What the pundits & media are saying about us

[LexingtonSpurs]

We will go from the 2nd smallest pitch to the largest. It's is about 550 square feet of extra space. The issue is in the spacing - to remain as compact as we were last season, the defense would have to be even higher up the pitch - 5 meters to keep the same shape as last season. That creates challenges.

Being able to close down effectively will take more energy.

It will help that we play all of our home matches at Wembley, so that we prepare for those conditions - but it's not as simple as a couple of steps in either direction. The extra 550 square feet is all between the boxes. It will take more discipline to hold our shape than it did at WHL, and it will take a few matches to settle into that shape.

 

[double0]

Our away record wasn't that bad and we weren't playing at WHL. The dimensions of Wembley will get some getting used to. The great thing was we had time on the pitch last season. We have from all accounts adjusted our practice pitches so I am expecting us within 90 minute of a football match to be just fine on the pitch. I reckon our biggest challenge is our supporters we have to get a focal point in /around the stadium.

 

[eddiev14]

Phil Thompson.

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...-season-preview-how-will-wembley-affect-spurs

To be honest, I don't really disagree with any of that.

 

[Ironskullll]

Personally I think far too many are getting caught up in the hyperbole about the pitch size. The reality is the Wembley is 5m longer and 2m wider than the WHL pitch.

Think about it from this perspective, 5m extra length equates to an extra 2.5m in each half. When running that is effectively 2 steps, is that really that much of an advantage/disadvantage even with pacey forwards against our high line? Then the width, that's an extra meter on each side, the length of your arm. Is that really so much additional width that our defence is suddenly going to be pulled apart, opening gaping gaps?

Forget the surface area, length and width are the only two relevant measurements with regards to the pitch, and the differences really aren't that huge.

I think the issue is more about perception. Wembley is a big stadium that has a fair amount of real estate between the pitch and the stands, so it "feels" like it's much bigger, but the reality is quite different.

The Wembley pitch would not be our undoing, it's the teams perception of its size. If the team get over that then there's no reason why they can't function there just as well as at WHL.

Interesting argument, and I tend to agree. Much of football is played like a travelling 5-a-side game, in that player density where the ball is is similar, with the added element that the action is likely to move large distances very quickly. I don't see this amount of extra space having such a big impact.

What is possible is that it takes a while for our players to get their landmarks and milestones within the new arena right, but that stadium is so different from all other club stadiums, that once they do, it, i.e. Wembley should become an advantage. If Wembley was such a hard place for us to adapt to last year, for whatever reason, doesn't that suggest that visiting teams arriving for a one-off league match would suffer equally? The early games might be a little fraught, but I see Wembley becoming more and more of a fortress as the weeks go by.

 

[shelfboy68]

Personally I think far too many are getting caught up in the hyperbole about the pitch size. The reality is the Wembley is 5m longer and 2m wider than the WHL pitch.

Think about it from this perspective, 5m extra length equates to an extra 2.5m in each half. When running that is effectively 2 steps, is that really that much of an advantage/disadvantage even with pacey forwards against our high line? Then the width, that's an extra meter on each side, the length of your arm. Is that really so much additional width that our defence is suddenly going to be pulled apart, opening gaping gaps?

Forget the surface area, length and width are the only two relevant measurements with regards to the pitch, and the differences really aren't that huge.

I think the issue is more about perception. Wembley is a big stadium that has a fair amount of real estate between the pitch and the stands, so it "feels" like it's much bigger, but the reality is quite different.

The Wembley pitch would not be our undoing, it's the teams perception of its size. If the team get over that then there's no reason why they can't function there just as well as at WHL.

Our poor form at Wembley is not a physical one imo but more of a mental one, I think we struggle to believe we can win there.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Personally I think far too many are getting caught up in the hyperbole about the pitch size. The reality is the Wembley is 5m longer and 2m wider than the WHL pitch.

Our poor form at Wembley is not a physical one imo but more of a mental one, I think we struggle to believe we can win there.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I don't think our reduced form at Wembely has much to do with the pitch size - and if it did, we can adjust to it. I'm very concerned about our forthcoming home form, but the pitch size is a red herring.

What we can't fix is the atmosphere, which is a factor of the architecture. It was very noticeable, in the first Champions League match last year, that 80,000 hyped-up Spurs supporters, singing, cheering and waving flags, made a far less intense and intimidating atmosphere than 35,000 at WHL. It wasn't even close - the noise level and intensity just evaporate at Wembley, whereas at the old WHL they were contained, concentrated and focused.

It's not a coincidence that our home record in our final season was 17-2-0. The crowd intensity was as it hadn't been since Redknapp's best years and players responded to that and to the desire to deliver a fitting finale. I can't see how we can duplicate anything like that in such a damp squib of a stadium as Wembley.

