Match Ratings Ratings vs Chelsea

[Bus-Conductor]

Not overly responding to these specific posts, but more continuing the discussion with the both of you, I'm also a huge advocate of the 433.

I guess my argument for placing Eriksen in one of the midfield three is that to my mind, even if we lost his assists, it puts him in the part of the pitch where he is going to be hardest for opposition players to stifle as he'll be able to go wherever he wants as the spare man of that three, and that licence will allow him to do what he does best, create space. Essentially let him be our Modric/ Iniesta. Because of his instincts he'll end up bursting forward with the attacks anyway, but I feel he will influence play far more.

Then, further up the pitch his spot could open up to someone pacier like Son, and we'd have the best of both worlds. In effect it wouldn't be far different to the 4231, but it would allow Eriksen more of the pitch to play with than when he's shafted wide in that system. In fact, my ideal would be if ultimately in a 433 both Dele and Eriksen dropped back, I think with the mileage they cover and the combination of Dele's energy and Eriksen's intelligence, a solid Wanyama (or even Dier as just a pure Anchor) behind would not sacrifice our solidity, but allow us to play with far more adventure going forward. Admittedly this might be a by product of an unhealthy obsession with Guardiola's Barcelona, but I think a 433 negates the need for someone like Dembele at a midfield ball holder and allows more adventure.

Wanyama
Eriksen_____ Dele
Lamela ________ Son
Kane
​

Seems ludicrous to suggest that both Eriksen and Dele are dropped deeper than their current positions, but I think the overall effect would be a faster moving attack without sacrificing solidity or ball retention, and less dependence on the full backs to produce all our delivery into the box.

Onions though, preparing for you both to tear me apart/ call me naive...

That is almost certainly how we'd line up if Guardiola was our coach. Wouldn't work for me though. Alli is far too careless with the ball and I think, I don't even trust him with it as an AN let alone a CM, and as with Guardiola's City where he's dropping AM's like Silva and DeBruyne back into his CM3 there, it will be massively compromised.

And I think Eriksen is involved in more goals (goals/assists) than any other am in the league playing the way he does and he still sees as much ball as a cm which I think we couldn't replicate and is vital to our final third play as we have no one else as composed in that final third, Kane, Alli, Son and Lamela are all bumblers.

My ideal would have been to keep Onomah and have him or him and Winks or Dembele off a central stabiliser (Wanyama) and play what we did Sunday.

 

[mpickard2087]

Not overly responding to these specific posts, but more continuing the discussion with the both of you, I'm also a huge advocate of the 433.

I guess my argument for placing Eriksen in one of the midfield three is that to my mind, even if we lost his assists, it puts him in the part of the pitch where he is going to be hardest for opposition players to stifle as he'll be able to go wherever he wants as the spare man of that three, and that licence will allow him to do what he does best, create space. Essentially let him be our Modric/ Iniesta. Because of his instincts he'll end up bursting forward with the attacks anyway, but I feel he will influence play far more.

Then, further up the pitch his spot could open up to someone pacier like Son, and we'd have the best of both worlds. In effect it wouldn't be far different to the 4231, but it would allow Eriksen more of the pitch to play with than when he's shafted wide in that system. In fact, my ideal would be if ultimately in a 433 both Dele and Eriksen dropped back, I think with the mileage they cover and the combination of Dele's energy and Eriksen's intelligence, a solid Wanyama (or even Dier as just a pure Anchor) behind would not sacrifice our solidity, but allow us to play with far more adventure going forward. Admittedly this might be a by product of an unhealthy obsession with Guardiola's Barcelona, but I think a 433 negates the need for someone like Dembele at a midfield ball holder and allows more adventure.

Wanyama
Eriksen_____ Dele
Lamela ________ Son
Kane
​

Seems ludicrous to suggest that both Eriksen and Dele are dropped deeper than their current positions, but I think the overall effect would be a faster moving attack without sacrificing solidity or ball retention, and less dependence on the full backs to produce all our delivery into the box.

Onions though, preparing for you both to tear me apart/ call me naive...

That is almost certainly how we'd line up if Guardiola was our coach. Wouldn't work for me though. Alli is far too careless with the ball and I think, I don't even trust him with it as an AN let alone a CM, and as with Guardiola's City where he's dropping AM's like Silva and DeBruyne back into his CM3 there, it will be massively compromised.

