Ratings vs Man City

[Ionman34]

Good post, some interesting food for thought, we agree in some areas but not in others. I hope you appreciate that I don't just think the tactical battle was all about shape, I think I even used the word application several times in my OP. But shape played a part, and shape was the first thing that Poch shifted when attempting to address the problems. I think it was partly our failures of tactical application that influenced some of City's as much as it was City doing things well as well and I don't think that Poch addressed them particularly well, and the Alli thing was one example I gave.

You say their goals were luck but the fact that those situations developed weren't all luck, they were part of an ongoing situation that was partly as a result of Poch's failure to get to grips with what was happening on the pitch. Did you really think throwing Son solved anything ? His dribbling straight into their player (a usual occurrence) cost us the second goal, and putting him into a game we were already struggling to gain any foothold or momentum in midfield was really tactically dubious. Having got away scot free by half time, surely the smart move was to try and get to grips with what was happening in midfield, compress the game, close out all the spaces and channels and avenues that ManC were being allowed to move the ball around in, get bodies in and around their 4 ball players in midfield and start making it uncomfortable for them. The Son substitution didn't address this at all. Leaving Alli up top with Kane and adding Son just stretched things further at times or at best maintained an inadequate status quo.

The long ball thing is as much about how we set up yesterday, and is a tactic that Poch himself uses frequently, so he could and possibly should have anticipated it, it's a fairly well used tactic against teams that like to overload advanced areas, push up or play high lines etc, especially as I think Guardiola did use a similar tactic against both ManU and Arsenal at times (hitting 27 and 22 long balls respectively compared to 27 yesterday), he's possibly used it in other games this season but I haven't watched them all, those two were just two big games against the type of opposition that aren't just going to sit deep, making the tactic more viable, just as we do.

The point is, our goals weren't a consequence of our "tactical application" so you can't hijack them for your thesis. They were very isolated moments of individual reactivity that the rub of the ball presented. Their pressure was as a result of the tactical application by them and failed tactical application of Poch.

As I said in my OP, if we are going to call games like Chelsea and WBA tactical masterclasses, and I did, then I can't imagine Poch getting it tactically much worse than he did yesterday, so I don't think it's not over stating it to call it shambolic. IMO.

Good rebuttal.

On your first paragraph, I agree that it is about application of the tactics that the initial formation and plan dictates. However, where I think our opinions differ, is that I believe the unexpected nature of the City application caught us by surprise and, as a result, prevented us from applying our own intent. They'd gained the initiative and did not relent for an instant. In those circumstances, your own intent takes a backseat in your scramble to cope with the incumbent situation. This then moves into your second point about Poch changing the shape. He quickly realised that his initial intent had to be revised in favour of stemming the tide, but he left himself the option of reversing it by putting Son on and not completely removing the ability to reverse that tide.
The Alli example is a good one and I put this down to Poch missing that in the pressure of the situation. Having said that, it may have been intentional as we did revert to some long "clearances" out of our third. The execution there was lacking though, as I've touched on regarding Wimmer's distribution. I felt Toby was also guilty of this in the first half as they were hit forward straight to Bravo rather than a channel being sought.

On your second paragraph, no, I never referred to their goals as luck, I don't believe in it. Their goals came from errors. Forced errors for sure, but errors nonetheless, the second goal in particular. Handling errors from Lloris are as rare as hens teeth. You can postulate that Son's dribble and dispossession cost us the second goal, but 99 times out of 100 Lloris gathers that and the danger is past.
As to Son, you ask if I think it made a difference? Immediately no, but I've stated already that it was a change that allowed a shift to a shape better suited to cope whilst allowing us to be able to exert some attacking intent of our own. Ultimately it worked, as he scored the equaliser. I don't think for a moment he was brought on to solidify our midfield, he was brought on so that others could be shifted to do that.
It's a difficult balancing act. We could have compressed the space by making a more defensive change. He could have left Wimmer on, gone to a flat back 4 and pushed Dier into midfield. Poch obviously was still looking to get something out of the game though and Son's equaliser vindicates that somewhat.
I do agree regarding Alli though, with Son on I would have expected him to drop deeper and make a nuisance of himself.