 

[shelfboy68]

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I don't think our reduced form at Wembely has much to do with the pitch size - and if it did, we can adjust to it. I'm very concerned about our forthcoming home form, but the pitch size is a red herring.

What we can't fix is the atmosphere, which is a factor of the architecture. It was very noticeable, in the first Champions League match last year, that 80,000 hyped-up Spurs supporters, singing, cheering and waving flags, made a far less intense and intimidating atmosphere than 35,000 at WHL. It wasn't even close - the noise level and intensity just evaporate at Wembley, whereas at the old WHL they were contained, concentrated and focused.

It's not a coincidence that our home record in our final season was 17-2-0. The crowd intensity was as it hadn't been since Redknapp's best years and players responded to that and to the desire to deliver a fitting finale. I can't see how we can duplicate anything like that in such a damp squib of a stadium as Wembley.

I must admit I was there for the CL games and the atmosphere was shit considering 85,000 we're in there, can see why the hammers struggled in their soulless bowl too.
Luckily it is for one year only and the new stadium is going to be fantastic with great sight lines and acoustics.

 

[Ionman34]

We will go from the 2nd smallest pitch to the largest. It's is about 550 square feet of extra space. The issue is in the spacing - to remain as compact as we were last season, the defense would have to be even higher up the pitch - 5 meters to keep the same shape as last season. That creates challenges.

Being able to close down effectively will take more energy.

It will help that we play all of our home matches at Wembley, so that we prepare for those conditions - but it's not as simple as a couple of steps in either direction. The extra 550 square feet is all between the boxes. It will take more discipline to hold our shape than it did at WHL, and it will take a few matches to settle into that shape.

It's 10m2 of extra space, about the size of a living room to put it in perspective, and it's not all between the boxes as you still have the additional 2m width to the sides of each box.

But I digress. I don't agree with regarding our ability to hold our shape. Firstly, a quantum of that additional length is negated simply by the fact that we'll be slightly further away from our box, maybe a metre or so, which equates to a step or two, hardly leaving acres behind us. Then, looking at it purely from a rigid set up, if we go with a 4-2-3-1 formation, that leaves the remaining 4m divided between the 3 spacings between the lines, a step or so.

Whilst I appreciate that the actuality isn't actually that simplistic, it helps to provide a better perspective than just adding up all of the numbers then turning them into feet so you get a bigger and scarier looking number. Remember, the extra space is roughly the size of a decent living room, doesn't sound quite so scary when you put it in those terms does it?

 

[Ionman34]

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I don't think our reduced form at Wembely has much to do with the pitch size - and if it did, we can adjust to it. I'm very concerned about our forthcoming home form, but the pitch size is a red herring.

What we can't fix is the atmosphere, which is a factor of the architecture. It was very noticeable, in the first Champions League match last year, that 80,000 hyped-up Spurs supporters, singing, cheering and waving flags, made a far less intense and intimidating atmosphere than 35,000 at WHL. It wasn't even close - the noise level and intensity just evaporate at Wembley, whereas at the old WHL they were contained, concentrated and focused.

It's not a coincidence that our home record in our final season was 17-2-0. The crowd intensity was as it hadn't been since Redknapp's best years and players responded to that and to the desire to deliver a fitting finale. I can't see how we can duplicate anything like that in such a damp squib of a stadium as Wembley.

I haven't been to Wembley as yet David, so I'm not qualified to either agree or disagree with you on the atmosphere, but 100% I think the extra real estate on the pitch is a Red Herring. As stated in my earlier post, it equates to the size of a living room.
There's no story in that though, converting to square feet suddenly gives you numbers in the hundreds, 550 square feet? Crikey, that's a big, scarey number! Then mentally you envision vast swathes and you're mentally tired before you set foot on it.
Call it the size of a living room and you dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Roynie]

It's 10m2 of extra space, about the size of a living room to put it in perspective, and it's not all between the boxes as you still have the additional 2m width to the sides of each box.

But I digress. I don't agree with regarding our ability to hold our shape. Firstly, a quantum of that additional length is negated simply by the fact that we'll be slightly further away from our box, maybe a metre or so, which equates to a step or two, hardly leaving acres behind us. Then, looking at it purely from a rigid set up, if we go with a 4-2-3-1 formation, that leaves the remaining 4m divided between the 3 spacings between the lines, a step or so.

Whilst I appreciate that the actuality isn't actually that simplistic, it helps to provide a better perspective than just adding up all of the numbers then turning them into feet so you get a bigger and scarier looking number. Remember, the extra space is roughly the size of a decent living room, doesn't sound quite so scary when you put it in those terms does it?

