Tottenham Vs Liverpool: Match Thread

[ibbz]

In fairness, Holtby looked like the only player with any determination tonight in that short 20/30 minute spell.

On a side note, the more I think about things (rationally), we are still above Man Utd who by and large have exactly the same title winning team as last season. People saying Moyes hasn't done brilliantly, but not quite calling for his head yet. We have made wholesale changes & in fairness AVB has been under massive pressure for a couple of months now.

I'm certainly not professing to be happy & I've not quite worked out if I'm an AVB fan or not. But there is a little truth in the witch hunt thing. Made all the easier for the press I'd image given AVB's arrogance & a couple of thumpings. I'm really on the fence here, but the more I think about it, the more I think he has to see out the season really.

Why does he Need To see out the season? What's the point? We finished 5th under Jol, then 4th a couple of times and 5th again - why after another 100mill spent do we settle for less? May as well get rid now.
Moyes was thumped once against City, but at least they score - and Man Utd ageing squad needs whole sale changes - whereas we have the changes. If we got beaten - fair enough, Arsenal were thumped, but at least they managed to score 3 and should have scored more at least they CAN score - same for man Utd.

 

[hughy]

Genuinely looked gutted at the final whistle.

 

[Sweetsman]

We absolutely cannot use injuries as an excuse.
At the start of the week, when Liverpool fans were trying to get their excuses in early by referencing inuries,I said that it is a squad game and an important measure of how good a squad is is how deep it is and how it copes with injuries. The same standard has to apply to us - and our defence couldn't cope, ergo we are just not as good as we thought we were.

AVb wanted two quality players for every position, and players who are versatile. part of the purpose of Capoue was that aside form offering cover/competition for Sandro, he can also play as centre-half. he was called on to play centre-half, we got biatch slapped.

If Kaboul is broke beyond repair, which is a sad, sad thing as he was shaping up to be a lynch-pin for us, then we should have replaced him. AVB didn't want Dawson and he can't play a high-line. Chiriches is one of the players we are trying to gel (no matter how impressive he has been). Therefore, any injury to Vertonghen, or playing him out of position, and we are down to a newbie and a player that can't play the high-line. Any injury to the newbie and we are left with a midfielder and a centre-half who can't play the high-line. In this situation, when everyone on the planet could see from the team-sheet that a high-line would be a disaster, is it wrong to expect AVB to abandon his dogma, or take the blame is the centre is waltzed through with impunity? Yes, it's harsh having three centre-halves out, but there were strong rumours in the summer that Kaboul was baked, and two centre-halfs being out isn't that unusual. Whatever the case may be, AVB played a high-line with two players who were patently going to struggle to cope with it against a team eminently qualified to take advantage of any flaws.

No matter how lackadaisical Benny was, it was AVB's decision to get rid of him. That's fine, and I backed his decision on the basis that he believed Rose/Fryers would be sufficient - but that decision rests on his head. The fact that Rose got injured so early on (which is damned bad luck) is neither here nor then; when he did, AVB preferred drafting our best centre-half in or Naughton - so, clearly, he didn't actually believe Fryers was adequate cover for Rose. Verts should have been third choice, not second choice for full-back, which should hopefully take him away from the centre for a couple of games, at most. In which case, we should have sold Benny and bought a replacement in, kept him, or, at the very least had the option and/or the gumption to recall him. Failure to do any of these things rests with the committee, but ultimately AVB, because he was adamant that it was sufficient.

AVB has a reputed style of play, that includes a destroyer (Sandro/Capoue), a box-to-box player (Dembélé/Paulinho) and a creator (Ericksen/Holbty - or Lamela). As soon as I saw that midfield I was less than enamoured. He could have played with one of each. Or, having Dambélé/Paulinho fulfilling both roles, which can work up to a point, behind Holtby would have been a downsight better option IMHO, seen as Sandro was truggling with an injury and had to come off anyway. Between and playing Naughton, he wasted two of our substitutions before a ball had been kicked.

Whatever is going on with Ade, we could do with that option.

