Ratings vs Chelsea

[Bus-Conductor]

Look forward to the full analysis when it comes, meantime just wanted to comment on this bit. Basically some coaches can take credit for what they do on the training pitch, for the attitude and cohesion they instil in the team quite apart from whichever tactics they choose for this or that game. Whatever you eventually think of his tactics, Poch should get a high mark for what he's done with our team so far.

OK Slothy, I've done the first 45 minutes and here are some of my thoughts.

I think the first fifteen minutes it was a very even, tight tussle. Chelsea then scored and dominated the next 10 minutes. We then dominated the next 10 and got ourselves back into the game. The last 10 of the half were pretty even, but in the last 2 minutes we completely changed the game by scoring two goals.

In terms of team selection I don't think Pochettino can be criticised given who was available and who he picked and how the performed in that first half. Townsend was involved in some key moments, which is good, but made a mess of most of them (bad through ball for Chadli, wasting the ball played through to him by Chadli, wasting a good ball played in to him by Rose, a poor cross into the box in a good situation). Then he steps up and drills his penalty cooly into the corner.

On reflection Danny Rose actually had, bar the first goal incident, an exceptionally good half. You could even make a case for him being one of the best players in the first half. Good selection by Pochettino. It also seemed as if Pochettino had drilled Chadli into helping out better than he had first half against ManU when he'd been pretty poor and maybe thought Rose would be good to counter Chelsea's more attacking full back, If we'd have played the more reluctant Davies, this could have encouraged Ivanovic forward. I do think Chriches would have been a better foil for Townsend though, like Corluka used to be for Lennon, a better balance of brain/pace/defending. Walker made several typical unforced errors that first half, from the first minutes horrible heavy touch, a couple of poor give away passes and a poor give away header, all unforced. He did defend well on a couple of occasions too though. But on another day, with Hazard over there, he could have been punished.

Unrelated random thought, watching that again. I've compared Fazio to Dawson so far, and he can look a bit flat footed at times and does have a dopey moment in him, but he actually reads the game very well, better than Dawson I think, there are many times when he's positionally got himself in the right place, made good decisions that avert danger. Still not totally convinced he's a long term solution, this league is getting faster and cleverer.

This was one game where the formation wasn't too much of an issue, as both manager prefer the 4231. Pochettino was brave to trust the two kids against the best CM2 in the league, but our two are both quick, dynamic footballers who can also play football. I liked his faith in these two, but I also think the Mason injury could have been a blessing in disguise. Dembele is more positionally disciplined, and in a game like this, played at a ferocious tempo I was actually grateful for his calmness on the ball, and where Mason can be a bit wasteful in his exuberance, Dembele was sure footed, didn't get flustered, shrugged off a challenge and picked a pass, whilst also competing tenaciously.

So to summarise, selections were by and large pretty good, especially Rose, we were pretty well organised and prepared, competed well, pressed OK in the middle third, played with a decent tempo and matched Chelsea for the most part. I think if we'd come off level I wouldn't have had too many grumbles on the balance of play and chances. Tactically we were pretty good though. And the sub was an excellent choice, that on this occasion, although forced somewhat, his choice of who to bring on of the three CM's he had on the bench, was the right one and had a positive impact.

 

[mpickard2087]

On reflection Danny Rose actually had, bar the first goal incident, an exceptionally good half. You could even make a case for him being one of the best players in the first half. Good selection by Pochettino.

I thought this too. He did have a torrid time for the goal, which is always going to cloud judgements, but I couldn't believe some of the stick he was getting throughout the first half and getting criticised every time he touched the ball when it flew in the face of what was happening in the actual game.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

But is it not reasonable to expect a lot of mixed performances, sporadic signs of quality/cohesion etc in the opening months under a new manager trying to implement his ideas?

I think yesterdays result, and performance, could be very significant for Pochettino. Not just for the obvious shot of confidence and belief it gives, but also the confidence it will probably give them in Pochettino.

Yes, it is. Absolutely. But what I can't do is lie and say I can see method in everything I'm seeing. Are we supposed to assume things based on Pochettino's track record ? Maybe. But I wasn't always totally convinced by Pochettino in the past, so how much do I assume ?