And I think Eriksen is involved in more goals (goals/assists) than any other am in the league playing the way he does and he still sees as much ball as a cm which I think we couldn't replicate and is vital to our final third play as we have no one else as composed in that final third, Kane, Alli, Son and Lamela are all bumblers.

My ideal would have been to keep Onomah and have him or him and Winks or Dembele off a central stabiliser (Wanyama) and play what we did Sunday.

I haven't got any problem with that in principle, BBLG. There are plenty of games where I would go with just the single 'pivot' midfielder and go with a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1, especially against teams parking the bus. Eriksen wouldn't be too deep as we would be having a lot of the game in advanced areas anyway.

I'd change your line-up slightly (and I think it would be used against the very weakest teams we would face).

Wanyama
Eriksen Lamela
Son Kane Alli
​

I'd think it better to have the two creative types seeing lots of ball in the central areas and then have Son and Alli in the forward line playing off Kane, doing what they do best in and around the box, and all three rotating.

There are a number of combo's that you could go with though, Winks could easily play there e.g.:

Wanyama
Winks Eriksen
Then Three Forwards
​

And I think there are even some games where you could have Dembele in the 'pivot' role holding the fort and no need for a Wanyama or Dier at all (that's also the case for the 4-2-3-1, I'd like to see Winks/Dembele CM2 at some point).

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I haven't got any problem with that in principle, BBLG. There are plenty of games where I would go with just the single 'pivot' midfielder and go with a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1, especially against teams parking the bus. Eriksen wouldn't be too deep as we would be having a lot of the game in advanced areas anyway.

I'd change your line-up slightly (and I think it would be used against the very weakest teams we would face).

Wanyama
Eriksen Lamela
Son Kane Alli
​

I'd think it better to have the two creative types seeing lots of ball in the central areas and then have Son and Alli in the forward line playing off Kane, doing what they do best in and around the box, and all three rotating.

There are a number of combo's that you could go with though, Winks could easily play there e.g.:

Wanyama
Winks Eriksen
Then Three Forwards
​

And I think there are even some games where you could have Dembele in the 'pivot' role holding the fort and no need for a Wanama or Dier at all (that's also the case for the 4-2-3-1, I'd like to see Winks/Dembele CM2 at some point).

I like both of the se line ups, and have often thought Lamela could be used there too as he has both the work rate and the ball control to adapt if coached, my only concern is that, while Eriksen is expert at assessing all options before delivering, Lamela is at his best when it's all instinct (see Eriksens winner v City at the Etihad). I also don't know what his longer distance passing is like.

Dembele as the deepest player also crosses my mind, especially as his mobility is on the slide. When we dominate possession and camp in opposition territory, having a DM who will carry the ball 40 yards up the pitch from his own area would be invaluable as it would allow the two CMs in the formation to camp higher up.

I think what I want to see Dele develop in terms of 433 is into that 'Lampard' style spare man in the 3, ghosting in Martin Peters style. I guess I like that both him and Eriksen in the 433 would be further away from the opposition defensive players, allowing them to create space for more direct players in front of them.

 

[mpickard2087]

I like both of the se line ups, and have often thought Lamela could be used there too as he has both the work rate and the ball control to adapt if coached, my only concern is that, while Eriksen is expert at assessing all options before delivering, Lamela is at his best when it's all instinct (see Eriksens winner v City at the Etihad). I also don't know what his longer distance passing is like.

Dembele as the deepest player also crosses my mind, especially as his mobility is on the slide. When we dominate possession and camp in opposition territory, having a DM who will carry the ball 40 yards up the pitch from his own area would be invaluable as it would allow the two CMs in the formation to camp higher up.

I think what I want to see Dele develop in terms of 433 is into that 'Lampard' style spare man in the 3, ghosting in Martin Peters style. I guess I like that both him and Eriksen in the 433 would be further away from the opposition defensive players, allowing them to create space for more direct players in front of them.

With Lamela I don't think you know until it's tried. As I said I think accommodating both of them there initially would be against teams where you envisage being utterly dominant and camped in their third.

Alli might develop into being able to impact the game from deeper positions before then ghosting into the box, but I think for now he is best played as he is - very advanced just off the striker around the penalty area.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

@BringBack_leGin and @mpickard2087

I think you two guys are full on Guardiolistas, as much as I love his unwavering philosophy, and think Poch needs to shift a couple pf degrees his direction, I'm more 6/8ths Guardiola and 2/8ths Mourinho. Maybe that makes me a Heynckesisian?

