 times last night, making 69 passes. That is possibly as many as Defoe has all season. All of a sudden we had the ability to retain the football better in the middle and final third of the pitch, this pulled defenders about and helped make space for Bale etc.

Secondary was the inclusion of Carroll. Constantly giving and going, moving and making himself available, seeing more ball than anyone on the pitch (87 passes) including Hudd (66). this was exactly what a game like that tactically needed. That constant fluidity with the ball helped ball retention and pulled their players around, waring them down.

 

[steve]

Secondly, I thought you could see AVB's influence all over the game.

Just a note on the 442, I think we should be careful about drawing too firm a conclusion from the evidence of one game against weak opposition - we cannot expect the same trick to be as effective against tough PL teams - however the match did serve to illustrate what I and others have been saying recently, namely that if you're determined to play Defoe then it has to be off another striker.

You can't have it both ways Sloth - if you're gonna be careful about drawing a conclusion then that applies not just to 4-4-2 but your statement about AVB's influence.

And the Defoe comment is just ridiculous - haven't most people been saying this for years??

 

[ShelfSide18]

I think that if we had some of our injured personnel available then 4231 would be worth far more of a look. If we could play something like this:

Parker Sandro​

Lennon Dembele Bale​

Adebayor​

Then all of a sudden you're looking at the right mix of tigerish players who win the ball back early and often, clever players to enable you to play the possession game better, damaging/dangerous players to create the goal-scoring chances, and goal-scorers to finish them off.

Dempsey is a slow thinker, Gylfi is just slow, neither add much in the way of aggression or powerful off the ball work. Huddlestone is also no good for the pressing game, and while Carroll might be an option, he too is not suited to that kind of job, even if I could see AVB going for it... which I can't.

Whilst arguing for a Parker Sandro duo for most of last season, we did see it's flaws exposed away at Sunderland, we dominated the ball, but even with Mod and VDV we played with little tempo 'cause those 2 had so much of the ball. In Dembele I think we have the perfect compromise for that middle 3 (if only his tenacity and drive were matched with Modric & VDV last year) and I would love to see if Carroll could hack it in the EPL alongside him, protected by Sandro or Parker. I wouldn't fling him in against City, but I think a trio of so...

Sandro​

Dembele Carroll​

...is theoretically a balanced CM with a varied skillset on and off the ball. Sandro being Sandro, Dembele providing the thrust, Carroll the tempo.

In a forward 3 you then have...

Lennon Adebayor Bale​

Plenty of pace and power but little craft and guile, so would certainly look to be getting Falque (and Mason some minutes). I think Lennon has played well this season, but I would like to see how Falque gets on in the right sided forward role - adding that drifting inside looking for sharp little combinations in and around the edge of the box to Bale's direct running on the left.

I agree. All the sites I have seen claim Maribor went with a 4231. Their best chance was to stifle us.

Maribor went 4-4-2 to all intents and purposes, when Daws and Verthongen had the ball their 2 forwards pressed them rather than one sitting in the midfield to outnumber our 2 CMs. They played stupidly narrow considering from the first whistle we were pinging out wide quickly. Talk about not reacting to the glaringly obvious.

 

[jamesc0le]

So 4-4-2's cool again? Isn't this against the fabled 'philosophy'? Or is it more like a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-1-3-2 or whatever other way you want to try and do it so it seems that bit more tactical/clever.

but didn't the commentators say ade seemed to be doing the rafa role. it's all gonna get messy!

 

[sloth]

All valid points Sloth. The only thing I would say is that IMO, playing with Dempsey is effectively playing with two strikers. AVB said as much himself. The biggest difference for me is more one of personnel than shape. There is very little difference between 4231 and 442 using the same players and detailing one of the strikers to drop a little when we don't have the ball (which is what happened last night). Maybe last night Bale and Lennon were instructed to stay wider, but both still came in sometimes (Bale's chip for Adebayor e.g.) and swapped sides facilitating coming inside.

Biggest difference for me was one of personnel. Adebayor in. He saw the ball 89 times last night, making 69 passes. That is possibly as many as Defoe has all season. All of a sudden we had the ability to retain the football better in the middle and final third of the pitch, this pulled defenders about and helped make space for Bale etc.

Secondary was the inclusion of Carroll. Constantly giving and going, moving and making himself available, seeing more ball than anyone on the pitch (87 passes) including Hudd (66). this was exactly what a game like that tactically needed. That constant fluidity with the ball helped ball retention and pulled their players around, waring them down.

