Tactically Inept?

[Dinghy]

People have differing ideas about what is tactically inept, some look at a successful teams tactics and think that is the right way, in reality players should dictate tactics rather than trying to fit square pegs in round holes. Instructions is another thing, some seem to think the coach who wants to do detailed analysis of the opposition and them give players hugely detailed instructions of what to do and when is in some ways a master tactician, others prefer a coach that urges players to take responsibility themselves within a general blueprint.
I think Sherwood has made a few mistakes, but has called quite a bit right, allowing he's still very much learning he's doing very well. Good managers learn by their mistakes but equally have good intuition. I don't agree with everything Sherwood has done but overall he has entertained and gotten decent results so imo he deserves to be assessed over a longer term. I'm perfectly happy for him to get a chance now until the end of the season and continue in the role if he proves himself

IMO you don't need to give players 150 page dossiers on the opponents to be tactically astute. Part of a good coaches armoury is to do the work on the training pitch with exercises that prepare the players with what to expect and what as a manager you expect without having to fill the players heads with nonsense.
The players don't have to tactically astute per se; they just need to be able to apply the tactically astute moves that have been pre-trained into them.. (If that makes sense?)

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

Others have pointed it out, but it seems to me one of the biggest, most positive changes, TS has made has been to give the players more freedom on the pitch.

I was one who was not convinced that appointing Sherwood was anything more than a 1/2 season stop-gap. But, when I look beyond just results, and see how the players are performing for him, I think his moves have been tactically sound, even if different than AVB's possession-based approach. Some choices have been driven by squad availability, but few would argue that pairing Ade and Soldado is a mistake. Once you accept that pairing, the other pieces fall into place.

He also seems to be evolving, even in the short time he has been manager. As the squad becomes fit, particularly with Verts coming in for Dawson, Paulinho and Sandro getting healthy at CM, I think we'll see a nice blend of offensive and defensive play.

 

[$hoguN]

But we've generally had one of the two pulling out wide to one side and either Erik or Azza pushing up to make a 433... Can't remember which thread it was, but someone posted a heatmap/average position map after the Stoke game and it was very definitive/clear to see that we had played 433 with Azza making up the 3. Yesterday it looked like Erik had been given that role more than Azza (and it left Rose very exposed but it worked)

The difference between a 4-4-2 switching to playing 4-3-3 in attack and a 4-3-3, is that when defending in a 4-3-3 you are effectively playing with 5 in midfield and that gives you the extra players in there making you harder to break down.

 

[C0YS]

Lot of people on here were saying 'I'm done with football' or 'I'm starting to lose interest in Tottenham now' after AVB was sacked, but no doubt they've still kept an eye on how we were doing and after last night they'll be eagerly anticipating the next game!

Heard a lot about Tim's character being a bit unsavoury, but he comes across well in the media, seems to have the media onside, if he can keep Adebayor onside we might just get somewhere this year! Think he's set us up well in every game, though the Holtby and Eriksen partnership was a bit naiive, and he perhaps overrated Sigurdsson's ability a tad.

I think he appears very self confident but also blunt and even after winning against Man utd he was still talking about how we should of played better. Still I don't think he appears the most pleasant of people, but I think he has this kind of confidence and him always wanting more that might work quite well for him in management.

Also he clearly isn't devoid of tactics. Like against Southampton we started with no real width so when trying to play the ball forward the strikers would often go wide and open space for the wingers to cut inside. He also has mentioned not always needing a midfielder enforcer if the team keeps hold of the ball as well as mentioning the need to get the ball to key players in the right positions where they do most damage. I mean it is clear that he has his own idea of things which go beyond 'kick the ball towards goal' or 'fucking run around a bit'.

Because of the way we are playing, a new complete unknown manager and the fact that I threw away any expectations for this season some time ago, I can't help but feel really excited to see how this will all pan out. I didn't think Villas-Boas did that badly, far from it, but apart from looking forward to some magic from Bale I haven't felt this excited about spurs in a long time.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

The difference between a 4-4-2 switching to playing 4-3-3 in attack and a 4-3-3, is that when defending in a 4-3-3 you are effectively playing with 5 in midfield and that gives you the extra players in there making you harder to break down.

This. It's the positions that players take up when we are without the ball which dictates the formation. We are very much playing a 442.

I'm not a fan of 442 in the main. I much prefer more attacking mids on the pitch so we maintain degree of control during the match.