I want us to be more proactive, but not quite go full banzai and have 5 forwards and a DM. I think if Guardiola fails to win the league this season it will be because of this, because what he's missing at City most is not Messi (though that would help) but Iniesta, the most important player in his Barca team IMO, because he was all things, an AM and no compromise as a CM. He'd press like a fucker, tackle, would be a metronome in the middle third then be a genius in the final third. And trying to get David Silva to be Iniesta is flawed IMO. But I do admire his bravery.

I think if we played the lineups your suggesting we'd just end up being Wenger's Arsenal.

I want the balance to shift toward proactivity, but I still want some pragmatic balance. Apart from the offensive loss by putting Eriksen deeper (though I do wonder if Poch is buying Barkley with this in mind?) I think Eriksen can be defensively weak. There are times when even an offensive, progressive CM has to do the ugly things (Pogba, Tolisso, Iniesta, Keita, etc etc to name some prominent examples of 8's who will), Eriksen does not like to do the ugly things, he'll chase and press intelligently but he's not tenacious at all. Alli is just way to fucking bumbly to have him in CM most of the time.

For me the ideal now would be:

TA---------------JV

VW/Dier
Trip/KWP-----Winks/TOB--------------------Demb/TOB-------Rose/Davies

Eriksen-----------------Alli

Kane


OR

Dier---------------TA----------------JV

KWP-----------------VW-----------------Winks/TOB-----------------Sessegnon

Eriksen------------------
----------------Alli

Kane​

I think we seem to be chasing players this transfer window in every position except the one we need most, a real quality 8. And I say that because I do have some reservations about Winks, and I don't think Poch fancies Onomah there. Other wise I'd have had Onomah in there this year a lot. Ahead of Winks. I think in a CM3 he'd be ideal at this stage of his development.

 

[eViL]

TA---------------JV

VW/Dier
Trip/KWP-----Winks/TOB--------------------Demb/TOB-------Rose/Davies

Eriksen-----------------Alli

Kane

For me, Eriksen has to move deeper next to Dembele with Winks as Eriksen's understudy and Son plays from either the right or left AM.

That's a front 3 with pure goals in it.

 

[mpickard2087]

@BringBack_leGin and @mpickard2087

I think you two guys are full on Guardiolistas, as much as I love his unwavering philosophy, and think Poch needs to shift a couple pf degrees his direction, I'm more 6/8ths Guardiola and 2/8ths Mourinho. Maybe that makes me a Heynckesisian?

I want us to be more proactive, but not quite go full banzai and have 5 forwards and a DM. I think if Guardiola fails to win the league this season it will be because of this, because what he's missing at City most is not Messi (though that would help) but Iniesta, the most important player in his Barca team IMO, because he was all things, an AM and no compromise as a CM. He'd press like a fucker, tackle, would be a metronome in the middle third then be a genius in the final third. And trying to get David Silva to be Iniesta is flawed IMO. But I do admire his bravery.

I think if we played the lineups your suggesting we'd just end up being Wenger's Arsenal.

I want the balance to shift toward proactivity, but I still want some pragmatic balance. Apart from the offensive loss by putting Eriksen deeper (though I do wonder if Poch is buying Barkley with this in mind?) I think Eriksen can be defensively weak. There are times when even an offensive, progressive CM has to do the ugly things (Pogba, Tolisso, Iniesta, Keita, etc etc to name some prominent examples of 8's who will), Eriksen does not like to do the ugly things, he'll chase and press intelligently but he's not tenacious at all. Alli is just way to fucking bumbly to have him in CM most of the time.

For me the ideal now would be:

TA---------------JV

VW/Dier
Trip/KWP-----Winks/TOB--------------------Demb/TOB-------Rose/Davies

Eriksen-----------------Alli

Kane


OR

Dier---------------TA----------------JV

KWP-----------------VW-----------------Winks/TOB-----------------Sessegnon

Eriksen------------------
----------------Alli

Kane​

I think we seem to be chasing players this transfer window in every position except the one we need most, a real quality 8. And I say that because I do have some reservations about Winks, and I don't think Poch fancies Onomah there. Other wise I'd have had Onomah in there this year a lot. Ahead of Winks. I think in a CM3 he'd be ideal at this stage of his development.