I think something very similar. Adebayor actually plays a similar position to Dempsey, but he's a better goal-scorer, creates more chances, works harder, holds the ball up better, is quicker, bigger, more dynamic, has better movement on and off the ball, holds the ball up better, works harder, thinks quicker, has more vision, is better for the side when we don't have the ball, and has a nicer smile than the Texan. So if Defoe was playing, as he has been, the argument has been he should be partnered by Adebayor (when fit), rather than Dempsey.

The argument that you and others make is that Adebayor and Dempsey promise a better over all team dynamic than does Defoe and Adebayor. That has merit. I do think Adebayor benefits from having a striker who plays off his shoulder, or who will be playing off the shoulder of the last defender, but I can see the argument which says a AM/striker like Dempsey would benefit from having a hold-up man as striker so that he can run beyond him. The thing is I kind of agree with that, but I basically don't rate Dempsey. The long and the short of it I think we'll have a better goal difference playing Defoe and Adebayor than we will playing Dempsey and Adebayor.

 

[ShelfSide18]

All valid points Sloth. The only thing I would say is that IMO, playing with Dempsey is effectively playing with two strikers. AVB said as much himself. The biggest difference for me is more one of personnel than shape. There is very little difference between 4231 and 442 using the same players and detailing one of the strikers to drop a little when we don't have the ball (which is what happened last night). Maybe last night Bale and Lennon were instructed to stay wider, but both still came in sometimes (Bale's chip for Adebayor e.g.) and swapped sides facilitating coming inside.

Biggest difference for me was one of personnel. Adebayor in. He saw the ball 89 times last night, making 69 passes. That is possibly as many as Defoe has all season. All of a sudden we had the ability to retain the football better in the middle and final third of the pitch, this pulled defenders about and helped make space for Bale etc.

Secondary was the inclusion of Carroll. Constantly giving and going, moving and making himself available, seeing more ball than anyone on the pitch (87 passes) including Hudd (66). this was exactly what a game like that tactically needed. That constant fluidity with the ball helped ball retention and pulled their players around, waring them down.

Just looking at the average position map, Bale played very much wider (Lennon not so much) than usual.

I do agree though that that the inclusion of Carroll and Adebayor was the difference between us playing with the fluidity & tempo we've lacked this season, which were complemented, by luck or judgement, by the tactics on show last night.

I really want to see Carroll now integrated into the first team, and obviously Adebayor has just got to start playing. It's just like Defoe's normal contribution, a no brainer.

 

[sloth]

You can't have it both ways Sloth - if you're gonna be careful about drawing a conclusion then that applies not just to 4-4-2 but your statement about AVB's influence.

And the Defoe comment is just ridiculous - haven't most people been saying this for years??

I don't follow you? I meant AVB's influence both in the sense that he changed the set-up and picked the team, both of which had a positive influence, and in the sense that from the speed and regularity with which Carroll (to name but one) found Bale (in contrast with what has happened in recent games) I inferred that this looked to be a deliberate instruction from AVB. I didn't mean influence, as in the wider influence he may or may not have had on the club and team since he joined us.

On the Defoe thing, we've all been tearing our hair out that when Ade has been fit and available he's nevertheless not got the game time. Some have argued that Adebayor should play instead of Defoe, however given that AVB has been determined to play Defoe come what may, the secondary argument has been then Adebayor (when fit) should have been playing rather than Dempsey. There's been an argument about 442/4231, about the players picked for each, and the benefits of each approach. This is what I was referring to.

 

[Mr Pink]

The long and short of it is Adebayor should be the first name on the team sheet, be it 4-4-2 with Defoe, or 4-2-3-1 with Dempsey or Sig in behind depending on what way AVB is setting us up.

 

[Mattspur]

I'm not going to neg rep but I fail to see how you can give the hat trick scorer a whole mark less than a guy who didn't score or assist?

Here's a weird smiley that doesn't really serve any purpose

I just thought that Ade did things last night that Defoe didn't do and the whole team played better as a result. a 7.5 for Defoe is no slouchy score. He took each of his goals well and had a good game I just thought Ade had a bigger impact on our overall play.

- Because I know I'll never have an appropriate time to use this one.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Lloris was off his line quickly a few times but did himself no favours with their goal.

