Ratings vs Citeh

[ShelfSide18]

I actually thought Defoe was very, very good last night and only Fulop denied him an excellent goal.

He worked like a trojan, filled in at LB in BAEs absence once and thought he was good on the ball.

I just love Spurs at the moment, Crouchy you beauty.

 

[stevenqoz]

Gomes 7.5 Two first class saves...just glad I didn't particularly notice him tonight the injury not being an issue
Kaboul 7.5 Worried early on that Bellamy ould roast him but he went from strength to strength
Dawson 8.5 MOM of match for me and did it all with a smile
King 8 Really digging deep to perform outstandingly again
BAE 8 This guy is a talent and displays great awareness and timing
Lennon 7 Probably only @ 70% but still did a good job
Huddlestone 8 Up there with the best midfielders in the EPL and he plays for us
Modric 7.5 Battled well on a difficult night....in demand
Bale 8 If they tell us one more time why he can't play for England I will kick something.....awesome athlete
Defoe 7 Worked hard....suffered from our reliance on the lofted ball first half
Crouch 7 Honest.....failed several times but kept going....good to see a nice guy win
Pav 6 One good shot.....not the long term striking solution imo
Bentley 6.5 Came on and worked his socks off...some good touches
Palacios NET
Unused reserves 10 in the celebration

Harry 9 Picked the side I would have gone with...he must be good

 

[Chinaspur]

I actually thought Defoe was very, very good last night and only Fulop denied him an excellent goal.

He worked like a trojan, filled in at LB in BAEs absence once and thought he was good on the ball.

I just love Spurs at the moment, Crouchy you beauty.

Agree with the above, surprised by Defoe's low ratings on here - I thought he played brilliantly. Over the last few games his hold up play and bringing others in has been much better - shame he hasn't scored with it, but he should have done last night, Fulops save was astonishingly good.

 

[Shanks]

So are there people that believe Hudd and Modric didn't play that well in the middle as a pairing against Arsenal, Chelsea and City then?

The way I saw it, and why I was so impressed with them both is that they both gave proper team performances. Not single handedly trying to take over the game, but showed patience and done what, I presume was asked by them, a true team performance of unselfish football..

 

[alamo]

So are there people that believe Hudd and Modric didn't play that well in the middle as a pairing against Arsenal, Chelsea and City then?

The way I saw it, and why I was so impressed with them both is that they both gave proper team performances. Not single handedly trying to take over the game, but showed patience and done what, I presume was asked by them, a true team performance of unselfish football..

I don't think anyone believes that matey - that they didnt play well - but against the Arse and City they were somewhat swamped (by the 5 man Arse midfield and by the City 4 with Tevez dropping back)

They did their job, tackled and harried, and made contributions when it mattered.

Hang on, thats just the point you were implying isn't it. Silly me.

Ummm, well said

ps. Ledley still gets my vote. And Gomes/Crouch come a close second

 

[gregga]

He worked extremely hard and was actually very effective defensively. We had very little possession in the first 20 minutes. Our game plan seemed to be to by-pass midfield and try and find Crouch, which wasn't pretty, but very effective.

After Barry went off on 57 minutes and was replaced by Viera, we had much more possession and Modric natural game came into play. I thought he had a very good game from start to when he came off.

Modric gave the ball away in some dangerous positions and failed to find the space that he usually is so effective at.

Once Barry went off, I agree, he played well. But that to me suggests he lost the midfield battle against Barry, unlike the Chelsea game where they couldn't get near him.

Though its probably a pointless debate at this point, to me it suggests that Hudd and Modders shouldn't necessarily be our first choice central pairing. I think Wilson would have made an impact on the game had he been on from the start.

 

[Wiener]

Modric gave the ball away in some dangerous positions and failed to find the space that he usually is so effective at.

Once Barry went off, I agree, he played well. But that to me suggests he lost the midfield battle against Barry, unlike the Chelsea game where they couldn't get near him.

Though its probably a pointless debate at this point, to me it suggests that Hudd and Modders shouldn't necessarily be our first choice central pairing. I think Wilson would have made an impact on the game had he been on from the start.

In general I agree with you. My point really is that I was impressed with Modric's defending. It was always going to be tough against the City midfield with Tevez dropping deep. Having said that, Modric's real value is in attack, and I would have preferred Palacios in the centre. The problem with my preferred tactics would have been sacrificing Crouch, who for me was our most important player (closely following by King, Gomes and Dawson). Crouch's constant threat gradually wore down City, even before Barry went off. We only really started to play football once Barry went off, but I still think we edged it before he did. It wasn't pretty though.