In terms of team selection, Pochettino is much more astute than Sherwood, who was so incompetent and counter intuitive at times it was unbelievable. But tactically, the way games play out, there has been very little concrete evidence of superiority consistently on display. Games have been messy, open, disorganised, featuring poor movement, lazy work ethic etc etc.

We have rarely seen a game, or two games running where a clear identity or pattern has been overtly evident. We have rarely pressed well for longer than 10 minutes, we have rarely kept the ball well for longer than 20 minute phases.

I'm hopeful this is just part of the work in progress phase, I'd be suspicious if it happened quickly to be honest, but I don't have a great oeuvre to look back on. He's not LVG or Gus Hiddink where you have 20 years of continual philosophy at various places to back up the theory.

 

[sloth]

I haven't watched the game again yet but in all honesty based on everything I've seen so far, including his time at Southampton, and as much as I really want to buy into Pochettino, I still haven't had that epiphany.

I think I'm seeing us press high up, as a collective in brief 10 minute spells, occasionally (often at the start and end of games)and sometimes we've been well organised (Southampton, Everton) but I'm seeing loads of games that we are wide open, have been outplayed for really large spells, and not just in midfield but teams have got into our box and created good chances, and not just good teams but really ordinary ones and for sustained periods of games.

I am seeing us play phases of good tempo progressive football, but I'm also seeing phases of disorientated, incoherent and lazy football.

Are we supposed to take it on trust that because this is Pochettino there's some method to this, but when it's Sherwood we assume it's tactical naivety ?

I really don't know if I'm seeing a team gleening the benefit of a a good training regime that has instilled stamina. Under AVB we would often dominate the game - with so called meaningless possession - and then find a late winner. Under Pochettino we often start well, are pretty hapless for the middle of the game then finish well. Is this part of the grand plan ? I fins it hard to believe.

If this is all part of the grand plan, and what we are seeing is good habits beginning to pay off, whilst we get away with mistakes, then groovy, but there are times when games seem totally shambolic, with no discipline, no cohesion and no coherent strategy, and then Eriksen scores.

Even that game yesterday there were several moments where it could have turned on an incident. We played with verve and gusto at times, but we were deadly, they weren't, but play and chances were pretty even.

Same with the manU game, we could have been buried by half time. Leicester we should have been as well. But against ManU we were clearly the better side second half, pressed well, were more cohesive and finished much the stronger team.

I've always tended to look at overall performances as indicators for identity and pointers for the future. Whist there are (big) crumbs of comfort to be had so far, there are plenty of scary phases too, and I' really not sure how to read it all. Could be the short term pain for long term gain or it could be a guy who doesn't quite have a 90 minute strategy or who does have a 90 min strategy but is not quite sure how to tactically pull it off.

Balanced against this, and just to make things more confusing, this league gets tougher and tougher IMO. Big money is filtering all the way down and teams/managers/coaches are becoming generally more clued up in every aspect of the game the coaching, the tactics, the science.

Is some of what we are seeing - and the whole league seems to be seeing it in some really strange results - just the quality gap narrowing and games getting harder and harder to tactically manage and dominate, with even the lesser teams having the financial wherewithal to buy match winning players that can alter results.

Sunday's match was a performance I haven't seen previously from a Spurs team. It was exciting for the determination and collective will of the team not to be steam-rollered, to keep working even when we went down, to be organised to keep our discipline when we didn't have the ball, and for that to apply as equally to the more wishy-washy players like Townsend and Eriksen, as the harder working ones such as Kane and Walker. We not only set out to nullify them however, we had the ambition and the bravery to punch back. That performance spoke of self-belief, a realisation that they could work for 90 minutes, and that if they just managed to keep the pressure up then even teams of the suavity of Chelsea might crack. yes we scored five due to moments of individual or collective brilliance, but in fact that's how all great teams score their goals. We conceded three because Chelsea had moments of individual and collective brilliance too. Along the way there was some sloppiness and occasional lapses of concentration, and maybe next time we'd lose the match, draw it or win it by a different score, but win,lose, or draw, play like that through a season and I'm happy.

What none of us can know is whether it's a new dawn, or a false one, but I'm satisfied that in this match at least we saw the fruits of Pochettino's methods, and that they were quite distinct from anything we ever saw under AVB or Sherwood.