Walker just can't do much right at the moment and is continuing to be wasteful. No confidence.

Dawson, a centre back who gets something behind his headers, was a breath of fresh air. His passing was outstanding too.

Vertonghen looks so much happier playing through the middle, both off and on the ball.

Naughton played well but like Lloris was just awful for their goal. Terrible decision.

Lennon was pretty good, not his best, but his control of the ball is mesmeric at times and his work protecting his fullback is superb.

Huddlestone was pretty good, but could've been more involved. Some lovely passes and good corners.

Carroll showed that he has great passing range both long and short, and he knows when to use each. He isn't afraid to try something and hence was heavily involved in our attacks, and he's very aware of the play around him. Not sure if he's ready to do that against good opposition, but at least he has the ability. If its between him and Jake for a spot this weekend, I choose him. I maybe even choose him over Hudd if Sandro returns.

Bale was superb with great running and superb crossing. I disagree with Bc, I think he played countless superb crosses and deserved another couple if assists. Not wasteful at all.

Defoe was poor in everything but finishing, where he scored with every chance he had I think. I can live with that in a 442.

Adebayor was exactly what he should be. Strong, fast, creative, hard working. I wish he wasn't so scared of shooting though. Well played and I hope to see him with Defoe next time too.

Dempsey came on and actually managed to frustrate in so few minutes.

Mason and Falque both had no time to do anything. Mason should've been allowed a central spot when he came on though.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Given that Ade drops deep and links play anyway, what's the point in playing this not quite midfielder, not quite forward when we don't have a good one of those. Fair enough when it's a genius like Vdv, but Dempsey and Sig are to VDV what spam is to steak.

 

[JimmyG2]

Given that Ade drops deep and links play anyway, what's the point in playing this not quite midfielder, not quite forward when we don't have a good one of those. Fair enough when it's a genius like Vdv, but Dempsey and Sig are to VDV what spam is to steak.

Could you rephrase that for us vegetarians?
What Iceberg lettuce is to Swiss Chard perhaps.

 

[steve]

I don't follow you? I meant AVB's influence both in the sense that he changed the set-up and picked the team, both of which had a positive influence, and in the sense that from the speed and regularity with which Carroll (to name but one) found Bale (in contrast with what has happened in recent games) I inferred that this looked to be a deliberate instruction from AVB. I didn't mean influence, as in the wider influence he may or may not have had on the club and team since he joined us.

On the Defoe thing, we've all been tearing our hair out that when Ade has been fit and available he's nevertheless not got the game time. Some have argued that Adebayor should play instead of Defoe, however given that AVB has been determined to play Defoe come what may, the secondary argument has been then Adebayor (when fit) should have been playing rather than Dempsey. There's been an argument about 442/4231, about the players picked for each, and the benefits of each approach. This is what I was referring to.

But that's why the opposition and taking them into account is important. I can't believe that AVB (or Redknapp before him) didn't want the ball moved out to Bale as quickly as possible as often as possible before yesterday - they know his quality and ability to be a match winner. You said 'you thought you saw AVB's influence all over the game' but then said 'we shouldn't draw too firm a conclusion from a game against weaker opposition' when discussing 442. I'm wary of reading too much into last night - do you think things would've been starkly different if the team was picked by Harry for example? Or another manager?

We've seen Dawson try and hit Bale plenty before this season and I think Carroll just played his natural game (short crisp passing and looking for space to receive the ball) that we saw last season (he's improved with age but he's also playing in a better side than he did last year). Carroll's a leftie it's more natural to him to play towards Bale than it is the other way.

I'm not seeing a huge change from last season if I'm honest. He's stuck to a system (apart from yesterday ironically) which H didn't and we've pressed well sporadically but we did that at times last season too. I think it's gonna take a bit longer to see a tangible difference in AVB's approach and even then it will take some player changes to really notice them.

He's played Defoe up front alone because he's not had much option - he knows (as did H) that it's not a long term option you would've thought. Now Ade's fit we should see him play either both together or Ade alone apart from against really weak opposition.

 

[Stavrogin]

Given that Ade drops deep and links play anyway, what's the point in playing this not quite midfielder, not quite forward when we don't have a good one of those. Fair enough when it's a genius like Vdv, but Dempsey and Sig are to VDV what spam is to steak.

