Sherwood has gone!

[Bobbins]

Agreed... We've been shite defensively in a lot of ways since before Sherwood, we're going to concede so our only option is to try and out score them and they're actually worse than us defensively.

It also amuses me that when Sherwood plays the high line it's because he's tactically naive and when AVB did it it was part of a "philosophy"... I still get the feeling it's coming from outside of the managers hands. This sweeper/keeper bullshit is part of it I think, maybe DL is a fan...

Also if and when he drops the high line it will be because he is inconsistent/doesn't know what he's doing/tactically naive/lacks a "philosophy"... agendas.

But AVB did demonstrate a philosphy - the high line was fundamental to it and we teamed it with relentlessly high pressing (most of the time) - and when we didn't, that's when we got slaughtered. That's the problem with the system - your team can't take their foot off the gas for a moment or you're exposed. It also results in a horribly congested final third often with 18-20 players occupying a very small area of the pitch - meaning it's hard to create chances as there's no room.

Sherwood seemed to be playing it yesterday with no overall concept of how or why he wanted to play it - we just pushed up from the back, but didn't press from the front, meaning our entire team was playing in the middle third of the pitch, and not really tackling. All we did was leave massive gaps in behind because we let Soton play in and around between our midfield and defence.

I'm not a fan of the high line in general anyway - it's all well and good when done right but you only need a few players to drop off from the pressing and it falls apart and suddenly you're exposed. I prefer counter-attacking football myself as it's easier on the eye, less risky, more exciting to watch, and suits many of our players.

Essentially, the Chelsea system. Slightly deeper more withdrawn defence, one sitting DM and a box-to-box-er, with three creative quick forwards behind a striker ready to burst forward when possession is turned over. Works for Jose, and we don't have altogether dissimilar players. Probably slightly easier to coach as well I would imagine - fairly simple instructions on hounding the ball from the opposition as soon as they approach the halfway line and to get it forward into space as quickly as possible - just needs good forward movement.

 

[markiespurs]

To be fair, I agree - can't exactly not.

There's only so much Tim can keep talking about guts and passion etc...its all well and good but its worrying that we played like that for a full 45 minutes before rectifying it.

I think Soldado was really good yesterday but he needs to press harder from the front for longer spells. The boot up the arse at halftime obviously had the desired affect as our second goal resulted in him doing just that.

Dembele was also a problem in our first half showing, miles off the pace. Factors that go some way to explaining a meek attempt to execute a game plan.

I'm sure the game plan wasn't to play a high line to squeeze the play and then not apply any pressure on the ball or press effectively higher up the pitch.

Anyway it was rectified but we need to apply these things from the off.

The problem with the slow starts is unfortunately nothing new for us and whoever we have as manager next season needs to sort it out.

I saw a stat in one of the Saturday papers that said that we are the only club in the Prem not to have scored a goal in the first 15 minutes of a match.

 

[Revan1882]

Agreed but can't see us dropping the high line which we've played all season in a game which it seems in mad way it's suitable for... i.e. we've got to press and attack and there's little point in dropping back as they'll just find more space to play and score anyway and we'll be less effective on the attack... They're going to score one way or another so you've got to be busy and press high up the pitch, you've got to at least try to stop them playing the game they want and dropping back and defending won't do that... We have to attack them... And it would really help us and my fantasy football team more importantly if Sandro beat the shit of Suarez.

The high line at Liverpool is happening I'm afraid.

You're probably right, just hope not to have another thrashing Sunday, we have had too many as it is.

 

[Spursidol]

It's not lack of tactics which is the issue - there are plenty of those every game - it's the lack of evidence for any coherent philosophy which is what's at issue in my opinion.

Perhaps he has one, but it's not at all clear what it is.

I had problems with Harry too, but I could see what his philosophy tended to be: Identify key players, build the team around them, try and be as attacking possible, don't over complicate, play a withdrawn defence and counter quickly.

We can see something of the same in TS, inasmuch as he's decided Adebayor is key to him, but weirdly he's also plumped for Lennon, and at the same time often eschewed potential game-changers like Eriksen (I think Harry would have tried to build a side around him). Then in other ways he seems to cobble together mix and match stuff, two men in CM, neither exceptional off the ball, and a high-line against opponents whose main strength is good coherent pressing and neat, clever interchanges, with smart angles from the front five. Then in terms going forward he has a few game-changers, but those he has he plays out of position, in favour of others who will not change the game, nor give you much of anything at all. It just seems incoherent to me. I can't follow his thought process.

