Big Sam is not going to play Benteke or Zaha, who are knackered from putting in some incredible performances. Palace are very beatable, especially after Chelski draw vs Southampton tomorrow!
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Manager Mauricio Pochettino
- Thread starter WHITE&BLUE
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Poch will know better than anyone else if Davies has got what it takes to fend off Townsend as I'm sure they were up against each other in training numerous times. Townsend is inferior to Mosses, not the same threat, but he his much quicker than Davies, seeing as Palace main threat comes from flanks with Townsend and Zaha there is a very strong argument to play Son. There is absolutely no point in playing a player in a high-line defence that one of their main attackers, can simply run past, just like Mane did, may as well stick a traffic cone out there instead.
Would I feel comfortable with Son as wingback, of course I wouldn't. Would I feel comfortable with Davies playing as wingback, of course I wouldn't.
Last edited:
Sorry if you've subsequently answered this but how on earth did Conte force Poch to play Son at WB???
Go check the lineup for his loss at The Bridge.
To break the Son/Davies debate, I am going to give Poch some credit: Verts will only be the second outfield player to play for us who is over 30 or more since he has joined our club, the other one has been Adebayor for a few games. That is extremely remarkable.
The starting line up was
Lloris
Dier
Toby
Jan
Trippier
Wanyama
Dembele
Son
Eriksen
Alli
Kane
Someone mentioned we started with 4231, but I dont see how that was possible. I dont remember either Jan or Trippier at LB at the start?
That 11 has 3 at the back written all over it, and if Davies was unfit, I think we'd have been better off actually playing a genuine 4231 with Jan at LB, Dier and Toby CBs and Walker starting.
My two pence
Lloris
Dier
Toby
Jan
Trippier
Wanyama
Dembele
Son
Eriksen
Alli
Kane
Someone mentioned we started with 4231, but I dont see how that was possible. I dont remember either Jan or Trippier at LB at the start?
That 11 has 3 at the back written all over it, and if Davies was unfit, I think we'd have been better off actually playing a genuine 4231 with Jan at LB, Dier and Toby CBs and Walker starting.
My two pence
How about both of them?
Just found another one;
Sorry, that was tenuous... but something just occurred to me, for such a common Surname... there are surprisingly few Footballers called Davison or Davidson!
I almost had to put this cunt up instead;
Last edited:
We started;
...................Lloris
Trippier Dier Alderweireld Vertonghen
...........Wanyama Dembele
Eriksen ..........Alli ..........Son
....................Kane
They were through a few times almost immediately though, and we quickly changed to 343.
No, I am saying that if Rose had played instead of Son, the game would have panned out differently and we would have won.It didn't.
If you're suggesting that if you swap in Rose for Son everything pans out exactaly how it did up until and with the exception of Rose presumably not conceding a penalty maybe u should watch the butterfly effect.
Based on the game as it actually panned out we didn't lose because son was LWB. We lost because we conceded 4 goals. It's bizarre how people are putting all the emphasis on 1 goal as if that was the only one that mattered.
And you're seriously clutching at straws if ur trying to turn it into a debate about whether Rose would have made the difference.
Great managers make mistakes, great players and great men do to (I've even made a few myself). Refusing to accept this possibility makes you sound like you're part of some cult.
You accusing people of wanting the last word and refusing to let it go shows you have absolutely no self-awareness. It is you that is keeping the debate rolling. The vast majority seem to be willing to accept it was a mistake and move on.
Let's see if he is playing LWB against Palace. I highly fucking doubt it.
Last edited:
On Wednesday we could be up against equally speedy players in Zaha & Townsend. So if the "Davies has no pace & cant play against pace" argument holds any gravitas, then I assume Poch will play Son there again if it wasn't a mistake.
I hope to fuck he doesn't, but we will see.
And I wonder whether he will play Trippier ahead of Walker again?
Interesting to see how he lines us up for this one.
Mate, there's no way we'll see Son at LWB ever again. Even the apologists know this. It's the daftest argument in my time on here, but it's all part of the grieving process so I understand.