From me, that originally was just a hypothetical line-up based on who BBLG suggested in the first place. If that was the players I had on the pitch then Lamela central with Alli ine forward line. As I said though, I'd only consider that if it was a game we were expected to be utterly dominant and camped in their third of the pitch. I think slightly less daring would be Winks/Eriksen. I think Dembele could play the 'pivot' role sometimes (again against weaker teams) with a couple of busy ball players alongside him encouraging ball circulation (based on the brief occasions he's been alongside Winks, and I remember him having a couple of good games alongside Bentaleb as well when he first came into the team), and it goes without saying that Wanyama and Dier could do it.

I just see a lot of possible combo's you could try depending on the situation (and we're just talking about one formation out of many here...) and in that respect I am very like Guardiola. I cant say they would work, but I cant say they wouldn't. For me that's part of the beauty of any game, you try something. try and confuse/gain advantage on your opponent, and find out how it does.

As for City, quickly, I think Pep has lost sight of what got him success - control. They need to sort the Fernandinho position and the De Bruyne one. But that is for the general football thread.

I don't particularly disagree with either of your suggested line-ups BC, again its something to try. I think you know me by now, I would always be looking to get extra ball players in the team and, particularly in the central areas throughout the team (plus I agree with looking at both flanks) and I don't always like the balance of the team. I want to see more of Winks, I'm disappointed we will have to wait an extra year (hopefully just an extra year...) to see what Onomah can do in the centre of the park, I think Barkley is a decent multi-functional tool who I've never had a problem with as a target, I like the potential and can see why we'd go for someone like Foyth in defence... Hopefully they get on the pitch eventually.

 

[jonathanhotspur]

I think we seem to be chasing players this transfer window in every position except the one we need most, a real quality 8.

Barkley.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Barkley.

I said a real quality 8.

 

[Lighty64]

A "good" team for me is the team that selects the right tactics for the occasion and executes the chosen tactics well, as a coordinated team unit. A "bad" team for is the team that fails to select the right tactics and fails to execute the tactics (solid, poor or otherwise) well. I don't care about flashy stats of possession or how many times we ventured into the final third of the pitch. Chelsea selected a spot on tactics and carried it out to great effect, making very few mistakes. We looked disconnected, unsynchronised and flawfull.

Chelsea 100% defended extremely well. They were a tight-knitted, solid unit. We were discombobulated.

I think probably you misunderstand me when you read "at home". It has nothing to do with my personal acceptance of where we are playing. To me, it didn't feel like we played at home turf. It's almost like Wembley inspired Chelsea (fans and players) more than us, which is sad. Also, if it were true that we were that good, played that well, were so much better than the opponents, then usually it would have manifested itself by seeing a Spurs player score a home goal.

You do realise that the busier keeper was the Chelsea one, but it's his job to stop us scoring, that is one of the reasons why we failed to score. The Chelsea defence was also a lot busier than ours, and when they didn't do their job as good the keeper saved them. Unfortunately they scored from a free kick, and a shot our keeper should of saved.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I'm not averse to picking up Barkley, but I don't want him in CM. I want him to put pressure on the likes of Alli, thinking he can fuck about for 85 minutes as long as produces something in the other 5.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

You do realise that the busier keeper was the Chelsea one, but it's his job to stop us scoring, that is one of the reasons why we failed to score. The Chelsea defence was also a lot busier than ours, and when they didn't do their job as good the keeper saved them. Unfortunately they scored from a free kick, and a shot our keeper should of saved.

Man, this shit again. "We were so great, look at the stats". Plenty of Spurs fans have for a long time chosen complete blindness to an opponents tactical superiority when stats show high possession and plenty of shots.

You see, I also realise that there is a tactical choice one can make to instruct the defence to lure the opponents to make bad shots and channelise these bad shots towards the goalie in a very easy-to-catch way. It's a subtle art, but not really a novelty. When successful, this defensive solution prompts the attacking team to: waste the ball and skip a few steps in building a dangerous attack. Of course it also wastes time, because the goalie will take a few minutes before the ball gets going every time.

The fact that roughly half of Tottenham's shots were executed well outside the box from clumsy positions facing the goalie directly underlines that Chelsea very much wanted Tottenham to be in possession, luring them to make bad decisions and mistakes.

They say that the proof is in the pudding. Well, Chelsea created a flavourful, springy and aromatic sticky toffee pudding, although the pudding they chose to make is an old, boring and not very cutting edge choice. Tottenham created a soggy, lumpy and dull bread pudding.

Listen, Chelsea weren't great, but neither was Tottenham. We didn't outplay them, we weren't unlucky. No Spurs player even managed to score. Chelsea knew what they were doing, we did not.