I would suggest that AVB's overriding philosophy was a posession game - hence having 4 CM's (Sandro, Capoue, Dembele, {Paulhino) who are big powerful players who can dominate midfield - but one big weakness being that none of them can pass to a top class standard and poor creativity. One victim of that system was Soldado being very isolated up front and clearly unhappy by the end.

Sherwood would like to play a more passing game - but is limited to the players we have.

He started with a lop sided 442 to try to re-invigorate Soldado by providing him with Adebayor as a strike partner, thereby also bringing Adebayor back into the fold. That worked for Adebayor but as a pairing not entirely solving the Soldado dilema.

I think Sherwood would like to continue with one striker up front but has struggled to find the best compbination of players to do that, and that with disruption from injuries, has meant changes. However IMO we have seen the best of Eriksen (when not injured) and players like Chadli under TS, and I'd suggest that Bentaleb has provided more passing success then any of our 4 original CB options, which has led to better creativity from CM - although it must be said its still far from what it could/should be with a more experienced creative player there (I'm not suggesting a world class player such as Modric, more a top class player such as Carrick).

So overall I do not see Sherwood's philiosophy shining through - and it only would do with a couple of changes of players and a pre-season to work with players (its usually forgotten that Sherwood has generally been playing every weekend and midweek since taking over). Hence you are correct it doesn't look coherent - it cannot be almost by definition.

With the the players bought to fit AVB's posession based playe, rather than a passing game, its meant that Sherwood has been forced to adapt a number of tactics from AVB as the players are not capable of playing Sherwood's desired game plan to the right levels. And I'd suggest that any other coach appointed mid season with this squad would face similar challenges.

 

[Revan1882]

None of our four central defenders are fast enough for the high line defence to work safely.

Agreed so I am unsure why we keep doing it, didn't work for AVB at Chelsea you would of thought he would of learnt. Then TS takes over and I would of thought he might change it, but no. High line is okay, but for me ours is too high.

 

[Revan1882]

Awwww, you guys

View attachment 10745

Post of the day for me

 

[Tottenham Forever]

First post here as an ex semi pro our problem with the high line is two fold we do not hunt in packs and therefore do not keep the pressure up and secondly our defence is always so square. It is about anticipation and reading the pass it seems too many players want to take the easy route of stepping up rather than cover a run and allow time for other to then cover them. This albeit can be successful means when a decision does not go your way or the forward times a run it is likely then one on one.

 

[Spursidol]

Lol how deep do you want to be for a goal kick, edge of our box?

Penalty spot or our goal line for me.

That would solve the high line argument

Or lead to people demanding the high line back

 

[Legend10]

But AVB did demonstrate a philosphy - the high line was fundamental to it and we teamed it with relentlessly high pressing (most of the time) - and when we didn't, that's when we got slaughtered. That's the problem with the system - your team can't take their foot off the gas for a moment or you're exposed. It also results in a horribly congested final third often with 18-20 players occupying a very small area of the pitch - meaning it's hard to create chances as there's no room.

Sherwood seemed to be playing it yesterday with no overall concept of how or why he wanted to play it - we just pushed up from the back, but didn't press from the front, meaning our entire team was playing in the middle third of the pitch, and not really tackling. All we did was leave massive gaps in behind because we let Soton play in and around between our midfield and defence.

I'm not a fan of the high line in general anyway - it's all well and good when done right but you only need a few players to drop off from the pressing and it falls apart and suddenly you're exposed. I prefer counter-attacking football myself as it's easier on the eye, less risky, more exciting to watch, and suits many of our players.

Essentially, the Chelsea system. Slightly deeper more withdrawn defence, one sitting DM and a box-to-box-er, with three creative quick forwards behind a striker ready to burst forward when possession is turned over. Works for Jose, and we don't have altogether dissimilar players. Probably slightly easier to coach as well I would imagine - fairly simple instructions on hounding the ball from the opposition as soon as they approach the halfway line and to get it forward into space as quickly as possible - just needs good forward movement.

