Ratings vs Swansea

MOM

  • Lloris

    Votes: 35 14.4%
  • Walker

    Votes: 2 0.8%
  • Dier

    Votes: 2 0.8%
  • Verts

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rose

    Votes: 58 23.9%
  • Mason

    Votes: 52 21.4%
  • Bentaleb

    Votes: 23 9.5%
  • Townsend

    Votes: 9 3.7%
  • Eriksen

    Votes: 29 11.9%
  • Chadli

    Votes: 20 8.2%
  • Kane

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dembele

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Soldado

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Davies

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 10 4.1%
  • None deserved

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • Total voters
    243

Flashspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
5,465
#61
A good game and bounce back to winning ways but we do make it hard for ourselves dont we?

In terms of a MOM I think it was a toss up between Rose, Benteleb & Mason but I had to give it to Broadway Danny. He was awesome, provided so much energy down his flank with good defensive cover as well a serious attacking threat. Hugo as usual so reliable and saved us at the bell. I think Chadli and Townsend had good games along with Eric Dier. I thought Kyle Walker was caught out of position a few times and may have contributed to defensive errors leading to one of the goals.

Didnt think Eriksen had a good first half and woke up a bit in the second but still frustrating to watch as he has so much ability and does not apply it consistently. Kane was very subdued and was often marked by two defenders and didnt get a lot of service as a result. Jan unfortunetly had a little mare for their goal and was a little shaky through out. I think he and Dier could have had a tougher afternoon if Gomis had stayed on and had not suffered his fainting spell. The subs all seemed to do well. A nice win all up but too shaky defensively for my liking when we were supposedly bossing the game with 60% posession. We have to cut out these individual defensive errors or 4th place aint gonna happen!
 

StartingPrice

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
32,568
#62
i was in agreement until the 2nd bit,
In fairness to myself, it was intended with an ever so slight tongue-in-cheek effect...I thought use of language would give that away :)

i don't think there's anyone on here like that?
Being ever so slightly serious, I wasn't restricting to SC. No-one has been more supportive of Danny Rose than I have - well, maybe staff at Hotspur Way, etc. :) - and as soon as he was drafted into the team as a left-back I have been saying he is a tenacious, feisty little beggar and as an ex winger should add real attacking intent to the full-back role (and in my opinion does). So it's not meant in an anti-Rose way. But I do get the impression there are a few fans at the Lane who have given him hero status thanks to the Goon goal. So, whereas I like and support him, I also recognise that he makes errors and has some less than stellar games - I just think there are some who wouldn't get that :)
 

StartingPrice

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
32,568
#63
I think playing Chadli and Townsend for the cup final cost us dearly, so I don't agree with the logic of "rewarding them" with another go. Townsend is mentally lazy and careless and rewarding that is reinforcing it, and that isn't good management. I remember Ferguson dropping his keeper for a cup final replay.

I didn't think his subs were inspiring either. Chadli was doing OK so why move him to a less effective position on the right and I have no idea what subbing Rose was all about - if he was injured then fine but if not why swap left backs, Davies went to sleep for their third goal.
ELY didn't say Pochettino was rewarding Chadli and Townsend. We all know they were the weakest links in the final. What he said was that he put out the same team as in the final as an exercise in team morale and man-management as the team had put in a decent performance (i.e. we lost due to Chelsea's experience-generated cuteness and a little luck for them and against us). He specifically stated that singling any one of them out, even those we know were the weak links, by dropping them would have negated this effect. It was specifically about picking the team whole and complete that played in the cup final. It doesn't matter if all animals were equal but some were more equal than others - to even begin to imagine so misses the point entirely.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
11,383
#64
Like I was saying yesterday, I don't think its about us being open...its individual poor decision making and mistakes from our defenders.
That's certainly part of it, but I don't think it's the whole story. I think the way Pochettino has set up the side requires central defenders who do not make frequent individual errors under pressure and we do not have players like that.

It's an indirect effect of the inverted wingers. Because the wingers are cutting inside, the fullbacks have to play very high and that means that they are often either entirely out of position or just a fraction late in getting back. A lot of our recent sloppy goals conceded have come because a central defender is losing possession in the wrong place (Fazio) or misses a clearance (Vertonghen) or marks in a naive manner (Dier) and our defence, even at set pices, just doesn't look set or prepared for what the opposition is about to throw at us.