The referee was dreadful - but that didn't make them look hungry from the off and first to every ball, and it sure as hell didn't force us to misplace pass after pass.
Maybe Soldado's goal should have stood, from what I saw it looked like Mignolet barged into Bobby who had every right to reciprocate with his shoulder - but that would have been one goal (and one that our play hardly deserved, only Soldado's persistence), it wasn't to blame for us being opened like a tin of kippers time after time.
Maybe we could have got one of our half decent penalty appeals, but that and Soldado's goal combined would have just made our score look like the Goon's yesterday, and anyone who watched that game would know that Citeh carved them open at will, were positively profligate in front of goal, and could easily have hit double figures.

There are no excuses, and AVB ultimately has to carry the can. I am as far from a knee-jerker, or an anti-AVBer (or any of our managers, I always support our managers) as you could hope to find. And up until today I have argued vehemently that gelling etc., league position, results (aggregate), points total last season, end-goal, etc., all combined to say it was crayzee to want AVB gone. And I am not saying I want him gone now - but questions really do need to be asked. That is a list of key decisions that combined to heavily influence us producing an embarrassing performance at home (another embarrassing performance) and they rest ultimately with AVB.

I fear sacking him: we could be on the cusp of kicking off. Lack of continuity isn't necessarily a good thing, blah blah blah. But I can understand why so many fans are so royally pissed. Liverpool are not even that good, and had key injuries of their own. If they get CL this season, and all the revenues and kudos that that entails, it could put us right back to where we were 6 years ago. AVB bears ultimate responsibility for this, and I am not sure I could muster up too much defence if he is sacked,TBH (maybe a good sleep will mellow my mood).

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. He and Baldini brought these players in, so if he has a Herculean task on his hands he surely only has himself to blame. And if he hasn't had the right players available to play his favoured system, why persist with it?

Yes, we had a makeshift defence, and I daresay a few of us were less than wholly optimistic about our chances today. But where was the protection? As someone pinpointed a few pages back, Rodgers identified Naughton as the weakest link (no great tactical genius required there) and set Sterling and Johnson on him; at the same time, Dembélé—who looked out of sorts in any case—was being very effectively closed down. Liverpool were passing through our midfield pretty much at will, and Dawson and Capoue were horribly exposed. Those two hardly distinguished themselves, but I'm not convinced Verts and Vlad would have done a great deal better (and if Kaboul's showing at the Etihad is anything to go by, he certainly wouldn't). You say, 'the best player in the EPL', but it wasn't just Suarez who was making us look like monkeys in the first half, was it? Or did you mean Jordan Henderson?

I think you're glossing things over here. And it's not so much the fickle fans AVB has to keep happy as the Dear Leader.

The point about spending the money seems to be that having it in the bank would have meant inflated prices for players later on. He didn't have much choice, except to accept his lot. Everyone said that we have a great squad, but Wenger questioned the impact on the team. This is the first win for Liverpool at WHL in four years and we beat them 4-0 last year according to MOTD2. Today, we were very poor, which was not helped by the makeshift defence. I don't think that AVB will last beyond Thursday: Levy will want him to try to get us through the WHU match. Levy made the choices of appointing him and then sanctioning the spending. It would be bizarre to now jettison the manager.

 

[ibbz]

Martin Jol managed it in 2005, with Davids, Jenas, Lee, Lennon, Stalteri and Tainio, plus Dawson and Mido, who had been bit-part players the previous season (and also Routledge and Rasiak, over the latter of whom we shall draw a discreet veil).

Whilst people have been saying, 'There's no-one available' and then threatening to throw their legs off the nearest high building if Capello's appointed (funnily, when Jol was being shafted Capello was top of many SCers hit list), there are probably more capable managers about than many people think. How many of us were aware of Pochettino, for example?

I don't think anyone held a gun to AVB's head and forced him to accept all these players, so he's made a rod for his own back. It's worryingly like the situation five years ago, except that this time we've at least scraped together a few wins that have papered over the most obvious cracks. I'm still very much in two minds, but my feeling is that unless there's a very marked turn-around over the next few games AVB will be gone in the New Year.

To be fair, AVB has had, what, pre season plus another 16 games plus games in 2 cup competitions to get it sorted out.
Any bloody fool playing Football Manager would be able to work out the fact that Dawson et al cannot play a high line, and doing so against decent teams is suicide (as it showed against City) but AVB isn't able to change his tactics and his team cannot score. How much more time? I say he needs to leave now with some dignity intact while we're not that far off the top 4 and while the season is still young.