OK however you cut the cake we played better than Chelsea and should have beat them. Formation sometimes looked 4231 but mostly 343, key issues were two fold:
Whetever the formation, Son should not be in his own box defending like that, he has never done that before so must have been tactical, Poch won't have him even close to having to do that again
Just as bad, probably bad communication, was not marking their best player on a corner, 2 touches he got too, terrible
2 incidents that we will learn from, shame they both happened in this important game
On we go and let's keep our extraordinary league form going by beating palace
Whetever the formation, Son should not be in his own box defending like that, he has never done that before so must have been tactical, Poch won't have him even close to having to do that again
Just as bad, probably bad communication, was not marking their best player on a corner, 2 touches he got too, terrible
2 incidents that we will learn from, shame they both happened in this important game
On we go and let's keep our extraordinary league form going by beating palace
Joe with respect mate please don't aim the appologist line at people who disagree with you and a some others. They just disagree, it's as simple as that, nothing else to it.
Fuck me. I'm being accused of not letting it go and keeping it rolling by someone messaging me it half past fucking midnight 6 odd hours since I posted anything in the forum. And I lack self awareness!
I've got no problem admitting when he makes a mistake I just don't agree that this was one given the options available. Or at least not the "monumental" fuck up people are making it out to be.
And it winds me up whenever there's an unpalatable result that people have to flood to the Poch thread to criticise him. Those blaming him are just as unwilling to accept the view of people that aren't so get off ur high horse.
And for the record the "vast majority" don't think that. It's just the vocal few that are venting in this thread. I seem to be getting more "agrees" (9 odd I think on one post) than I have people that are arguing the toss with me which is about 3 or 4.
That's my opinion. You have yours.
And as I said to Boltonspur or Jan Fan (15 hours ago) I couldn't give a fuck about the last word so by all means have it....
Last edited:
Haha i dont actually remember posting this.. Amazed the only typo was furward....
What a fucking ridiculous statement.
Sherwood may have not made that particular mistake, no. But he made enough of his own this year to get Swindon relegated to the 4th tier of football.
He's been found out for what he really is... a fraud.
Most of us with half a brain cell could see it from a mile off. How people like you can still think that we made the wrong decision getting rid of him i will never know.
The way I see it there are 3 arguments here:
1) Poch made a monumental, idiotic, unimaginable decision to play Son where he did.
2) There WAS some logic to playing Son where he did but it didn't pay off and cost us the game.
3) There WAS some logic to playing Son where he did and despite the penalty the game wasn't lost on that decision.
The only opinion I take any issue with is the first. There are arguments either way for the second and third.
Poch will decide whether he thought it did or didn't work and if he does decide it didn't then that still doesn't mean it was an illogical thing to try. That is the point I've tried to get across.
I've made it clear that I could see the logic in it and I don't think ultimately it cost us the game. We dominated and may not have done if we'd gone for a defensive option. How things would have panned out then is anyone's guess.
That also doesn't mean I wouldn't have concerns about playing the same line up against Palace. I probably would play it but the risk is the same. Although if we dominate the game like we did against Chelsea I highly doubt Palace score 4 goals from 5 attempts.
1) Poch made a monumental, idiotic, unimaginable decision to play Son where he did.
2) There WAS some logic to playing Son where he did but it didn't pay off and cost us the game.
3) There WAS some logic to playing Son where he did and despite the penalty the game wasn't lost on that decision.
The only opinion I take any issue with is the first. There are arguments either way for the second and third.
Poch will decide whether he thought it did or didn't work and if he does decide it didn't then that still doesn't mean it was an illogical thing to try. That is the point I've tried to get across.
I've made it clear that I could see the logic in it and I don't think ultimately it cost us the game. We dominated and may not have done if we'd gone for a defensive option. How things would have panned out then is anyone's guess.
That also doesn't mean I wouldn't have concerns about playing the same line up against Palace. I probably would play it but the risk is the same. Although if we dominate the game like we did against Chelsea I highly doubt Palace score 4 goals from 5 attempts.
Tbf a gilet is a sensible clothing choice on those days where it's too warm for a coat but too cold for just a t-shirt.