It's more complicated than this, but think the underlying cause is that Pochettino has our fullbacks playing more like wingers.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
11,383
#65
...I do get the impression there are a few fans at the Lane who have given him hero status thanks to the Goon goal.
I don't think there's a single member here who does that. No on who actually posts, anyway. There are people who over-defend Rose a bit in response to OTT criticism, but I don't recall a single hero-worshipping post in all the time he's been at Spurs.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#66
ELY didn't say Pochettino was rewarding Chadli and Townsend. We all know they were the weakest links in the final. What he said was that he put out the same team as in the final as an exercise in team morale and man-management as the team had put in a decent performance (i.e. we lost due to Chelsea's experience-generated cuteness and a little luck for them and against us). He specifically stated that singling any one of them out, even those we know were the weak links, by dropping them would have negated this effect. It was specifically about picking the team whole and complete that played in the cup final. It doesn't matter if all animals were equal but some were more equal than others - to even begin to imagine so misses the point entirely.

I understood his point I just disagreed with it's logic.

If you think the players that played badly at Wembley would be keen to prove something how about the players that didn't start, surely they'd be bursting at the seams to get out there and prove the manager wrong for dropping them.

You can twist the logic round whichever way you want, I just want the team on the pitch which is right for the tactics and occasion. And Townsend is not best for the that most weeks, wasn't Sunday and wasn't last night.
 

StartingPrice

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
32,568
#67
I Watched a full match replay and I thought it was a good team performance, my mate went to the game and said it was hard to pick the MOM but he went for Danny, I think Eriksen actually for the first time looked like he can dictate the tempo ala Modric for so I think he was my MOM but I love me some Danny Rose so I voted for him :cool:

#DannyRoseforEngland
Yeah, I voted undecided, but it doesn't really reflect my opinion. In my original post in this thread I had intended to draw attention to this. Maybe the poll should have an Team = Man of match as team play was more important than individual performances in this match option. Which is kinda how I felt about last night. There were some good performances, but it was more of a good team performance than one where any one player grabbed the headlines, for me.
 

EastLondonYid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
5,501
#68
I understood his point I just disagreed with it's logic.

If you think the players that played badly at Wembley would be keen to prove something how about the players that didn't start, surely they'd be bursting at the seams to get out there and prove the manager wrong for dropping them.

You can twist the logic round whichever way you want, I just want the team on the pitch which is right for the tactics and occasion. And Townsend is not best for the that most weeks, wasn't Sunday and wasn't last night.

Er hello....Chadli scored ...Townsend scored... both top quality goals and we won playing well...

If only Poch had gone with your logic :rolleyes:....
 

jezz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
5,323
#69
Don't care we won and I'm happy with the points.
If the same team plays on Saturday and gets the points I will be happy again.
 

StartingPrice

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
32,568
#70
I understood his point I just disagreed with it's logic.

If you think the players that played badly at Wembley would be keen to prove something how about the players that didn't start, surely they'd be bursting at the seams to get out there and prove the manager wrong for dropping them.
You specifically referenced rewarding by playing due to performance (individual) as reward for Wembley performance and singled out Chadli and Townsend. If you believe ELY was in any way suggesting that Pochettino played each individual player as a reward for that individual player's performance at Wembley you haven't understood his logic at all, so whether you disagree or disagree with your own misunderstanding of his logic is irrelevant. His logic was that it was about playing the group specifically as a unit, and not individual by individual - and certainly not as a reward, more as a reassurance.

But maybe I'm wrong, perhaps we could ask him: @EastLondonYid - who has interpreted your intentions correctly?

If he meant that Pochettino intended sending out the same team as a reward, and that he selected the team as a reward player by player based on their individual performances at Wembley, and that the team selected based on that reward principle just happened to coincide with the one that started at Wembley, then you are right and I am wrong and I will concede the point.

If, however, he meant that Pochettino started the same team as at Wembely specifically irrelevant of individual performances, to specifically foster team spirit and as an act of man-management to assure them that none of them were being singled out (which dropping any of them would have done - it would have been a clear signal), then you failed to understand his logic and are wrong. Will you, likewise concede the point?

You can twist the logic round whichever way you want, I just want the team on the pitch which is right for the tactics and occasion. And Townsend is not best for the that most weeks, wasn't Sunday and wasn't last night.
I suspect you are the only one twisting logic. ELY make a specific and clear point relating to the unit as a unit, as a unitary whole, as a team (and never mentioned reward, for that matter). You decided to twist that into being something about rewarding players, each one individually player by player, based on their individual performance at Wembley. And you did it in order to raise a totally unrelated point about selecting the best players for each match, individually, which totally ignores the logic of the post you quoted which was that this selection was specifically about not selecting individuals based on performance.