 

[stemark44]

Anyone know what system we played throughout the game....up until Townsend went off looked like a 4-4-1-1....not sure what we played after that due to nervous excitement.
Anyone any ideas?

 

[Mr Pink]

Yes, it is. Absolutely. But what I can't do is lie and say I can see method in everything I'm seeing. Are we supposed to assume things based on Pochettino's track record ? Maybe. But I wasn't always totally convinced by Pochettino in the past, so how much do I assume ?

In terms of team selection, Pochettino is much more astute than Sherwood, who was so incompetent and counter intuitive at times it was unbelievable. But tactically, the way games play out, there has been very little concrete evidence of superiority consistently on display. Games have been messy, open, disorganised, featuring poor movement, lazy work ethic etc etc.

We have rarely seen a game, or two games running where a clear identity or pattern has been overtly evident. We have rarely pressed well for longer than 10 minutes, we have rarely kept the ball well for longer than 20 minute phases.

I'm hopeful this is just part of the work in progress phase, I'd be suspicious if it happened quickly to be honest, but I don't have a great oeuvre to look back on. He's not LVG or Gus Hiddink where you have 20 years of continual philosophy at various places to back up the theory.

Absolutely.

I think the first few months have also been about identifying who has the right attitude more than anything, Rose comments yesterday back this up.

The nucleus of the team has changed as a result, and that's significant in assessing what's been achieved so far IMO.

I think we will see more cohesion and the things you highlight above, as he's seems to have identified that nucleus/spine now and with more games and time on the training pitch things should start to come together more in the coming weeks/months.

 

[jonathanhotspur]

Anyone know what system we played throughout the game....up until Townsend went off looked like a 4-4-1-1....not sure what we played after that due to nervous excitement.
Anyone any ideas?

Looked like a 4-3-3/4-5-1 in the latter stages of the game but I could be wrong. Paulinho was quite good in possession but stood around holding his cock too much when we were under the cosh.

Sunday's match was a performance I haven't seen previously from a Spurs team. It was exciting for the determination and collective will of the team not to be steam-rollered, to keep working even when we went down, to be organised to keep our discipline when we didn't have the ball, and for that to apply as equally to the more wishy-washy players like Townsend and Eriksen, as the harder working ones such as Kane and Walker. We not only set out to nullify them however, we had the ambition and the bravery to punch back. That performance spoke of self-belief, a realisation that they could work for 90 minutes, and that if they just managed to keep the pressure up then even teams of the suavity of Chelsea might crack. yes we scored five due to moments of individual or collective brilliance, but in fact that's how all great teams score their goals. We conceded three because Chelsea had moments of individual and collective brilliance too. Along the way there was some sloppiness and occasional lapses of concentration, and maybe next time we'd lose the match, draw it or win it by a different score, but win,lose, or draw, play like that through a season and I'm happy.

What none of us can know is whether it's a new dawn, or a false one, but I'm satisfied that in this match at least we saw the fruits of Pochettino's methods, and that they were quite distinct from anything we ever saw under AVB or Sherwood.

I think we can put to bed the notion that we might consistently run out of gas after 60 minutes.

 

[Mr Pink]

I have to say as well, having re-watched the game, sober, Rose was exceptional.

 

[whitestreak]

I also re-watched the mach, think our ratings for this match have been......... harsh. We just walloped Chel53a. It was a team game. Surely since no Mourinho Chel53a side have ever conceded more than 3, we can be a bit more expansive?
Without detracting from
Kane Chadli, Bentaleb...all 10 from me,
Eriksen Lloris Dembele Verts, 9
Fazio Rose Townsend ,8
Walker 7...still not match fit!

 

[Firsttouch]

I don't think it was because if you go back to the away game at Chelsea when we again gifted them 3 goals, the defence got slammed in the ratings. Yet because we scored 5, the 3 mistakes seem to have been ignored. We're lucky it wasn't 5-4 and a nail biting finish after Ramires' went inches wide, and not forgetting the great save by Lloris. Plus we're not going to score 5 goals every week and we can't afford for our defence to be gifting teams goals.

