What you're saying is that, if you "love the club", it's okay for you to insult others who "don't love the club". Never mind the rules, never mind respect, education, etc. If you can't see how absurd this is, I won't try to change your mind.
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Right you fuckers who think it's our defence that's at fault! Read this piece, written by one of the most respected tactical writers in the game. He obviously communicates it far more eloquently than I've been trying to over in the Sanchez thread. But please do yourselves a favour and read it and understand our defensive issues are a consequence of a TEAM failing and not a DEFENDERS ONLY one.
Many years ago, there was a lively post-match debate on Sky Sports between Graeme Souness and Gordon Strachan.
The subject was the optimum way to defend corners, because the two Scots had just watched a team using zonal marking concede from a set piece.
Strachan was a proponent of defending zonally at corners, pointing to statistics about its increased effectiveness and explaining that it prevented attacking block-offs. Souness insisted that man-marking was a better approach. His main point, which he repeated on multiple occasions, was that “zonal marking lets players off the hook”.
Souness, whether or not he realised it, was effectively saying that his tactical preference stemmed from wanting to pin the blame for conceding on a player. If a zonal marking approach fails, the system — and therefore the manager who implements it — is considered culpable. But in a man-marking system, if someone gets outjumped by an opponent, you can point the finger directly at them.
And therefore what appeared a tactical debate was, in actual fact, nothing of the sort. It was really a debate about man-management, about the relationship between players and their boss, about the extent to which a manager must carry the can for their failings on the pitch. Strachan focused upon which was best for the team. Souness was about which was best for him.
This decade-old debate came to mind this week, in light of Jose Mourinho’s reaction to Tottenham Hotspur drawing at Newcastle United from 2-1 up with six minutes left, while permitting their highest single-game xG figure of the Premier League season so far. BBC reporter Juliette Ferrington asked Mourinho why his side keep on relinquishing leads, whereas previously his sides were renowned for hanging onto them. “Same coach, different players,” Mourinho responded.
Not for the first time, a revealing answer stemmed from a question framed in light of his previous successes — Mourinho has a habit of giving more detailed answers to questions that begin with things like “Jose, as someone who has won it all…”
It would be quite possible, though, for his players to respond in kind.
To varying extents, the likes of Toby Alderweireld, Eric Dier and Davinson Sanchez have previously played in a stern Spurs defence under Mauricio Pochettino. That was an entirely different style of defending, based around pressure in advanced positions and a high line.
When that defensive approach got breached, we tended to talk about the high line rather than the individuals.
It’s the same, for example, for Hansi Flick’s Bayern Munich, who used an extraordinarily high line en route to European Cup success last year. It was impossible to watch them defend against Barcelona in the last eight or final opponents Paris Saint-Germain without almost jumping out of your seat, such was the bravery of their high line. Had they conceded to PSG from a through-ball and a run in behind, Flick would have been blamed. But he would probably have accepted responsibility, for he knows that a high-risk, high-reward strategy is best for his side.
Mourinho once used that approach. Watch his triumphant Porto side throughout the Champions League knockout phase in 2003-04 and you’ll be surprised by how high his defence position themselves. These days, his defences sit deeper, dropping back to their own penalty box quickly, particularly if Tottenham have gone ahead. On multiple occasions this season, that approach has cost them. While Mourinho would explain it forms part of his attacking strategy, attempting to draw the opposition forward and give Spurs space to counter-attack into, rarely have his side constructed regular breaks to justify their deep positioning.
The thing with defending deep is that you’re asking your defenders to do more traditional defensive tasks. There are more aerial challenges inside your box, more situations where you have to stick tight to a player who is in a goalscoring position, more danger to anticipate and more blocks to be made. It also means that it’s more possible to concede goals that are not, in isolation, attributable to managerial strategy.
When Tottenham lost 2-1 away to Liverpool in December, for example, the goals came from a crazy deflection, and then a late set-piece concession (from, of course, man-to-man marking).
The first goal was unfortunate, but if you allow the opposition 76 per cent of the possession and 17 shots to your eight, there’s more chance of one finding its way into the net almost accidentally. Similarly, if you allow that much pressure, you concede more corners than you win (seven to four in this case), and there’s more chance of one leading to a goal. These things add up over time.
It is sometimes said that Mourinho is antiquated tactically; that his inability to win trophies recently is because he hasn’t adjusted strategically. There’s clearly an element of truth to that, in comparison to Jurgen Klopp and Pep Guardiola, but his primary problem is surely his inability to command the respect of players over a sustained period of time, evidenced by sudden drop-offs in his pre-Tottenham stints with Chelsea and Manchester United.
It came as little surprise that, after Mourinho responded to Sunday’s 2-2 on Tyneside by blaming his players, some of them objected. It’s difficult to imagine many other current managers responding similarly.
But that’s logical if Mourinho’s tactical approach is also out of step with that of his contemporaries. The tactical development of football, particularly over the last couple of decades, is about universality, about particular tasks being done collectively. Modern sides press aggressively from the front and play out from the back, meaning defensive play starts with your attackers and attacking play starts in defence. Every concept is a task for the entire side.