It will be interesting to see if we continue with a 442 against Arsenal. A team who like to dominate possession and will make a lot of quality chances against us.

 

[SteveH]

So far so good.
We have proved once again we can scare the opposition.

Why did Tim 'The Tormentor', take of Cooper?

 

[dudu]

This. It's the positions that players take up when we are without the ball which dictates the formation. We are very much playing a 442.

I'm not a fan of 442 in the main. I much prefer more attacking mids on the pitch so we maintain degree of control during the match.

It will be interesting to see if we continue with a 442 against Arsenal. A team who like to dominate possession and will make a lot of quality chances against us.

is this a rule of thumb?

i would think they way the other team set up to attack will dictate how we decide to defend?

 

[Stoof]

Sherwood is actually playing a style similar to that employed by HR.

Dare I say Martin Jol?

We used to play all sorts of inverted wingers or (attacking) central midfielders in the left midfield berth, from Davids to Reid to Malbranque etc.

 

[SpurSince57]

Dare I say Martin Jol?

We used to play all sorts of inverted wingers or (attacking) central midfielders in the left midfield berth, from Davids to Reid to Malbranque etc.

Only because we were silly enough to let Reto Ziegler go.

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

This. It's the positions that players take up when we are without the ball which dictates the formation. We are very much playing a 442.

I'm not a fan of 442 in the main. I much prefer more attacking mids on the pitch so we maintain degree of control during the match.

It will be interesting to see if we continue with a 442 against Arsenal. A team who like to dominate possession and will make a lot of quality chances against us.

We haven't performed very well against them with one up top. There is no such thing as an all conquoring formation and I've got to say it really bugs me that people think like that. someone else has said it already but players dictate formations. having Ade up there giving the team and Soldado a focal point and to play off of maybe more beneficial than just an extra body in midfield. We actually give the other team something to worry and it's not as though we weren't giving up chances with a lone forward. I also find it odd that people rate or even back a manager solely on the formation they play and not on picking the best players and getting them in a formation that brings out the best in them.

 

[SpurSince57]

This. It's the positions that players take up when we are without the ball which dictates the formation. We are very much playing a 442.

I'm not a fan of 442 in the main. I much prefer more attacking mids on the pitch so we maintain degree of control during the match.

It will be interesting to see if we continue with a 442 against Arsenal. A team who like to dominate possession and will make a lot of quality chances against us.

If we had attacking mids capable of scoring goals on a regular basis it would be a different matter. Perhaps we should get Jenas back.

 

[SpursManChris]

I've seen this comment on here a few times about Sherwood and questioned the assertions due to the fact that we had seen very little to either back the claim up or question it. After the last few games though, and particularly after the ManU performance, I'm wondering whether those that made the claims are seeing what I'm seeing, or if they are stubbornly holding onto the 'belief' as, let's face it, that is all it was based on so few games to formulate an analytical viewpoint.
Often we have seen the assertion that playing 442 will see us whacked by the better sides. The reality of the situation is that 442 is how we have set up, not how we have played. Other posters, apologies as I can't recall who, have put up our average pitch position monitors showing that, despite the initial set up, we are really playing more of a 433 and this is something I noted against Utd with Eriksen appearing to play more as an lf than a traditional lm.
The othe thing I noted was that many of the players were more fluid in their movement but with the overall shape of the team never really being lost.
Now call me naive, but this, in my experience, isn't accidental but a defined way of playing that, it seems, the players are immensely comfortable with and is a way of playing that we have been crying out for.
So, we have a team that, whilst maybe not retaining the amount of possession that was a hallmark of the AVB approach, is managing to dictate the flow of most games, is attacking with guile, adventure and purpose, is fluid across the pitch, is showing intelligence in increasing quantities and is doing all of this when being down to a squad of 16, 15 if you count the warm up injury to Naughton.
I'm not attributing all of this to Sherwood, as the basis for this was set by AVB really, but I'm finding what I am watching more and more encouraging. The way we kept Utd at arms length for the majority of the game also showed me that we are not reliant on a possession based game but that we can alter our tactics/style of play to suit the opposition.

So, overall, I'm saying that I have been impressed with the way the team is being 'managed' up until now and kudos should go to the entire management team for showing what I believe is far from tactical naivety but shows quite a mature understanding of the players available, the style of Football they, and we, want played and the ability to, so far, make the right decisions depending on the opposition, all with a hugely depleted squad.