This is what people have been saying - we're getting next to nothing from Sig/Dempsey in that role. Using Adebayor there is no loss and has a lot of benefits, even if he doesn't take to it so well.

 

[sloth]

But that's why the opposition and taking them into account is important. I can't believe that AVB (or Redknapp before him) didn't want the ball moved out to Bale as quickly as possible as often as possible before yesterday - they know his quality and ability to be a match winner. You said 'you thought you saw AVB's influence all over the game' but then said 'we shouldn't draw too firm a conclusion from a game against weaker opposition' when discussing 442. I'm wary of reading too much into last night - do you think things would've been starkly different if the team was picked by Harry for example? Or another manager?

We've seen Dawson try and hit Bale plenty before this season and I think Carroll just played his natural game (short crisp passing and looking for space to receive the ball) that we saw last season (he's improved with age but he's also playing in a better side than he did last year). Carroll's a leftie it's more natural to him to play towards Bale than it is the other way.

I'm not seeing a huge change from last season if I'm honest. He's stuck to a system (apart from yesterday ironically) which H didn't and we've pressed well sporadically but we did that at times last season too. I think it's gonna take a bit longer to see a tangible difference in AVB's approach and even then it will take some player changes to really notice them.

He's played Defoe up front alone because he's not had much option - he knows (as did H) that it's not a long term option you would've thought. Now Ade's fit we should see him play either both together or Ade alone apart from against really weak opposition.

Possibly, possibly not. But let's for argument sake, imagine another manager making exactly the same decisions, with the same outcomes, then I'd have said "you could see <insert managers name> influence all over the game."

Or alternatively let's imagine we'd set-up the same way as we had in the previous game, played the same players, and failed to get the balls out to Bale or Lennon in the same frustrating fashion, then I wouldn't have been saying you could see AVB's influence all over that game.

Or alternatively, if he'd made all the changes and nothing improved, and we showed the same failings I wouldn't have been commenting on the manager's influence.

I suppose, to be clearer, I should have said you could see the things that AVB had done since the last game and the positive impact they had on our performance in this game, in which case then there could have been no doubt about what I meant...

Although as far as I can tell you are the only one who thought I was making some spurious comparison between AVB's regime and Harry's...

 

[Blake Griffin]

not appreciating the lack of poll again.

 

[steve]

Possibly, possibly not. But let's for argument sake, imagine another manager making exactly the same decisions, with the same outcomes, then I'd have said "you could see <insert managers name> influence all over the game."

Or alternatively let's imagine we'd set-up the same way as we had in the previous game, played the same players, and failed to get the balls out to Bale or Lennon in the same frustrating fashion, then I wouldn't have been saying you could see AVB's influence all over that game.

Or alternatively, if he'd made all the changes and nothing improved, and we showed the same failings I wouldn't have been commenting on the manager's influence.

I suppose, to be clearer, I should have said you could see the things that AVB had done since the last game and the positive impact they had on our performance in this game, in which case then there could have been no doubt about what I meant...

Although as far as I can tell you are the only one who thought I was making some spurious comparison between AVB's regime and Harry's...

Not at all. I used H as he was our last manager and after 4 years it was his team pretty much. If we're looking at AVB's influence on a team then it's natural to compare to what went before surely? In terms of style and tactics (apart from the obvious shortfall in top players from last season) I'm not seeing to date a huge difference.

If you're comparing to the previous game or games then fair enough - I still think the opposition is a huge caveat though.

 

[sloth]

Not at all. I used H as he was our last manager and after 4 years it was his team pretty much. If we're looking at AVB's influence on a team then it's natural to compare to what went before surely? In terms of style and tactics (apart from the obvious shortfall in top players from last season) I'm not seeing to date a huge difference.

If you're comparing to the previous game or games then fair enough - I still think the opposition is a huge caveat though.

Steve, there may or may not be a difference between AVB and Redknapp, but seeing as I haven't once compared them in this thread, I'm not sure why you're acting as if I have.

I get the strong feeling you're not, for some reason, getting what I'm saying, and the thing is I don't know how to say it more explicitly than I already have. It seems like you think I'm making some wider point about AVB's influence on the team since he joined us, as if you think I'm trying to draw a wider conclusion on his coaching, philosophy, whatever, based on last night's game. Just to be absolutely clear, that is not what I'm doing. I am simply saying that the decisions AVB took last night (and for the purposes of my point, only last night) were apparent in the various ways I listed.