Mourinho’s approach is more old-school. He works less than other contemporary managers on prepared attacking possession routines, preferring to allow playmakers to find solutions themselves. In a world of false nines, Mourinho has always liked true strikers such as Didier Drogba, Diego Milito and Zlatan Ibrahimovic. He also likes proper defenders that belong in their own box: John Terry, Lucio, Ricardo Carvalho.
With that approach, it’s more viable to pin the blame on somebody when things go wrong. If a goal is conceded, a defender is more obviously at fault than the system. And this comes back to that Strachan-Souness debate, which demonstrated that tactical decision-making and man-management are not entirely separate concepts.
Mourinho’s reputation has never been lower, which is why he is determined to shift culpability onto his players and protect himself.
It’s entirely possible that his tactical decision-making is also geared towards absolving himself of blame.
Now, he’s fighting to prove he deserves to be in charge of Tottenham, rather than in his previous role: in a Sky Sports studio, nodding along with Souness.
Many years ago, there was a lively post-match debate on Sky Sports between Graeme Souness and Gordon Strachan.
The subject was the optimum way to defend corners, because the two Scots had just watched a team using zonal marking concede from a set piece.
Strachan was a proponent of defending zonally at corners, pointing to statistics about its increased effectiveness and explaining that it prevented attacking block-offs. Souness insisted that man-marking was a better approach. His main point, which he repeated on multiple occasions, was that “zonal marking lets players off the hook”.
Souness, whether or not he realised it, was effectively saying that his tactical preference stemmed from wanting to pin the blame for conceding on a player. If a zonal marking approach fails, the system — and therefore the manager who implements it — is considered culpable. But in a man-marking system, if someone gets outjumped by an opponent, you can point the finger directly at them.
And therefore what appeared a tactical debate was, in actual fact, nothing of the sort. It was really a debate about man-management, about the relationship between players and their boss, about the extent to which a manager must carry the can for their failings on the pitch. Strachan focused upon which was best for the team. Souness was about which was best for him.
This decade-old debate came to mind this week, in light of Jose Mourinho’s reaction to Tottenham Hotspur drawing at Newcastle United from 2-1 up with six minutes left, while permitting their highest single-game xG figure of the Premier League season so far. BBC reporter Juliette Ferrington asked Mourinho why his side keep on relinquishing leads, whereas previously his sides were renowned for hanging onto them. “Same coach, different players,” Mourinho responded.
Not for the first time, a revealing answer stemmed from a question framed in light of his previous successes — Mourinho has a habit of giving more detailed answers to questions that begin with things like “Jose, as someone who has won it all…”
It would be quite possible, though, for his players to respond in kind.
To varying extents, the likes of Toby Alderweireld, Eric Dier and Davinson Sanchez have previously played in a stern Spurs defence under Mauricio Pochettino. That was an entirely different style of defending, based around pressure in advanced positions and a high line.
When that defensive approach got breached, we tended to talk about the high line rather than the individuals.
It’s the same, for example, for Hansi Flick’s Bayern Munich, who used an extraordinarily high line en route to European Cup success last year. It was impossible to watch them defend against Barcelona in the last eight or final opponents Paris Saint-Germain without almost jumping out of your seat, such was the bravery of their high line. Had they conceded to PSG from a through-ball and a run in behind, Flick would have been blamed. But he would probably have accepted responsibility, for he knows that a high-risk, high-reward strategy is best for his side.
Mourinho once used that approach. Watch his triumphant Porto side throughout the Champions League knockout phase in 2003-04 and you’ll be surprised by how high his defence position themselves. These days, his defences sit deeper, dropping back to their own penalty box quickly, particularly if Tottenham have gone ahead. On multiple occasions this season, that approach has cost them. While Mourinho would explain it forms part of his attacking strategy, attempting to draw the opposition forward and give Spurs space to counter-attack into, rarely have his side constructed regular breaks to justify their deep positioning.
The thing with defending deep is that you’re asking your defenders to do more traditional defensive tasks. There are more aerial challenges inside your box, more situations where you have to stick tight to a player who is in a goalscoring position, more danger to anticipate and more blocks to be made. It also means that it’s more possible to concede goals that are not, in isolation, attributable to managerial strategy.
When Tottenham lost 2-1 away to Liverpool in December, for example, the goals came from a crazy deflection, and then a late set-piece concession (from, of course, man-to-man marking).
The first goal was unfortunate, but if you allow the opposition 76 per cent of the possession and 17 shots to your eight, there’s more chance of one finding its way into the net almost accidentally. Similarly, if you allow that much pressure, you concede more corners than you win (seven to four in this case), and there’s more chance of one leading to a goal. These things add up over time.
It is sometimes said that Mourinho is antiquated tactically; that his inability to win trophies recently is because he hasn’t adjusted strategically. There’s clearly an element of truth to that, in comparison to Jurgen Klopp and Pep Guardiola, but his primary problem is surely his inability to command the respect of players over a sustained period of time, evidenced by sudden drop-offs in his pre-Tottenham stints with Chelsea and Manchester United.