 

[ibbz]

Man City played 4-4-2 against Arsenal and Citeh destroyed them. AVB has not in any game this season, played all the signings in one game. Bang goes theory number two. He's spent one hundred million whether that be on one player or seven, it was his money to spend and his players brought in aside from Villa.

The EL is full of two-bit teams and a ruining ground for established players to get injured. Not unlike the early rounds of the FA or CC it should be taken with all the seriousness of one of your posts.

His only game is the high line, with a stiff of a center back who he wanted to sell. The record player is fine it's his record that's broken, but your unstinting support of the current manager is unsurpassed, very similar to the Liverpool defence today.

He should be given at least until the end of the season at the very least in the hope that any reputation that he may still have, is finally and irrecoverably done for. That way he won't be a dimension for any other team to waste their time and money on.

Arsenal scored 3 and should have scored more. Spurs let in 11 scored ZERO.

 

[nate247]

Why does he Need To see out the season? What's the point? We finished 5th under Jol, then 4th a couple of times and 5th again - why after another 100mill spent do we settle for less? May as well get rid now

It was just my opinion buddy, that's all. But much as we've spent over the years (and we've done this re-building thing now what, 4/5 times in recent years). We keep ending up back at square one. The one thing we haven't had is managerial stability. I was just hypothesising, is it better for us fans to be patient this time around? I'm on the fence, I really am. So I'm not saying I disagree with you either in truth.

 

[ibbz]

It was just my opinion buddy, that's all. But much as we've spent over the years (and we've done this re-building thing now what, 4/5 times in recent years). We keep ending up back at square one. The one thing we haven't had is managerial stability. I was just hypothesising, is it better for us fans to be patient this time around? I'm on the fence, I really am. So I'm not saying I disagree with you either in truth.

I understand what you're saying, but this is Boas second season and we may be statistically better than at this stage last season )correct me if I'm wrong) but after so many new acquisitions, and thumpings, you'd expect a) a much better statistic than last season, b) goals c) adaptation.

 

[spurslenny]

Another 300mil, and a managerial dream team of clough, Nicholson, and Ferguson couldn't muster better than 4/5th with this club.

After much diliberating* and crunching of ze numbers, I've come to the conclusion WHL is built over an old Indian burial ground.


Basically, we're jinxed, and anyone that pulls on a Spurs top is a Jonah.



* aka pear cider with a few sambucas casually thrown in for good measure.

 

[Kingstheman]

I think god is a gooner. He smited us all for laughing at the goons yesterday. I'm personally very sorry your holiness. It will not happen again oh great and powerful. I'm off to sacrifice a goat.

Not our goat...

I mean, don't go into the transfer rumour thread with that knife!

 

[Kingstheman]

Tactics of immense dimensions

Yeah, the nth.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I think Liverpool will play better football with Allen and a cm3 (which is what I think they'll play tomorrow) than they have been with Gerard lately.

Yes but they will be weaker and more easily bullied out of their rhythm. But you may well be right.
I would always want to play against a team without Gerrard than with him. He is a top class player as is sturridge.
I reckon we will win.

I would rather Gerrard was playing. I know he's capable of great moments, but I think the opposite of you, I think Liverpool will have more ball without him, and in Suarez and Coutinho they have players that can make that count.

You got the bullying the wrong way round.

 

[StartingPrice]

The point about spending the money seems to be that having it in the bank would have meant inflated prices for players later on. He didn't have much choice, except to accept his lot. Everyone said that we have a great squad, but Wenger questioned the impact on the team. This is the first win for Liverpool at WHL in four years and we beat them 4-0 last year according to MOTD2. Today, we were very poor, which was not helped by the makeshift defence. I don't think that AVB will last beyond Thursday: Levy will want him to try to get us through the WHU match. Levy made the choices of appointing him and then sanctioning the spending. It would be bizarre to now jettison the manager.

In regard to spending money, I agree, I never mentioned it. Why keep substandard players? And then the serial complainers would have moaned about tight-arse Levy hoarding money and not reinvesting. I am happy that we did reinvest, and, for what it's worth, I still believe that in the long term we reinvested well.