I don't disagree with your statement in your third paragraph, but then I never really claimed that our goals were as a result of our tactics, though it could be argued that they were. If Poch doesn't make the tactical decision to change the shape and bring Son on, he, or anyone else for that matter, is not in the position to finish. Poch made the decision to bring him on for just that type of scenario, as he certainly wasn't brought on to bolster our defensive application. Additionally, Poch's tactics for much of the season have been to use our fb's to attack. Alli's goal resulted from our rb attacking down the right and whipping in a sumptuous cross.
In hindsight, I'd have to now say I disagree with you and the goals WERE as a result of the tactics and their application. We may not have been able to apply them extensively, but we still applied them.

Lastly, I go back to my previous 2 posts to answer your last paragraph. The tactics were not shambolic IMO. The initial tactics were countered extremely well, forcing a change to a different set of tactics. On the whole try weren't that bad, but appear that way due to the errors. As I said previously, you have to expect City to create chances, considering the circumstances, but you can't legislate for the errors. The second goal doesn't happen 99 times out of 100. The fact was that they didn't cut through us nearly as often in the second half as they did the first. Not because they slowed their intensity, more because we'd "shored up" somewhat. We also created our 2 goals after the changes, where previously we hadn't even threatened their half, let alone their goal.

If you analyse from a different perspective, you could say that Poch's reactive tactics were good, in that they did result in altering the outcome because, let's face it, had he changed nothing we'd have been slaughtered.

 

[alfie103]

Not pure fortune that the goals were scored, per se. Pure fortune that those two moments actually managed to earn us the same points from that game than ManC's dominance did. Pure fortune that by those moments we could/should have already been out of touch but for their ineptitude and pure good fortune on our part (we should have been 3-1 down and playing with ten men by the time we equalised for example - that has nothing to do with our "skill")

What about our mind set ?

And I don't understand why Poch didn't foresee Guardiola's approach, it wasn't totally unexpected, it wasn't incredibly radical, especially once he'd seen the team sheet and then having watched what was unfolding his response to it didn't really solve the problems at all. It was a 433/4141 and they pressed. They have played that format 7 times this season. How tactically surprising is that ?

Why was Alli left to play as a CF the whole game when we were getting out footballed in midfield ? It didn't work at any stage of the game. He could still score his goal playing the slightly more withdrawn role he always plays (and scores from - a la Chelsea) and we might not be two goals down by then.

That was a tactically shambolic performance that we got away with. Massively.

You should become a manager, Have you done any coaching badges?

 

[thinktank]

Our main failing was lack of intensity from front to back.

Wrong mental approach to the game from the players.

Poch's BBC post-match was spot on irt that.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Good rebuttal.

On your first paragraph, I agree that it is about application of the tactics that the initial formation and plan dictates. However, where I think our opinions differ, is that I believe the unexpected nature of the City application caught us by surprise and, as a result, prevented us from applying our own intent. They'd gained the initiative and did not relent for an instant. In those circumstances, your own intent takes a backseat in your scramble to cope with the incumbent situation. This then moves into your second point about Poch changing the shape. He quickly realised that his initial intent had to be revised in favour of stemming the tide, but he left himself the option of reversing it by putting Son on and not completely removing the ability to reverse that tide.
The Alli example is a good one and I put this down to Poch missing that in the pressure of the situation. Having said that, it may have been intentional as we did revert to some long "clearances" out of our third. The execution there was lacking though, as I've touched on regarding Wimmer's distribution. I felt Toby was also guilty of this in the first half as they were hit forward straight to Bravo rather than a channel being sought.

On your second paragraph, no, I never referred to their goals as luck, I don't believe in it. Their goals came from errors. Forced errors for sure, but errors nonetheless, the second goal in particular. Handling errors from Lloris are as rare as hens teeth. You can postulate that Son's dribble and dispossession cost us the second goal, but 99 times out of 100 Lloris gathers that and the danger is past.
As to Son, you ask if I think it made a difference? Immediately no, but I've stated already that it was a change that allowed a shift to a shape better suited to cope whilst allowing us to be able to exert some attacking intent of our own. Ultimately it worked, as he scored the equaliser. I don't think for a moment he was brought on to solidify our midfield, he was brought on so that others could be shifted to do that.
It's a difficult balancing act. We could have compressed the space by making a more defensive change. He could have left Wimmer on, gone to a flat back 4 and pushed Dier into midfield. Poch obviously was still looking to get something out of the game though and Son's equaliser vindicates that somewhat.
I do agree regarding Alli though, with Son on I would have expected him to drop deeper and make a nuisance of himself.