In the end Redknapp's high risk strategy paid and I couldn't be happier. A good England World Cup performance, perhaps even victory, with a strong Spurs element and King scoring the winner in the final is all I am asking for this summer. Being Austrian, my WC teams are normally Holland or England. The more spurs players in the latter, the more get behind England. This time it will definitely be England.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

So are there people that believe Hudd and Modric didn't play that well in the middle as a pairing against Arsenal, Chelsea and City then?

The way I saw it, and why I was so impressed with them both is that they both gave proper team performances. Not single handedly trying to take over the game, but showed patience and done what, I presume was asked by them, a true team performance of unselfish football..

Exactly. Those two together in the middle has been a big part of our last 4 wins, especially with the two strikers and two wingers keeping things stretched out enough for them to have some space to keep us in control.

Fact of the matter is, against Arsenal and City I thought it was quite clear that our instructions were to let them have possession because, with our quite awesome defence, it would never come to anything, and with the much pace and attacking threat in the side we'd be killers on the counter attack, and guess what, that's just how it fucking turned out!

 

[Bus-Conductor]

BBLG, I think that is highly unlikely, and in fact I'm pretty sure Redknapp has come out and said that it was meant to be a positive attacking decision tactically to play Hudd/Mod.

If our game plan was to concede possession to teams like Arsenal and ManC with the quality of attacking players they have I think it was either genius or fortunate that it worked. I don't think that was the plan I think it turned out that way because we were weaker in midfield than Arsenal's 5 and City's starting four.

The fact is that until Barry went off and the leglless Viera appeared we were losing the midfield battle and they were dominating the game.

And yes, Shanks, I think Huddlestone was poor against arsenal and no more than OK against ManC. where as, I said above, they dominated the game until about the 65th minute. In both game he gave the ball away an incredibly high percentage for a CM.

 

[Bobishism]

I think what BBLG is suggesting is that we could afford to be weaker (physically) in midfield with Ekotto Dawson King Kaboul. I think he's worded it wrong.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I think counter attacking formations and styles are still attacking if done in a certain way. The Mourinho way of soak up pressure and hoof it to the big centre forward, obviously not, but our way these last few games has been based on getting the ball in defence, while the other team have bombed forward, and pass it through them with incredibly quick and accurate moves which led to both goals against Arsenal and the goal against City. We had several other chances in both games, and they were by and large off the back off coutner attacks of the type described above.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I think what BBLG is suggesting is that we could afford to be weaker (physically) in midfield with Ekotto Dawson King Kaboul. I think he's worded it wrong.

That's probaby right. In fairness, I'm not sure what I mean half the time these days, my mind's in about 13 different places at once lately (11 of which are Spurs related :wink.

 

[StartingPrice]

BBLG, I think that is highly unlikely, and in fact I'm pretty sure Redknapp has come out and said that it was meant to be a positive attacking decision tactically to play Hudd/Mod.

If our game plan was to concede possession to teams like Arsenal and ManC with the quality of attacking players they have I think it was either genius or fortunate that it worked. I don't think that was the plan I think it turned out that way because we were weaker in midfield than Arsenal's 5 and City's starting four.

The fact is that until Barry went off and the leglless Viera appeared we were losing the midfield battle and they were dominating the game.

And yes, Shanks, I think Huddlestone was poor against arsenal and no more than OK against ManC. where as, I said above, they dominated the game until about the 65th minute. In both game he gave the ball away an incredibly high percentage for a CM.

I think what BBLG is suggesting is that we could afford to be weaker (physically) in midfield with Ekotto Dawson King Kaboul. I think he's worded it wrong.

Maybe what was meant that the formation and players were capable of absorbing pressure, like a sponge, and then springing back...without ceasing to be a sponge, if you get my meaning.
Not so much conceding possession (though that was consequent), but conceding territory. The Goons can play lovely, pretty football in front of you without actually hurting you, but by squeezing there room to manouovre they couldn't really penetrate and were largely reduced to paying sideways.
Then as soon as we regained possession we could spring mack into position, with the passing range of THudd and the speed of thoght of Modric.

or maybe I am off the beaten track completely (which wouldn't be the first time).

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Maybe what was meant that the formation and players were capable of absorbing pressure, like a sponge, and then springing back...without ceasing to be a sponge, if you get my meaning.
Not so much conceding possession (though that was consequent), but conceding territory. The Goons can play lovely, pretty football in front of you without actually hurting you, but by squeezing there room to manouovre they couldn't really penetrate and were largely reduced to paying sideways.
Then as soon as we regained possession we could spring mack into position, with the passing range of THudd and the speed of thoght of Modric.

or maybe I am off the beaten track completely (which wouldn't be the first time).