If you mean AVB had no choice but to accept his lot, it is a bit of an obscure point: if you mean he had little choice but to sell Bale, much as I hate saying it, I agree. If you mean he had little choice but to have Dawson here, no, I disagree. If you mean he had little choice but to have Kaboul here, hell, I wanted him back to his best, so I can understand that from AVB, but there was well-respected ITK (that I seriously tried to ignore) that Kaboul is the new Ledders. So, knowing that we might only have 3 operational centre-halves, it is on his head, and slightly negligent, to keep hold of Dawson, especially seen as we all know he couldn't play a high defensive line for toffee. So, really, that left us with two fully fit options - and then to so engineer things that there was a good chance that one of them was going to be playing left-back - well, frankly, that is negligent/ And even then, I don't think the high line is a problem in itself. It is a tactic, a slightly hairy tactic at times, but a tactic none-the-less, that saw us accumulate a fair few clean-sheets, even with Dawson who isn't really suited to it. He also chose to have Capoue, who can play in defence - but when his personal choices have left us in a situation where there is any possibility that we may be left with a centre-half who can't play the high line and a midfielder then I'm afraid the options are simple: either don't make the options in the first place that could leave you in that situation, or don't ask these particular two, when paired, to play a high line. And that is the crux of it - would it really have been so hard to just instruct Daws and Capoue to not try to play the high line, just for this game?

FWIW, I still think we have a great squad.

Liverpool's recent record at the Lane is not really relevant: they had injury worries of their own and player by player on the pitch, and comparing the squads as a whole, I believe we compare favourably to them. But that didn't matter shit today. We were at home, but they looked more motivated, they were quicker to every ball, they were more direct, they worked harder - they just simply outplayed us - and IMHO we had a better team and where at home.

My heart agrees, it would be crayzee to sanction that spending and the whole building process, accepting that there will be wobbles on the way, and then sack him. I like AVB and have always wanted him to succeed, and even after the Citeh result was one of the more circumspect posters on here - I don't believe in change on a whim. But the bottom dollar is I, myself, a lay-person, could list several contributory factors that all flow back to decisions that AVB made. I have either supported those decisions or, at least, tried to explain the logic of them (even if I didn't whole-heartedly agree with them). But he, himself, is responsible, he is the head coach, and some of those decisions just don't add up.

For example, and to restate it: I spoke out for Benny when he was injured not long after joining us when quite a few on here (yes, even some of those mewling after him now, like an Israelite pining for the onions of Egypt). But I could see that he was too laid-back for AVB last year, and he may have worked fine combining with bale on the left but he didn't provide the attacking outlet down the flank for AVB. Now that is fine, and at this point I am more than happy to support his decision to send Benny out on loan. And he made it clear that he considered Rose/Fryers to be sufficient to cover the left, with Verts to fall back on in emergency. And it was damned unlucky that he had placed so much faith in Danny Rose (again, a player I always supported on here). But when that happened, to ignore Fryers and either draft-in Verts who is really needed elsewhere, or Naughton who is a right-back and just doesn't work - well, frankly, that shouts loud-and-clear that he didn't really believe that Fryers was sufficient cover for Rose, with Verts capable of drafting-in in the unlikely event that Rose and Fryers are injured (which would not be likely to be for long). So why did he say he was? Why did he not just put up with Benny or sell him outright and buy effective cover/competition for Rose? And why not have a recall option for Benny, unsavoury as that may be to him personally? And that is precisely where I part company with him - if he believes that Fryers is sufficient cover for Rose, fine. But if he clearly didn't.

These are decisions he has made. And decisions like this leave us with situations like the one we have today: he kept Fryers on the bench, even though he is a left-back (so he doesn't trust him or consider him acceptable cover for Rose), and plays Naughton on the left, even though he is a right-back - and not only is Rose horribly exposed, but he has to waste one of our substitutions in order to try to rectify it - bringing on Fryers after all.

This isn't how I want to see it, it is just how it is. And I'll say again, my heart hopes that he will stay, turn things around and in six months the genuine knee-jerkers will feel a little bit silly. But my head says he really has cooked his goose, and ultimately, bad luck contributed, a truly awful referee contributed, but in the final analysis this is down to decisions he has made that left us with a horribly unblanaced team, and, particularly, two players at centre half that he should have just plain, plum, gawwdamm couldn't play a high line, so he should have told them to drop deeper.