I don't disagree with your statement in your third paragraph, but then I never really claimed that our goals were as a result of our tactics, though it could be argued that they were. If Poch doesn't make the tactical decision to change the shape and bring Son on, he, or anyone else for that matter, is not in the position to finish. Poch made the decision to bring him on for just that type of scenario, as he certainly wasn't brought on to bolster our defensive application. Additionally, Poch's tactics for much of the season have been to use our fb's to attack. Alli's goal resulted from our rb attacking down the right and whipping in a sumptuous cross.
In hindsight, I'd have to now say I disagree with you and the goals WERE as a result of the tactics and their application. We may not have been able to apply them extensively, but we still applied them.

Lastly, I go back to my previous 2 posts to answer your last paragraph. The tactics were not shambolic IMO. The initial tactics were countered extremely well, forcing a change to a different set of tactics. On the whole try weren't that bad, but appear that way due to the errors. As I said previously, you have to expect City to create chances, considering the circumstances, but you can't legislate for the errors. The second goal doesn't happen 99 times out of 100. The fact was that they didn't cut through us nearly as often in the second half as they did the first. Not because they slowed their intensity, more because we'd "shored up" somewhat. We also created our 2 goals after the changes, where previously we hadn't even threatened their half, let alone their goal.

If you analyse from a different perspective, you could say that Poch's reactive tactics were good, in that they did result in altering the outcome because, let's face it, had he changed nothing we'd have been slaughtered.

If you are going to argue that from a different perspective Poch's tactics were good because they did result in altering the outcome, I'll argue that we didn't concede until he altered his tactics and that if he'd kept the 3CB's neither goal conceded might have happened as there would have been more cover centrally, Son wouldn't have been on to lose the ball for the goal, and we might have won 1-0 (taking out Son's influence in goals for and against). But that's the trouble with bullshit hypothesis, yours and mine are impossible to prove.

I think (as I said initially in my OP) that it is good that Pochettino reacted reasonably quickly, and tried to change things, 12 months ago I don't think he'd have acted so quickly). I'm just not convinced at the efficacy of what he did when he reacted. I could even argue that it made things worse not better (supported by them going 2-0 up).

I think tactically we were terrible for a massive chunk of that game, even after changes and that inhibited individual and collective performance that two goals put a false gloss over, and if we hadn't created two very high quality moments and converted those - and I don't believe they were as a result of us being tactically good, they were just two moments of serendipity in 94 minutes of chaotic incoherence.

In football those moments can occur in spite of tactical ineptitude. Harry Redknapp has based his career on it.

For me the only silver lining was that Poch reacted quicker than normal. But I still think taken as a whole piece that was a tactically poor bit of management from Poch, including the half time change.

 

[Mr Pink]

They would of deserved a two nil lead at half time but I think the changes did clearly help and their goals came at a time when we were actually starting to compete better.

A real pity Son loses the ball and the opening goal comes thereafter. Yes that was the change personnel wise but I thought we were starting to look better.

In fact, and I know this is widly speculative, but had that first goal not come when it did, we could well of won the game.

We were clinical second half and I do think it showed great mental strength to come back like that, not all about tactical application and all the rest, psychology plays a massive part in the way games flow, granted tactical superiority contributes to that flow.

We were away from home at one of the biggest Clubs in the league, not to mention a wounded animal, and a team that carved Barcelona open not so long ago.

We can look at it now and examine the tactical application/exchanges, with the benefit of hindsight to boot as well, but it doesn't represent the whole picture, far from it. The occasion, the atmosphere, their desperation to compete and win all constitute towards the many variables that dictate and shape the pattern and flow of the game.

I have no doubt we would of capitulated a few years ago under similar circumstances, and have indeed done so (6-1, was it)

To come back from two goals down, away at a big Club, who were playing like a team possessed demands some respect I feel.

 

[Ionman34]

If you are going to argue that from a different perspective Poch's tactics were good because they did result in altering the outcome, I'll argue that we didn't concede until he altered his tactics and that if he'd kept the 3CB's neither goal conceded might have happened as there would have been more cover centrally, Son wouldn't have been on to lose the ball for the goal, and we might have won 1-0 (taking out Son's influence in goals for and against). But that's the trouble with bullshit hypothesis, yours and mine are impossible to prove.

I think (as I said initially in my OP) that it is good that Pochettino reacted reasonably quickly, and tried to change things, 12 months ago I don't think he'd have acted so quickly). I'm just not convinced at the efficacy of what he did when he reacted. I could even argue that it made things worse not better (supported by them going 2-0 up).

I think tactically we were terrible for a massive chunk of that game, even after changes and that inhibited individual and collective performance that two goals put a false gloss over, and if we hadn't created two very high quality moments and converted those - and I don't believe they were as a result of us being tactically good, they were just two moments of serendipity in 94 minutes of chaotic incoherence.