I must have blinked and missed the relentlessly high pressing under AVB.

 

[eddiebailey]

But AVB did demonstrate a philosphy - the high line was fundamental to it and we teamed it with relentlessly high pressing (most of the time) - and when we didn't, that's when we got slaughtered. That's the problem with the system - your team can't take their foot off the gas for a moment or you're exposed. It also results in a horribly congested final third often with 18-20 players occupying a very small area of the pitch - meaning it's hard to create chances as there's no room.

We could afford to press with high energy under AVB because we played safety first and retained possession - when we lost the ball our players were very well rested!

I am not sure possession stats have been much lower under Tim, but being more enterprising in the final third does mean we risk losing possession in open play more (rather than conceding goal kicks from speculative longshots), so the players need to bf fitter to press effectively. Something Tim has identified as an issue.

I agree that compressing play makes it hard to unlock defences, particularly with the narrow WHL pitch.

 

[Revan1882]

Penalty spot or our goal line for me.

That would solve the high line argument

Or lead to people demanding the high line back

Look I am not against a high line, just our high line is too high for me. All I want is 5/10 yards deeper, so during open play opposing teams don't have 40 yards to run into. I don't think that is asking a lot, but like others have said pressing the ball would help as well. So I guess I am asking for is to be slightly deeper and for us to press more.

 

[SteveH]

I think the highline may well disappear or at least diminish once Tim or whoever has a preseason to implement new ideas and tactics. Not changing too much now seems prudent to me.

 

[yojambo]

Does that come down to the coaching staff or players? Even without coaching, PRO players should know when to play the high line and when to drop off. It's suicidal pushing high up the pitch when our midfield are not putting pressure on the ball. The opposing team will have too much time to pick passes. How many times have we seen a simple long ball played over the top and the opposing team are through on goal. The high line works perfectly when you squeeze up the pitch as a unit but as soon as 2 or 3 players don't do their job you're open to danger.

This is where our team lacks leadership! You need a vocal captain who will rally his team forward and make sure everyone's doing their job. It can't always come from the sidelines. I hate comparing to Chelski but they have a team full of leaders. When any of their players make a mistake they'll know about it! Terry, Ivanovic, Lampard, Cahill, etc etc are constantly shouting instructions throughout the match. I'm afraid we don't really have any players with that ability. I know some of you will say Dawson but let's not start that debate (again).

I agree with everything you have said. However it doesn't really matter whose fault it is, if the high line isn't working its pretty silly to keep using it.

 

[dudu]

I must have blinked and missed the relentlessly high pressing under AVB.

It was there for the first 2 games of the season, maybe 3 and at a smattering of times through the rest of the games.

 

[Mr Pink]

But AVB did demonstrate a philosphy - the high line was fundamental to it and we teamed it with relentlessly high pressing (most of the time) - and when we didn't, that's when we got slaughtered. That's the problem with the system - your team can't take their foot off the gas for a moment or you're exposed. It also results in a horribly congested final third often with 18-20 players occupying a very small area of the pitch - meaning it's hard to create chances as there's no room.

Sherwood seemed to be playing it yesterday with no overall concept of how or why he wanted to play it - we just pushed up from the back, but didn't press from the front, meaning our entire team was playing in the middle third of the pitch, and not really tackling. All we did was leave massive gaps in behind because we let Soton play in and around between our midfield and defence.

I'm not a fan of the high line in general anyway - it's all well and good when done right but you only need a few players to drop off from the pressing and it falls apart and suddenly you're exposed. I prefer counter-attacking football myself as it's easier on the eye, less risky, more exciting to watch, and suits many of our players.

Essentially, the Chelsea system. Slightly deeper more withdrawn defence, one sitting DM and a box-to-box-er, with three creative quick forwards behind a striker ready to burst forward when possession is turned over. Works for Jose, and we don't have altogether dissimilar players. Probably slightly easier to coach as well I would imagine - fairly simple instructions on hounding the ball from the opposition as soon as they approach the halfway line and to get it forward into space as quickly as possible - just needs good forward movement.

I agree we are more suited to counter attacking, and I prefer it with the type of players we currently have that's for sure.