Unlike some, I just find it deeply saddening as I truly thought AVB could take us to the next level, I believe he has the squad to do so, and, most depressingly of all, I believe that maybe, just maybe, if he weathers this he still could. But I can't really defend him from any decision to sack him because his decisions have led to increasingly dour performances (acceptable in itself when we are winning) and several humiliating defeats, culminating in one today against rivals who have a weaker squad than us and have finished below us for four seasons running. And I will reiterate, if Liverpool finish in the CL spots this season they will get a cash hit and a kudos hit that can revive them from where they have fallen, and putting us back 8 years (not that I would rule out Everton and United, of course, from the CL spots). And that rests on AVB, he has the squad to be finishing above them for a fifth season, but this game could have made their season and ruined ours and, to repeat, it comes down ultimately to decisions he has made.

 

[DFF]

Woe betide anyone who replies to StartingPrice, even in agreement.

 

[ibbz]

In regard to spending money, I agree, I never mentioned it. Why keep substandard players? And then the serial complainers would have moaned about tight-arse Levy hoarding money and not reinvesting. I am happy that we did reinvest, and, for what it's worth, I still believe that in the long term we reinvested well.

If you mean AVB had no choice but to accept his lot, it is a bit of an obscure point: if you mean he had little choice but to sell Bale, much as I hate saying it, I agree. If you mean he had little choice but to have Dawson here, no, I disagree. If you mean he had little choice but to have Kaboul here, hell, I wanted him back to his best, so I can understand that from AVB, but there was well-respected ITK (that I seriously tried to ignore) that Kaboul is the new Ledders. So, knowing that we might only have 3 operational centre-halves, it is on his head, and slightly negligent, to keep hold of Dawson, especially seen as we all know he couldn't play a high defensive line for toffee. So, really, that left us with two fully fit options - and then to so engineer things that there was a good chance that one of them was going to be playing left-back - well, frankly, that is negligent/ And even then, I don't think the high line is a problem in itself. It is a tactic, a slightly hairy tactic at times, but a tactic none-the-less, that saw us accumulate a fair few clean-sheets, even with Dawson who isn't really suited to it. He also chose to have Capoue, who can play in defence - but when his personal choices have left us in a situation where there is any possibility that we may be left with a centre-half who can't play the high line and a midfielder then I'm afraid the options are simple: either don't make the options in the first place that could leave you in that situation, or don't ask these particular two, when paired, to play a high line. And that is the crux of it - would it really have been so hard to just instruct Daws and Capoue to not try to play the high line, just for this game?

FWIW, I still think we have a great squad.

Liverpool's recent record at the Lane is not really relevant: they had injury worries of their own and player by player on the pitch, and comparing the squads as a whole, I believe we compare favourably to them. But that didn't matter shit today. We were at home, but they looked more motivated, they were quicker to every ball, they were more direct, they worked harder - they just simply outplayed us - and IMHO we had a better team and where at home.

My heart agrees, it would be crayzee to sanction that spending and the whole building process, accepting that there will be wobbles on the way, and then sack him. I like AVB and have always wanted him to succeed, and even after the Citeh result was one of the more circumspect posters on here - I don't believe in change on a whim. But the bottom dollar is I, myself, a lay-person, could list several contributory factors that all flow back to decisions that AVB made. I have either supported those decisions or, at least, tried to explain the logic of them (even if I didn't whole-heartedly agree with them). But he, himself, is responsible, he is the head coach, and some of those decisions just don't add up.