Sorry mate despite the scoreline that was for me the best team performance I've seen us play for a few years. And not only did we do it against one of the strongest teams in Europe...... we scored 5 which our defence gave us the platform to do so if they had played so badly against Fabregas Costa Willian and the amazing Hazard would of ruined us all game long, it's a team performance where you give credit to all 11 players.

How can you compare the performance of us when we lost 3-0 nil to this colossus win?

 

[ibbz]

As soon as Soldado goes Kane should take the number 9 shirt...scoring two goals against Chelsea is confirmation that Harry Kane has come of age.

He wears 18 which belonged to Jurgen

 

[TEESSIDE1]

Sorry mate despite the scoreline that was for me the best team performance I've seen us play for a few years. And not only did we do it against one of the strongest teams in Europe...... we scored 5 which our defence gave us the platform to do so if they had played so badly against Fabregas Costa Willian and the amazing Hazard would of ruined us all game long, it's a team performance where you give credit to all 11 players.

How can you compare the performance of us when we lost 3-0 nil to this colossus win?

I've commended the midfield and the attacking players for their tenacity and offensive play, but it still doesn't change the fact that we gifted Chelsea 3 goals, and if it wasn't for Lloris' great save and Ramires' shot some how going wide, it would have been 5-5 and we would be lamenting our defensive frailties.

 

[double0]

I've commended the midfield and the attacking players for their tenacity and offensive play, but it still doesn't change the fact that we gifted Chelsea 3 goals, and if it wasn't for Lloris' great save and Ramires' shot some how going wide, it would have been 5-5 and we would be lamenting our defensive frailties.

But none of those things happened and we won 5-3 (if's and maybe's)

 

[TEESSIDE1]

But none of those things happened and we won 5-3 (if's and maybe's)

We did win 5-3 and produced some excellent attacking play, but some people are acting like we destroyed them when in fact we rode our luck at the back and made some silly mistakes, giving away 3 unnecessary goals, and we're extremely lucky it wasn't 4 or 5.

 

[JimmyG2]

Looked like a 4-3-3/4-5-1 in the latter stages of the game but I could be wrong. Paulinho was quite good in possession but stood around holding his cock too much when we were under the cosh.


I've watched it twice and missed that both times.

 

[Bulletspur]

I've commended the midfield and the attacking players for their tenacity and offensive play, but it still doesn't change the fact that we gifted Chelsea 3 goals, and if it wasn't for Lloris' great save and Ramires' shot some how going wide, it would have been 5-5 and we would be lamenting our defensive frailties.

We did win 5-3 and produced some excellent attacking play, but some people are acting like we destroyed them when in fact we rode our luck at the back and made some silly mistakes, giving away 3 unnecessary goals, and we're extremely lucky it wasn't 4 or 5.

You keep on harping on about whata coulda shoulda for Chelsea without applying the same to Spurs. For every other goals they could have scored we had missed chances as well. If results of matches were based on the inclusion near misses, then the EPL table would not be as it is now, Burnley would probably be on top followed by us (Soldado's misses!).

In all seriousness, had we been defending a 2-1 lead do you honestly think we would have given away those two last goals? I don't, they were as a result of swagger (Fazio) over confidence and complacency, three issues that can readily be addressed.

It was a comprehensive 5-3 to the Spurs, savour the moment!

 

[cliff jones]

I haven't watched the game again yet but in all honesty based on everything I've seen so far, including his time at Southampton, and as much as I really want to buy into Pochettino, I still haven't had that epiphany.

I think I'm seeing us press high up, as a collective in brief 10 minute spells, occasionally (often at the start and end of games)and sometimes we've been well organised (Southampton, Everton) but I'm seeing loads of games that we are wide open, have been outplayed for really large spells, and not just in midfield but teams have got into our box and created good chances, and not just good teams but really ordinary ones and for sustained periods of games.

I am seeing us play phases of good tempo progressive football, but I'm also seeing phases of disorientated, incoherent and lazy football.

Are we supposed to take it on trust that because this is Pochettino there's some method to this, but when it's Sherwood we assume it's tactical naivety ?