In football those moments can occur in spite of tactical ineptitude. Harry Redknapp has based his career on it.

For me the only silver lining was that Poch reacted quicker than normal. But I still think taken as a whole piece that was a tactically poor bit of management from Poch, including the half time change.

I've enjoyed this discussion BC, it's always nice to find an opposing argument backed by coherent thought.
We have differing views on the why's and wherefore's, but I think both can agree that a certain maturity has been evident in the mentality of the players and Poch. As you say, 12 months ago he likely would not have reacted as quickly to combat the fact that his initial plan was going Pete Tong. Likewise, 12 months ago I don't think this team would have shown the fortitude to hang in and come back in the manner that they did.
The whole scenario, I believe, illustrates better than any thumping win, just how much both the team and the manager have progressed in their respective educations.

We can all agree that yesterday's game was a demonstration of how much further we still have to go, and to not get ahead of ourselves. Likewise, it also demonstrates just how far the team and manager have come in being able to rescue a point from such a precarious position.

We may not have liked what we saw on the pitch but, in a strange way, we should. This game, coupled with the wonderful displays against Chelsea, WBA and even Watford, shows that we are rapidly progressing in the right direction. We'll never wipe the floor with everyone we play, even Pep's Barca couldn't do that, but we're getting results even when we're not at the races.

 

[Bulletspur]

@Bulletspur do these votes over a season get collated anywhere?

Be interesting to see who gets most, Wanyama seems like a vote winner every week

Funny you should ask but I was thinking the same thing the other day. To my knowledge no. I suppose I could go back to the beginning of the season and try and tabulate but it is going to be very tedious but I will give it a go. I will then ask MODS to pin it on the front page.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Last season we started logging the ratings threads for matches in their own sticky section, would be good if we could go back to doing this and one of the mods could put all those missing into the thread

Edit

It's still up there "the match ratings archive" last updated March 2015

 

[SpartanSpur]

Pep did a massive job on us, and an extremely ballsy one at that. Our weakness is our inability to play against a heavy press, leading to us being cause of our own downfall. Pep seized on this.

Our current system is purring when we dominate the ball, and finally we seem to be picking the locks, but with our wing backs taken out of the game there was just no regular out ball, and after 20 mins or so our confidence was heading in to a downward spiral. Get to HT and I'm sure we were thinking we can grow into this and prey on their nerves later on, but BAM Lloris has a couple of major brainfarts and it's seemingly game over.

I'm refusing to put much weight on this either way until the next PL game at Sunderland. Come back strong, much like Chelsea did after we beat them and things are looking pretty rosey again.

Such a confusing game. I came away feeling like we had been embarrassed 5-0 but at the same time we have come away with a massive point. This theoretically shows great character, but at the same time I'm not sure if it was just blind luck. But similarly you watch the 2 goals we scored and have to be impressed, especially in how clinical we were. You then look back and see for all their huff and puff they missed no real sitters and needed two big keeping errors to score. As I said, CONFUSING.

In a way it does feel like a missed opportunity. Their confidence at both ends is the only reason why we didn't get the battering we deserved, but at the same time also suggests to me that if we were a little bit more astute in beating their press and taking less chances in possession we could have easily nicked a win. Missed opportunity/miraculous draw. Quite the juxtaposition.

Even most people's MOTM Wanyama had a very shaky start. Hard to argue the shout after an imperious performance once shifting to CB, when I think we all thought we were doomed. Special mention to Winks for a key cameo too.

The reason I post all of this is because with all of the above in mind I can't really see the merits in rating the players, hounding out the likes of Hugo and Wimmer, questioning Poch, or even heaping too much praise on Wanyama. It was just too crazy a game. A one off.

With Poch the key is to find a solution for the Liverpool game. Klopp will note what city and utd did and will have the players to execute. Other teams will try too but how many will have the bottle to play as offensive team as Pep did? He needs to guess where teams are going to try this and find a system that works. 2 #10s and rampaging full backs works against bus parkers, but doesn't provide enough direct threat in these type of games. He needs to find ways of getting quick runners behind the press for a direct outball.

Even though it was sporadic, we managed to find Son and Kane a couple of times with more direct passes 2nd half and that provided enough doubt to cause city to back off on the press a little, and provided the platform to our goals.