For example, and to restate it: I spoke out for Benny when he was injured not long after joining us when quite a few on here (yes, even some of those mewling after him now, like an Israelite pining for the onions of Egypt). But I could see that he was too laid-back for AVB last year, and he may have worked fine combining with bale on the left but he didn't provide the attacking outlet down the flank for AVB. Now that is fine, and at this point I am more than happy to support his decision to send Benny out on loan. And he made it clear that he considered Rose/Fryers to be sufficient to cover the left, with Verts to fall back on in emergency. And it was damned unlucky that he had placed so much faith in Danny Rose (again, a player I always supported on here). But when that happened, to ignore Fryers and either draft-in Verts who is really needed elsewhere, or Naughton who is a right-back and just doesn't work - well, frankly, that shouts loud-and-clear that he didn't really believe that Fryers was sufficient cover for Rose, with Verts capable of drafting-in in the unlikely event that Rose and Fryers are injured (which would not be likely to be for long). So why did he say he was? Why did he not just put up with Benny or sell him outright and buy effective cover/competition for Rose? And why not have a recall option for Benny, unsavoury as that may be to him personally? And that is precisely where I part company with him - if he believes that Fryers is sufficient cover for Rose, fine. But if he clearly didn't.

These are decisions he has made. And decisions like this leave us with situations like the one we have today: he kept Fryers on the bench, even though he is a left-back (so he doesn't trust him or consider him acceptable cover for Rose), and plays Naughton on the left, even though he is a right-back - and not only is Rose horribly exposed, but he has to waste one of our substitutions in order to try to rectify it - bringing on Fryers after all.

This isn't how I want to see it, it is just how it is. And I'll say again, my heart hopes that he will stay, turn things around and in six months the genuine knee-jerkers will feel a little bit silly. But my head says he really has cooked his goose, and ultimately, bad luck contributed, a truly awful referee contributed, but in the final analysis this is down to decisions he has made that left us with a horribly unblanaced team, and, particularly, two players at centre half that he should have just plain, plum, gawwdamm couldn't play a high line, so he should have told them to drop deeper.

Unlike some, I just find it deeply saddening as I truly thought AVB could take us to the next level, I believe he has the squad to do so, and, most depressingly of all, I believe that maybe, just maybe, if he weathers this he still could. But I can't really defend him from any decision to sack him because his decisions have led to increasingly dour performances (acceptable in itself when we are winning) and several humiliating defeats, culminating in one today against rivals who have a weaker squad than us and have finished below us for four seasons running. And I will reiterate, if Liverpool finish in the CL spots this season they will get a cash hit and a kudos hit that can revive them from where they have fallen, and putting us back 8 years (not that I would rule out Everton and United, of course, from the CL spots). And that rests on AVB, he has the squad to be finishing above them for a fifth season, but this game could have made their season and ruined ours and, to repeat, it comes down ultimately to decisions he has made.

We made Liverpool look Great today, and they are really not that good at all!

Why doesn't some media person ever ask AVB WHY he insists on playing slow coach defenders high up when it plainly doesn't work and they plainly cannot play there?

 

[StartingPrice]

Woe betide anyone who replies to StartingPrice, even in agreement.

Gawd damn you, DFF, Gawd damn you to hell...I'll make you pay, I will, you watch me if I don't...I make you swallow this shallow piece of wit...I will, I will...I'll make you regret it...Gawd damn you... <shakes fist with impotent rage>

 

[Spurger King]

Why doesn't some media person ever ask AVB WHY he insists on playing slow coach defenders high up when it plainly doesn't work and they plainly cannot play there?

Probably because he'd have another tantrum.

 

[ibbz]

Probably because he'd have another tantrum.

He needs to be told that, because I honestly don't think he's realised it!

 

[Armstrong_11]

Last week I said that we lack passion and killer instinct, and even thou we played well it wasn't good enough for me and we cannot play like that against better teams and hope to get a lucky winner.

And I got lots of disagree, dislike and stuff...

Sad to say it, but told u so. We just don't play as a team. We don't show the passion that we need to win games.

 

[gorky]

It's not just 5-0
It's 5-0 at home to a team that we WERE years ahead of. They were s laughing stock and we were on the ascendancy.
It's a 5-0 3 games after a 6- which itself was a few weeks after another home defeat 3-0 to West Ham.
In fact in all of our defeats this season we haven't even scored.
Take away ther penalties and we've drawn blanks in half of our games and we're nearly halfway into the season.

EVERYTHING about our league form has been awful.

Thats not what was said in the post I quoted though so why go off on a completely different tangent. The original post that I was replying to stated that any manager who presided over a 5-0 defeat should lose their job. Duh

 

[Wsussexspur]

Good article by Michael cox about AVB tactics (or lack of tactics) for yesterday's game http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/dec/15/tottenham-liverpool-tactical-analysis