I really don't know if I'm seeing a team gleening the benefit of a a good training regime that has instilled stamina. Under AVB we would often dominate the game - with so called meaningless possession - and then find a late winner. Under Pochettino we often start well, are pretty hapless for the middle of the game then finish well. Is this part of the grand plan ? I fins it hard to believe.

If this is all part of the grand plan, and what we are seeing is good habits beginning to pay off, whilst we get away with mistakes, then groovy, but there are times when games seem totally shambolic, with no discipline, no cohesion and no coherent strategy, and then Eriksen scores.

Even that game yesterday there were several moments where it could have turned on an incident. We played with verve and gusto at times, but we were deadly, they weren't, but play and chances were pretty even.

Same with the manU game, we could have been buried by half time. Leicester we should have been as well. But against ManU we were clearly the better side second half, pressed well, were more cohesive and finished much the stronger team.

I've always tended to look at overall performances as indicators for identity and pointers for the future. Whist there are (big) crumbs of comfort to be had so far, there are plenty of scary phases too, and I' really not sure how to read it all. Could be the short term pain for long term gain or it could be a guy who doesn't quite have a 90 minute strategy or who does have a 90 min strategy but is not quite sure how to tactically pull it off.

Balanced against this, and just to make things more confusing, this league gets tougher and tougher IMO. Big money is filtering all the way down and teams/managers/coaches are becoming generally more clued up in every aspect of the game the coaching, the tactics, the science.

Is some of what we are seeing - and the whole league seems to be seeing it in some really strange results - just the quality gap narrowing and games getting harder and harder to tactically manage and dominate, with even the lesser teams having the financial wherewithal to buy match winning players that can alter results.

Overall I certainly share your doubts, but my main doubt about Poch repeatedly selecting Kaboul, Capoue and to a lesser extent Ade despite glaringly obvious and costly mistakes has for now gone away. Their replacements have done really well by comparison.

I've clicked disagree because I feel your expectations are unreasonably high. I've lost count of the number of times the top teams go away to a lower team and nick a win from a set piece, in spite of being outplayed. You subsequently contradict yourself slightly in suggesting that lower teams are getting better and better, which surely means we deserve even more credit for managing to prevail over the likes of Swansea?

And so what if Chelsea might well have nicked a win or a draw the other day, I thought we were much the better team and so do 99 per cent of neutrals.

More critical to our final points haul is working out how to beat the park the bus teams at home, with better off the ball movement and risk taking required.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

@sloth

OK Slothy, I've done the first 45 minutes and here are some of my thoughts.

I think the first fifteen minutes it was a very even, tight tussle. Chelsea then scored and dominated the next 10 minutes. We then dominated the next 10 and got ourselves back into the game. The last 10 of the half were pretty even, but in the last 2 minutes we completely changed the game by scoring two goals.

In terms of team selection I don't think Pochettino can be criticised given who was available and who he picked and how the performed in that first half. Townsend was involved in some key moments, which is good, but made a mess of most of them (bad through ball for Chadli, wasting the ball played through to him by Chadli, wasting a good ball played in to him by Rose, a poor cross into the box in a good situation). Then he steps up and drills his penalty cooly into the corner.

On reflection Danny Rose actually had, bar the first goal incident, an exceptionally good half. You could even make a case for him being one of the best players in the first half. Good selection by Pochettino. It also seemed as if Pochettino had drilled Chadli into helping out better than he had first half against ManU when he'd been pretty poor and maybe thought Rose would be good to counter Chelsea's more attacking full back, If we'd have played the more reluctant Davies, this could have encouraged Ivanovic forward. I do think Chriches would have been a better foil for Townsend though, like Corluka used to be for Lennon, a better balance of brain/pace/defending. Walker made several typical unforced errors that first half, from the first minutes horrible heavy touch, a couple of poor give away passes and a poor give away header, all unforced. He did defend well on a couple of occasions too though. But on another day, with Hazard over there, he could have been punished.

Unrelated random thought, watching that again. I've compared Fazio to Dawson so far, and he can look a bit flat footed at times and does have a dopey moment in him, but he actually reads the game very well, better than Dawson I think, there are many times when he's positionally got himself in the right place, made good decisions that avert danger. Still not totally convinced he's a long term solution, this league is getting faster and cleverer.