Sorry, but it's an extra 2 metres wide for the full length of the pitch, that's about 110 metres IIRC. That equates to 220 Sq Mtrs extra.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

Sorry, but it's an extra 2 metres wide for the full length of the pitch, that's about 110 metres IIRC. That equates to 220 Sq Mtrs extra.

It's actually 545 square meters

WHL = 100x67= 6700
Wembley = 105x69 = 7245

 

[Ionman34]

Sorry, but it's an extra 2 metres wide for the full length of the pitch, that's about 110 metres IIRC. That equates to 220 Sq Mtrs extra.

God I'm a silly arse...

And I'm a fucking Engineer!!!


Time for a career change eh?

 

[Ionman34]

It's actually 545 square meters

WHL = 100x67= 6700
Wembley = 105x69 = 7245

Yep, I feel rather sheepish now

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I haven't been to Wembley as yet David, so I'm not qualified to either agree or disagree with you on the atmosphere, but 100% I think the extra real estate on the pitch is a Red Herring. As stated in my earlier post, it equates to the size of a living room.
There's no story in that though, converting to square feet suddenly gives you numbers in the hundreds, 550 square feet? Crikey, that's a big, scarey number! Then mentally you envision vast swathes and you're mentally tired before you set foot on it.
Call it the size of a living room and you dismiss it out of hand.

It's a lot bigger than a living room. As @LexingtonSpurs posted (just before I got there), the difference in pitch size is 545 sq m. Not 550 sq ft, as someone else suggested. 545 sq m is more like the area of eleven 1-bedroom flats!

 

[Gb160]

Anyone else looking forward to Lawro's predictions?

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

Anyone else looking forward to Lawro's predictions?

Liverpool to go unbeaten again this season?

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

It's a lot bigger than a living room. As @LexingtonSpurs posted (just before I got there), the difference in pitch size is 545 sq m. Not 550 sq ft, as someone else suggested. 545 sq m is more like the area of eleven 1-bedroom flats!

Someone last year posted a great article that explained why the size difference matters - If I am feeling industrious later I'll go look for it. But, the gist of the article explained that the vast majority of the extra space - that now has to be covered - is in the middle of the pitch.

The Boxes remain the same size 16.5 meters deep - so most of the extra space - 479 square meters is between the boxes (66 square meters is on the edges of both boxes). That is a lot of ground to cover, allows teams more room to evade the press, and creates more(bigger) passing lanes.

I think we will overcome it - we don't really have a choice, and it would be foolish to ignore since the new stadium will have the same pitch dimensions as Wembley. But, it will take some adjustments in our tactics generally, and specifically for players to get a feel for the extra space - where can they cheat a little, how close should the CBs be to each other, and to the CMs in front of them, how wide do the full backs need to be, etc.

Having said all that - the red herring is that we are somehow "cursed" or have bad form at Wembley. The truth is when we have played at Wembley - we are playing top competition. Those games are always difficult - no matter the pitch dimensions. Losing Cup Finals is not an indication of a poor team...

 

[EJWTartanSpur]

I don't see one major issue with Wembley, but rather a myriad of smaller ones that all accumulate into a situation that is worrying to me...

- pitch size
- potentially less intense atmosphere
- clubs having their one visit to the national stadium and being artificially 'up for it'. In any given season you can rely on a handful of home games where varying situations dictate that the opposition turn up asleep and are just not really up for it which usually leads to an easy 3 points. Can't see that happening here.
- familiarity breeds confidence. A true home ground is a place where the players have spent multiple years parking in the same place, making the same walk into the stadium, changing in the same seat, saying hi to the same staff etc etc which leads to a level of comfort and confidence in your surroundings which adds to helping the home advantage. We just wont quite have that here
- Pressure. We can potentially eradicate this if we start well at Wembley but if there are early slip ups there is going to be an added sense of fear that will travel from the fans down onto the pitch, will be a hot topic of discussion in the media narrative and will surely cascade down into the players thoughts. It could go bad. Early wins and we hopefully bypass this though.

To be honest, if we were at WHL again this season, I think it would be the year that a lot of the better pundits would struggle to not put us in the top four. With the Wembley factor, I do think they at least have a logical reason to ascertain that we might slip down a little.

In the end, I hope I am wrong with all of this.

 

[Good Doctor M]

Anyone else looking forward to Lawro's predictions?

I already know his predictions.

Liverpool will win all games but draw against anyone in the Top 6 when away from home.

Spurs will lose against all Top 6 away and draw all at home.

City / Chelsea / Man City / Man Utd will all go unbeaten at home.

 

[night-watchman]

Phil Thompson.

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...-season-preview-how-will-wembley-affect-spurs

To be honest, I don't really disagree with any of that.

Surprised by that. Very well rounded preview.