My biggest problem all long is why we assembled a squad that didn't have enough of the right type of players to play the squeezing high line style, particularly at home.

We just didn't have enough of those types of player to play that way effectively. Why AVB kept picking speed merchants at home who offered little intelligence and had no room to use there pace effectively was beyond me.

Fine away from home when teams came on to us more though and space opened up ahead and we had the ball winners for quick transitions.

 

[jezz]

This.

I also understand that LVG is mad as box of frogs and in no way is guaranteed to do any better or worse than Sherwood... He's not a wizard, he's not Alex Ferguson and he's not a long term solution.

What the weather like on your planet today?
Proven winner whether you like it or not.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

Definitely

It still riles me that he was allowed to go so freely. I am able to understand that he'd hardly set the world alight with his performances, but he showed that he has some excellent creativity in his Europa League matches. People can say "yeah but who was he playing against", and they'd have a point. However, who else was capable of doing what he was doing? Who outshone him?

Bentaleb was given the opportunity to come in & have a run in the team, in his favoured & most effective position. Why was Holtby not given the same opportunity? That is not a dig at Bentaleb, it can't even be argued that the lad hasn't done well. However, he's a completely different type of player to Holtby. As has already been said, without Eriksen, we have practically no creativity. So why not keep hold of somebody who offers an alternative creative option?

Also, unlike Eriksen, Holtby prefers to do his work from deep, so there's no reason we wouldn't have been able to have both of Holtby & Eriksen in the team at the same time. Most oddly of all, for me at least, is the fact that Sherwood instantly came out and said something along the lines of "I'll take passion and desire over skill", and then immediately sent out the one player who exudes both of those things

Still, Sherwood cut my first slice of humble pie yesterday, I've got no problem admitting that. That said, he's still got a while to go before I have to take a bite of that pie.

Whilst I'm giving him a slight bit of praise, I'll give him a sly backhand at the same time . It's something I came across in The Guardian, a quote he made to them not long after taking over from AVB..

“We shouldn’t have a dull game at Tottenham, as long as they are playing in their correct areas of the field and allowed to express themselves.”

 

[dudu]

It still riles me that he was allowed to go so freely. I am able to understand that he'd hardly set the world alight with his performances, but he showed that he has some excellent creativity in his Europa League matches. People can say "yeah but who was he playing against", and they'd have a point. However, who else was capable of doing what he was doing? Who outshone him?

Bentaleb was given the opportunity to come in & have a run in the team, in his favoured & most effective position. Why was Holtby not given the same opportunity? That is not a dig at Bentaleb, it can't even be argued that the lad hasn't done well. However, he's a completely different type of player to Holtby. As has already been said, without Eriksen, we have practically no creativity. So why not keep hold of somebody who offers an alternative creative option?

Also, unlike Eriksen, Holtby prefers to do his work from deep, so there's no reason we wouldn't have been able to have both of Holtby & Eriksen in the team at the same time. Most oddly of all, for me at least, is the fact that Sherwood instantly came out and said something along the lines of "I'll take passion and desire over skill", and then immediately sent out the one player who exudes both of those things

Still, Sherwood cut my first slice of humble pie yesterday, I've got no problem admitting that. That said, he's still got a while to go before I have to take a bite of that pie.

Whilst I'm giving him a slight bit of praise, I'll give him a sly backhand at the same time . It's something I came across in The Guardian, a quote he made to them not long after taking over from AVB..

“We shouldn’t have a dull game at Tottenham, as long as they are playing in their correct areas of the field and allowed to express themselves.”

Face stroke and bitch slap at the same time.

 

[mpickard2087]

I don't think the actual high line itself has been that bad over the last 18 months or so. The offside trap has been worked well pretty much every game. Yes it does look risky, and its not helped by the commentators heightening a sense of panic/danger, but if you trust each other in defence and communicate properly its worked well. The problem comes when you don't pressure the ball well enough, allow the opposition up the pitch and can play more intricate passes from a better position for runners from deep to latch on to. Its the pressing that we have never got right, under AVB or Sherwood.

 

[Spursidol]

I agree with everything you have said. However it doesn't really matter whose fault it is, if the high line isn't working its pretty silly to keep using it.

Provided you have the time to coach all the players a different way to play - changing the high line has many implications on other areas of play