This was one game where the formation wasn't too much of an issue, as both manager prefer the 4231. Pochettino was brave to trust the two kids against the best CM2 in the league, but our two are both quick, dynamic footballers who can also play football. I liked his faith in these two, but I also think the Mason injury could have been a blessing in disguise. Dembele is more positionally disciplined, and in a game like this, played at a ferocious tempo I was actually grateful for his calmness on the ball, and where Mason can be a bit wasteful in his exuberance, Dembele was sure footed, didn't get flustered, shrugged off a challenge and picked a pass, whilst also competing tenaciously.

So to summarise, selections were by and large pretty good, especially Rose, we were pretty well organised and prepared, competed well, pressed OK in the middle third, played with a decent tempo and matched Chelsea for the most part. I think if we'd come off level I wouldn't have had too many grumbles on the balance of play and chances. Tactically we were pretty good though. And the sub was an excellent choice, that on this occasion, although forced somewhat, his choice of who to bring on of the three CM's he had on the bench, was the right one and had a positive impact.

Ok, did the second half last night.

I think the second half followed a similar pattern to the first in many ways. Until the final few minutes the game ebbed and flowed, with no team really getting on top, both teams displayed good and bad tactical application, which you could put down to a number of factors including the fact that Chelsea now had no option but to attack and have some great offensive players, and both had played a number of games over the christmas period. Both teams showed signs of good organisation and some coached requirement to close and press, but on this night, both also showed some really poor defensive discipline.

This game very much swung on the moments inside each box. Chelsea had as many if not more chances as us, second half there was Ramires, Aspilacieta, Hazard, Salah, Fabregas who all had chances as good or better than the ones we had, luckily for us the moments that mattered we delivered the quality finish and they didn't.

The fact that we matched them all over the pitch, meant this was not a flukey win, just one where we came out on top in the important moments in an otherwise very even, fiercely contested but often pretty open, game.

To win an 8 goal thriller against a team of the quality of Chelsea is obviously going to have it's highlights, but this game could have been 7-7, defensively it was often an absolute mess from both teams.

Townsend was actually abysmal in the second half, hardly involved, defensively slack and his most noticeable two contributions were to give the ball away carelessly (once with a stupid attempted blind back heel) to put Chelsea on the attack.

I think plaudits for Townsend mostly come from his willingness to get involved and carry the ball at defenders, fans like this, because it promises them something, but once again, in a game where everyone was making hay, Townsend actually crafted virtually nothing of quality.

Having watched the game again, two players who stood out for me, and in hindsight deserve as much credit as Kane and Chadli who deservedly took plenty of glory, were Bentaleb and Vertonghen.

Vertonghen's reading of the game and situations saw him fly in and break up and immediately launch two attacks that lead to goals, this is absolutely integral to what Pochettino wants/needs I think, this is the pay off for the occasional bad thing that Vertonghen does, his ability to not just read and react but to then play a progressive and accurate pass that cuts out a midfield and launches an attack. He like everyone, went to sleep for the third goal, but other than that he had an outstanding game.

Bentaleb did nothing glorious, but was just at it for the whole 90 minutes and I don't think I've seen a game where he was so tenacious, I am sure Pochettino has started to work some of that "Schniederlin (see his interview)" magic on him. Again, he wasn't foot perfect but I still find it astounding that a kid of his age and experience, can play in such a pivotal position on the pitch and do so with such maturity and efficiency and almost quiet authority.

It's really hard to weigh up a game with so many chances and goals tactically. A game which no one team ever really controlled with or without the ball. Both teams showed signs of a coached ethos to press and work coherently, but what we also seemed to get, aided (or hindered) by fatigue (mentally especially) was a group of attackers continually getting the better of any defensive good intentions.

Tactically, I would say there are clear signs of intentions by the players to carry out some coached methodology, to press as a group, to counter quickly and in this game, bizarrely given the scoreline, we maintained it for longer phases than we have in most other games recently, but when we got it wrong we got it horribly wrong (as we have recently) and against a side of devastating attacking quality who exploited it to make a plethora of chances.

As a pure smash bang spectacle, I haven't witnessed too many more crazy, enjoyable games. Tactically it was a veritable smorgasbord. Some treats, some pickled herring.