If you had just said you understood the logic of the point being made, that it was about the unit and morale, and not mentioned reward at all, and then said you disagreed with it as you prefer always, under all circumstances, and at the expense of morale related selections relating to the unitary whole, then no-one including myself would have taken issue with your post on the basis that you had failed to understand the logic of ELY's post. Maybe some, myself included/not included, could have taken issue with your point as a stand alone point. But that is neither here nor there. The point is that you made it something about rewarding players and singled out Chadli and Townsend - it clearly wasn't about this.

As said in the post you quote: we all know Chadli and Townsend were the weak links. Maybe, myself included, don't favour starting with Townsend in general.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
10,303
#71
I understood his point I just disagreed with it's logic.

If you think the players that played badly at Wembley would be keen to prove something how about the players that didn't start, surely they'd be bursting at the seams to get out there and prove the manager wrong for dropping them.

You can twist the logic round whichever way you want, I just want the team on the pitch which is right for the tactics and occasion. And Townsend is not best for the that most weeks, wasn't Sunday and wasn't last night.
In Sunday's match thread, someone made mention of a report in the Argentinian media that Lamela was on the bench because of a swollen ankle. I'm not dismissing the idea.
 

EastLondonYid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
5,501
#72
You specifically referenced rewarding by playing due to performance (individual) as reward for Wembley performance and singled out Chadli and Townsend. If you believe ELY was in any way suggesting that Pochettino played each individual player as a reward for that individual player's performance at Wembley you haven't understood his logic at all, so whether you disagree or disagree with your own misunderstanding of his logic is irrelevant. His logic was that it was about playing the group specifically as a unit, and not individual by individual - and certainly not as a reward, more as a reassurance.

But maybe I'm wrong, perhaps we could ask him: @EastLondonYid - who has interpreted your intentions correctly?

If he meant that Pochettino intended sending out the same team as a reward, and that he selected the team as a reward player by player based on their individual performances at Wembley, and that the team selected based on that reward principle just happened to coincide with the one that started at Wembley, then you are right and I am wrong and I will concede the point.

If, however, he meant that Pochettino started the same team as at Wembely specifically irrelevant of individual performances, to specifically foster team spirit and as an act of man-management to assure them that none of them were being singled out (which dropping any of them would have done - it would have been a clear signal), then you failed to understand his logic and are wrong. Will you, likewise concede the point?



I suspect you are the only one twisting logic. ELY make a specific and clear point relating to the unit as a unit, as a unitary whole, as a team (and never mentioned reward, for that matter). You decided to twist that into being something about rewarding players, each one individually player by player, based on their individual performance at Wembley. And you did it in order to raise a totally unrelated point about selecting the best players for each match, individually, which totally ignores the logic of the post you quoted which was that this selection was specifically about not selecting individuals based on performance.

If you had just said you understood the logic of the point being made, that it was about the unit and morale, and not mentioned reward at all, and then said you disagreed with it as you prefer always, under all circumstances, and at the expense of morale related selections relating to the unitary whole, then no-one including myself would have taken issue with your post on the basis that you had failed to understand the logic of ELY's post. Maybe some, myself included/not included, could have taken issue with your point as a stand alone point. But that is neither here nor there. The point is that you made it something about rewarding players and singled out Chadli and Townsend - it clearly wasn't about this.

As said in the post you quote: we all know Chadli and Townsend were the weak links. Maybe, myself included, don't favour starting with Townsend in general.

Spot on SP.....and most people who read my post got what i meant too.

Chadli & Townsend certainly repaid him lastnite.....though i agree long term they may not be the answer to the way Poch wants to play.
 

npearl4spurs

Believing Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,085
#73
Mason is an awful shooter. I missed the game, but one goal does not change the fact that out of our entire team, every time the ball lands at his feet in a shooting position, I sigh and predictably it skies to Row Z. Not just once, every single damn time. He really needs to improve that because 100% of the time he doesn't get it on target.

Walker is also not great at going forward really. He runs, suddenly decides to think and passes the ball back. Happens loads of times every game. Can't cross for shite when he does get into the position as well unlike Chiriches.
So let me get this straight.
You're going to disagree with my ratings post on a game you didn't even watch...
Bizarre response

I think you're wrong about Mason. I think he is a good shooter and he will show it more as we play these last games of the season. I back him to get at least 2 more goals. He gets it on frame many more times than you think - according to Squawka he gets 41% of his shots on target.

I also never said Walker was great going forward, but tonight he made a couple of good runs and I think we'll see more from him as well.
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
45,132
#74
If the same team plays again on Saturday I guarantee we won't win.

The point for me, at least, is that we looked a much more balanced side when Dembele and Lamela were playing and certainly much closer to implementing Pochettino's style.