Yes, I know it is early days, but there is still enough there to show that, for now at least, we are moving in the right direction.

Thoughts?

Given your title, I'm sure you can appreciate why myself and I'm sure everyone else, were expecting a post proposing that are "tactically inept." Glad to see you're saying we're not, though I'm wondering who has said we are. For that reason, I am bemused by the title.

 

[Flashspur]

There's a great "Are you a football hipster" quiz that you might enjoy

bring it on baby

 

[Ionman34]

Given your title, I'm sure you can appreciate why myself and I'm sure everyone else, were expecting a post proposing that are "tactically inept." Glad to see you're saying we're not, though I'm wondering who has said we are. For that reason, I am bemused by the title.

It was suggested by others on here in other threads, I won't mention names, that Sherwood was tactically inept, after the Soton game if I recall correctly. In the thread I suggested that it was far too early to make a judgement like that or, indeed, any judgement whatsoever. I opened this thread for obvious reasons. The rest is evident in the post itself.

I'm not really sure what is mystifying you though.

 

[Barry Mead]

IMO you don't need to give players 150 page dossiers on the opponents to be tactically astute. Part of a good coaches armoury is to do the work on the training pitch with exercises that prepare the players with what to expect and what as a manager you expect without having to fill the players heads with nonsense.
The players don't have to tactically astute per se; they just need to be able to apply the tactically astute moves that have been pre-trained into them.. (If that makes sense?)

Oh yeah I'm on the side of the managers that define a shape and style and give a broad outline of wishes and responsibilities to players but give them enough freedom within that to take and show responsibility both in dealing with the opposition and in working with their team mates. There has to be some team framework for players but I prefer to see focused work on set plays like attacking and defending corners and free kicks where players have to assume certain responsibilities. I think getting the balance and shape right for the strengths you have in your squad is what makes a good tactical manager and balancing advice with individual responsibility. Burdening plays with huge instructions on a what to do if basis is hardly going to make the vast majority of players improve their game as they struggle to suppress natural instincts whilst trying to do what was instructed and for me far too often resulting in not doing either well

 

[Barry Mead]

It strikes me for much of the game Ade has been playing in a deeper more am role than striker role, although that is hardly new for him, now though with Soldado in the mix we have a player in the main striker role to make it work better but with Ade a player who can interchange roles and get goals when opportunity arises. To me if you play Ade who invariably likes to sit deep and run the flanks it's essential to have a main striker as well, I'm not a fan of Ade playing the lone role, but when he is of a mind set to play he can be a very good player to give attacking and goalscoring options and has more chance of finding chances coming in from deep by having a more advanced player playing the main striker role

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

The difference between a 4-4-2 switching to playing 4-3-3 in attack and a 4-3-3, is that when defending in a 4-3-3 you are effectively playing with 5 in midfield and that gives you the extra players in there making you harder to break down.

Are you? doesn't it depend on who the three are? If you've got wide forwards who are genuine goal threats who like to play up in line with the focal point are they likely to drop in and make up the numbers when we lose it. If you play genuine midfielders/attacking midfielders in there, will they leave the forward isolated? have they got the right movement or goal threat to play around the forward and in essence wouldn't you call that a 4-5-1. Who would play in your version of a 4-3-3? my personal opinion is that formations are extremely overrated on here and you find a way of playing that suits you're best players and the players you have in general.

 

[Syn_13]

Certainly exposed Smallings limitations. To think SAF and Wenger both wanted Smalling. Two great managers and both were wrong about his potential IMO.

Really hit and miss with those two. Sure, they've unearthed some great talents, but they've also bought some real dross over the years.

 

[walworthyid]

Soldado was fantastic - absolutely working his socks off for the greater good.

He did but with quality. His passing was fantastic and he is really beginning to show strength when holding the ball up!
Was very impressed with him yesterday.

 

[Sp3akerboxxx]

I'm not sure. Very happy with the results (of course), and I don't mean this as a whinge. However, we may have been quite lucky that it was 4-4-2 vs 4-4-2. Obviously with Rooney running anywhere and everywhere it becomes more of a 4-5-1, but I do worry that a team that loads the midfield may be able to control the game against us.

Still, that hasn't happened yet. So onwards and upwards.

Oh, to play devil's advocate against myself, Man City have looked pretty good playing 4-4-2.