It came as little surprise that, after Mourinho responded to Sunday’s 2-2 on Tyneside by blaming his players, some of them objected. It’s difficult to imagine many other current managers responding similarly.
But that’s logical if Mourinho’s tactical approach is also out of step with that of his contemporaries. The tactical development of football, particularly over the last couple of decades, is about universality, about particular tasks being done collectively. Modern sides press aggressively from the front and play out from the back, meaning defensive play starts with your attackers and attacking play starts in defence. Every concept is a task for the entire side.
Mourinho’s approach is more old-school. He works less than other contemporary managers on prepared attacking possession routines, preferring to allow playmakers to find solutions themselves. In a world of false nines, Mourinho has always liked true strikers such as Didier Drogba, Diego Milito and Zlatan Ibrahimovic. He also likes proper defenders that belong in their own box: John Terry, Lucio, Ricardo Carvalho.
With that approach, it’s more viable to pin the blame on somebody when things go wrong. If a goal is conceded, a defender is more obviously at fault than the system. And this comes back to that Strachan-Souness debate, which demonstrated that tactical decision-making and man-management are not entirely separate concepts.
Mourinho’s reputation has never been lower, which is why he is determined to shift culpability onto his players and protect himself.
It’s entirely possible that his tactical decision-making is also geared towards absolving himself of blame.
Now, he’s fighting to prove he deserves to be in charge of Tottenham, rather than in his previous role: in a Sky Sports studio, nodding along with Souness.
Last edited:
My Man City mate (from Manchester) warned me about him, I just thought he was a bitter City fan.
Fucking hell I was wrong
Larry David dancing , that will be something to behold. You and Suzy Green would be worth breaking Covid rules for
Agree.
COVID though is a bit of a curveball, it's the same for every team in the short term (long term effects will be felt for years post COVID but suspect clubs like us will find it an advantage given the sound financial position enjoyed ahead of most other clubs). But in the shortest timeframe, it actually helped him out like no other, as the first lockdown came into force and the league was suspended, we were spiralling downward faster than the then Jamaican bobsleigh team.
The problem is it’s a straw-man argument from Jose. We’re not expecting him to win the league or CL, we know we need better players for that.
We’re asking him to fucking beat Newcastle, he should be able to do that with our 2nd XI if he’s even a moderate manager.
He's flounced a million times - yet always floats back up. We're gonna need a bigger toilet...
Well reasoned post.
Sums it up for me. Outdated, irresponsible and leading us on the path to nowhere. He’s a 20th century manager trying to play against 21st century football teams.
I'm actually starting to hate the arrogant wanker.
I agree with the first part of your post but not the second in that we haven’t progressed as much as I’d have liked but probably Levy is partly to blame as in the case of Dele
I don’t deny that at all
He did amazing things once he was allowed to get rid of all the shite he inherited but faltered badly on the run in
Jose hasn’t been allowed to get rid of the same sort of shite yet
Until he has done we can’t really judge him
That’s all I’m saying
You’re quite correct and he sited the reason to Case for leaving as ‘the Forum was a bunch of whiney cunts’!
On the coronavirus thread
But here he is
If, as you say, there is no money for new players where is the money going to come from to pay Jose off, pay another top managers compensation and his subsequent wages??
And if you do all that you have to find more money to do what Jose still has to do in getting rid of all the shite and buying new players
Don’t kid yourself if we got Nagelsmann or someone similar in that he would get this current squad playing!
We all know we are in for a proper re-build. I can't trust Jose to do this though, as already seems to have reached the point where he makes sure the blame sits by the players and not by himself.
It's scary to see how the situation in the last 6 months at United looks like the situation at Spurs since mid December. Spurs isn't a happy place, it's a club where one doesn't trust each other, everyone covers their own back, but not the one of their clubmates. Jose has alienated big parts of the squad at various times and the infighting between fans around his persona is getting worse.
I respect your opionion mate, but I don't want him in charge of team matters after May. If it was for me, I'd sack him now, but that may be emotionally influenced...
COYS!You did insult me and many others. That´s a fact.
About asking to quit, it wasDr Rocktopus who told me you did, though I don´t care if you did it or not; what I know is enough - you repeatedly insulted me and many others.
Now, I´ve seen some very good posters getting cards and suspensions and I think it´s about time you get yours.
Oh, and the fact that you think you are allowed to insult me and others because we don´t share your opinions says it all. Be decent - ask to quit again.
Agree with most of that mate but Spurs hasn’t been a happy place a good while before Jose got here
Last decent performance was at Everton around the Xmas before the CL final
That’s 11 months before Poch left and Jose was appointed
I don’t agree with everything Simon says but he’s very astute and bang on here!
The 2-6 was fantastic. We have had our moments after that of course, but we needed that painful rebuild.
Levy's mistake was to think that he could avoid it by appointing a serial winner. Shame that Mourinho is on his way down as well and can't really help matters.
The re-build hasn't really started and this summer we need to get some serious work done.
I was feeling like this after AVB/Sherwood too and we all remember how we turned it around.