So whilst Poch was vindicated for his selection last night, over the long term playing that side more than the one we saw at the start of the month, away to SU and home to Arsenal, away to Liverpool etc, would be less likely to do as well IMHO, for the reasons stated above.

Obviously things can change though and it depends what Poch does from here on in but I was surprised he dropped the two aforementioned, particularly after one poor half for one of them.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#75
In Sunday's match thread, someone made mention of a report in the Argentinian media that Lamela was on the bench because of a swollen ankle. I'm not dismissing the idea.
If true and he's recovering from an injury that would maybe explain it partially but for me if a player's not 100% fit he shouldn't be on the bench either and if he is 100% fit then he should be starting against Chelsea.

But if true it would also dispel the theory that Pochettino was keeping the side for bullshit morale reasons.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#76
You specifically referenced rewarding by playing due to performance (individual) as reward for Wembley performance and singled out Chadli and Townsend. If you believe ELY was in any way suggesting that Pochettino played each individual player as a reward for that individual player's performance at Wembley you haven't understood his logic at all, so whether you disagree or disagree with your own misunderstanding of his logic is irrelevant. His logic was that it was about playing the group specifically as a unit, and not individual by individual - and certainly not as a reward, more as a reassurance.

But maybe I'm wrong, perhaps we could ask him: @EastLondonYid - who has interpreted your intentions correctly?

If he meant that Pochettino intended sending out the same team as a reward, and that he selected the team as a reward player by player based on their individual performances at Wembley, and that the team selected based on that reward principle just happened to coincide with the one that started at Wembley, then you are right and I am wrong and I will concede the point.

If, however, he meant that Pochettino started the same team as at Wembely specifically irrelevant of individual performances, to specifically foster team spirit and as an act of man-management to assure them that none of them were being singled out (which dropping any of them would have done - it would have been a clear signal), then you failed to understand his logic and are wrong. Will you, likewise concede the point?



I suspect you are the only one twisting logic. ELY make a specific and clear point relating to the unit as a unit, as a unitary whole, as a team (and never mentioned reward, for that matter). You decided to twist that into being something about rewarding players, each one individually player by player, based on their individual performance at Wembley. And you did it in order to raise a totally unrelated point about selecting the best players for each match, individually, which totally ignores the logic of the post you quoted which was that this selection was specifically about not selecting individuals based on performance.

If you had just said you understood the logic of the point being made, that it was about the unit and morale, and not mentioned reward at all, and then said you disagreed with it as you prefer always, under all circumstances, and at the expense of morale related selections relating to the unitary whole, then no-one including myself would have taken issue with your post on the basis that you had failed to understand the logic of ELY's post. Maybe some, myself included/not included, could have taken issue with your point as a stand alone point. But that is neither here nor there. The point is that you made it something about rewarding players and singled out Chadli and Townsend - it clearly wasn't about this.

As said in the post you quote: we all know Chadli and Townsend were the weak links. Maybe, myself included, don't favour starting with Townsend in general.

If you play a player after a bad performance that can be seen as rewarding him, whether that is consciously your intention or not.
 

StartingPrice

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
32,568
#77
I don't think there's a single member here who does that. No on who actually posts, anyway. There are people who over-defend Rose a bit in response to OTT criticism, but I don't recall a single hero-worshipping post in all the time he's been at Spurs.
Yes, Goode Pard'Ner, that's all well and good, but the start of the post your are quoting specifically states that I am not restricting to SC. And the line you quote reinforces that by stating at the Lane.

In any case, the first part of the post was the relevant part - about some fans having a pathological hatred of Rose so that they want to cut him into little pieces and cook him on cocktail sticks, I should imagine, lummey. Both parts I tried to inject some humour into the post and now I'm being persecuted...

 

EastLondonYid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
5,501
#78
If you play a player after a bad performance that can be seen as rewarding him, whether that is consciously your intention or not.
You have no way of knowing what a manager has said to his players who have previously had a poor game both privately or in the dressing room , it may be perceived as reward by you or others, but the important thing is what message the manager has given his players so they fully know if its reward or not......what end of the stick you or i get isn't really the issue.
 

npearl4spurs

Believing Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,085
#79
I'm planning on going back and watching some more, but the brief time Chadli was on the right I didn't think he looked that bad. If Townsend starts more matches, would it be a possibility for them to switch flanks?
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
#80
And for the record, Pochettino started the selection fuck up with the team he picked for Fiorentina. Why was Lamela played in that game not Townsend, why was Chadli picked for the Sunday game after being poor in the Fiorentina game, if Dembele wasn't going to be played on Sunday, why not play him instead of Eriksen or Townsend against Fiorentina.

Eriksen was played 4 times in 13 days, as was Bentaleb.
 
Top