No, that sounds like what I was getting at.

 

[StartingPrice]

No, that sounds like what I was getting at.

:up:

 

[Shanks]

The way HR worded it, was that with the pacey wingers and 2 up front, it was attacking intent.

Although not being as silly to leave us completely open at the back.

I felt that we sat back a fair bit against Man City, Barry got the ball a lot on the half way line, without our midfield closing him down.

What we did was bottle neck the back, not allowing them to build up an attack, with Hudd and Modric putting in a proper shift.

Not spectacular by their standards, but good enough to use our other areas to attack - Lennon/Bale.

Although a lot of it was given it to Crouch/Defoe (defoe who held up the ball supurbly I thought, often releasing Bale.

Regardless of whether it would have been better with Palacios or not, remains to be seen, we beat Chelsea and Arsenal without him starting, tried and tested against bloody good attacking teams, yet it didn't quite work against Utd at their place when Palacios started.

Thats not me saying that Palacios shouldn't start, because I think he is an awesome player and has been instrumental for us this year, just for some reason, the formula worked without him, against the good teams.

Against city, it was a team effort, and I for one thought everyone played bloody well, they didn't bottle, they didn't shirk, and they got the goal.

I like that fact we are having these debates, we won against these teams, yet still have the talent on the bench that won't make us much weaker/possibly stronger.

 

[SpurSince57]

Maybe what was meant that the formation and players were capable of absorbing pressure, like a sponge, and then springing back...without ceasing to be a sponge, if you get my meaning.
Not so much conceding possession (though that was consequent), but conceding territory. The Goons can play lovely, pretty football in front of you without actually hurting you, but by squeezing there room to manouovre they couldn't really penetrate and were largely reduced to paying sideways.
Then as soon as we regained possession we could spring mack into position, with the passing range of THudd and the speed of thoght of Modric.

or maybe I am off the beaten track completely (which wouldn't be the first time).

No, that sounds like what I was getting at.

It wouldn't, but you aren't. On this occasion. :grin:

Possession is meaningless if you do nothing with it, as master tactician Wendy Random's best-forgotten spell at the Lane demonstrated. Against Arsenal, Gomes could have got a deckchair out for 80 minutes, so little goal threat was there—at least at our end.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

It wouldn't, but you aren't. On this occasion. :grin:

Possession is meaningless if you do nothing with it, as master tactician Wendy Random's best-forgotten spell at the Lane demonstrated. Against Arsenal, Gomes could have got a deckchair out for 80 minutes, so little goal threat was there—at least at our end.

That's pure genius. You are right up there with the great footballing cliche luminaries like Andy Townsend, Jim Beglin.

It's amazing how the tactic of allowing arsenal all the ball didn't yield us more results over the years isn't it ?

I bet the gooners are really ruing the day Wenger took over with his crazy "best forgotton" ideas of playing passing, attacking, ball retaining football eh ?

 

[StartingPrice]

That's pure genius. You are right up there with the great footballing cliche luminaries 1) like Andy Townsend, Jim Beglin.

It's amazing how the tactic of allowing arsenal all the ball didn't yield us more results over the years isn't it ?

2) I bet the gooners are really ruing the day Wenger took over with his crazy "best forgotton" ideas of playing passing, attacking, ball retaining football eh ?

1) mg: you mean he mopes about in 'camper-vans' outseid various football stadia, completely ruining his credibility:shrug:;

2) Actually, that seems to be the position a lot of them are taking (perhaps a significant number being Glory Hunters) - something to do with not winning anything for so many years, I believe:rofl:

 

[BringBack_leGin]

That's pure genius. You are right up there with the great footballing cliche luminaries like Andy Townsend, Jim Beglin.

It's amazing how the tactic of allowing arsenal all the ball didn't yield us more results over the years isn't it ?

I bet the gooners are really ruing the day Wenger took over with his crazy "best forgotton" ideas of playing passing, attacking, ball retaining football eh ?

If memory serves correct we've had a great many games against Arsenal where possession has been quite equal, and we've pressed forward and left spaces which they've always been able to exloit through their guile and superior passers and dribblers.

One such game was a 3-1 loss away to Arsenal in October (8th I think) 2003. They never looked like they were dominating us in that match, and somehow they slices through us whenever they needed to.