I can see players like Son and Sissoko giving us this option (problem is how do you drop the current XI, would Pep have really played this way if they beat Everton 3-0 for example?) and really attacking the space and carrying the ball quickly towards the exposed back line. Oh to have a Gareth Bale to do this once again (that transitional counter vs Man Utd is still one one of my favourite Spurs goals).

The key for me though is Poch not trying to implement 'solutions' against the 'lesser sides', but instead trying to recapture what we did vs WBA and Watford. Chelsea are dicking the league due to only dropping 2 points against the bottom 14, so that is the primary focus in the league for me.

My outlook is there's something special about this result and this team, even if was just dumb luck this time. We just need to hope we can get back into our pre-City groove against Sunderland and Boro, and if so this could still be very promising season!

 

[Monkey Bastard Hands]

Geez...from reading some of the comments in this thread you'd have thought we'd been thrashed 4-0. I didn't see the game so can't comment on the performance, but the fact is we came from 2-0 down to get a point to City away from home. We'd have taken that a few weeks ago, and I will take it now.

 

[tiger666]

Our main failing was lack of intensity from front to back.

Wrong mental approach to the game from the players.

Poch's BBC post-match was spot on irt that.

Ridiculously simplistic view. Our main failing was not coping with their high press and being forced in to errors and panicking. It had nothing to do with "intensity". That's just some stupid buzz word. It's up there with England lacking "passion"

 

[Xeeleeyid]

There's a lot of over analysis going on here.

I think it boils down to City having a quality team full of expensive, world class players who were stung by criticism after their performance against Everton and at home tore into us from the get go playing some superb football and pressing us all over the pitch. They eventually got the goals their play deserved but unlike us they are not conditioned to play at that intensity for 90 minutes and as they tired we grew into the game and as we did so their defensive frailties which have been so apparent came to the fore and we exploited the gaps opening up through some good quality of our own to level things up for what is a great point away from home.

 

[Shadydan]

Ridiculously simplistic view. Our main failing was not coping with their high press and being forced in to errors and panicking. It had nothing to do with intensity.

It's always our fault isn't it, nothing to do with the opposition.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

I think it was quite simplistic. Poch got tactically outwitted by one of the best managers in the the game. He realised this about 20 mins into the match but by that time we were already under the cosh and a simple formation change wasn't going to make much difference to a weeks worth of preparation going out the window. The players not performing was down to not being set up and prepared properly for this match and being unable to cope with Cities tactical application.

As many others have stated the fact we actually managed to get anything from the match after being completely dominated for the majority of it says a lot about our mental strength.

 

[mano-obe]

However you look at it, no matter how much they dominated, they still needed some spectacular errors to score two past us. In two flashes of brilliance we scored and salvaged a point. If Hugo didn't mess up I wonder what sort of scoreline it would have been? Tough to say really

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

It's always our fault isn't it, nothing to do with the opposition.

I think people forget that a lot of pundits picked City to win the title this season. They may be struggling to adapt to Pep's tactics - but there are still world class players on that roster. Don't confuse their struggles with a lack of quality.

Poch got out-foxed, but he made the adjustments, players kept their belief, and we came out of a difficult away match with a point.


It wasn't that long ago that people were complaining that Poch had no "Plan B" - here, he not only had a plan B, he did not wait too long to implement it, and we had the players to make it work.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

It wasn't that long ago that people were complaining that Poch had no "Plan B" - here, he not only had a plan B, he did not wait too long to implement it, and we had the players to make it work.

Can't argue with that.

 

[jonathanhotspur]

Playing out from the back is becoming a major issue for me. Teams have identified it and that Lloris isn't the best distributor, and Pep, being the top coach that he is, targeted it very effectively. If we wanted to get Kane, Alli, Eriksen etc. involved, some long kicks from Lloris and us pressing them in their half wouldn't have gone amiss. We might even have managed an attempt on goal before half time.

It seems to be the case that if and when the opposition can nullify our full backs, we are slightly fucked.

 

[dudu]

It seems to be the case that if and when the opposition can nullify our full backs, we are slightly fucked.

True.... but very few teams will be able to do so in such an offensive manner as City -

We are becoming quite a flexible team and I dont doubt we will continue trying to figure out a way to be able to play when we cant get our fullbacks into the game.

 

[double0]

It seems to be the case that if and when the opposition can nullify our full backs, we are slightly fucked.

Not if we are efficient and clinical with our chances.

People have complained continually about our performance against City how we were made to adjust and forced back ok but I actually loved how we came back it was so clinical.

That's a good sign for me regarding our mentality.