That explains his anonymous performance
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...
Last night went a long way to shorting me out. That and a Chicken Tilkka massala with extra Scotch bonnet chilly helped too.
This 4-3-3 we play makes it difficult to fit Kulusevski and Maddison into the lineup. Kulusevski can still be shoehorned to the right, even though I don't see consider him a winger, but I can't see an ideal place for Maddison. As injured players come back he may slowly fall out of favour.
A holding midfielder/DM+ two highly energetic, box-to-box CMs seem to get this formation going. Wingers are very high up the pitch, and Ange in particular also lets his fullbacks march forward very liberally. This kind of a setup cannot afford a 10, just too unbalanced in terms of shape and mentality.
Under ideal circumstances we would have a quintet of Sarr/Bissouma/Gray/Bergvall/Bentancur to choose from, so I don't think it's necessary to expect the aforementioned two to play a role that they're clearly not comfortable with.
Maddison left. It’s so obviousThis 4-3-3 we play makes it difficult to fit Kulusevski and Maddison into the lineup. Kulusevski can still be shoehorned to the right, even though I don't see consider him a winger, but I can't see an ideal place for Maddison. As injured players come back he may slowly fall out of favour.
A holding midfielder/DM+ two highly energetic, box-to-box CMs seem to get this formation going. Wingers are very high up the pitch, and Ange in particular also lets his fullbacks march forward very liberally. This kind of a setup cannot afford a 10, just too unbalanced in terms of shape and mentality.
Under ideal circumstances we would have a quintet of Sarr/Bissouma/Gray/Bergvall/Bentancur to choose from, so I don't think it's necessary to expect the aforementioned two to play a role that they're clearly not comfortable with.
You can still suffocate/choke on it, though. Even if it doesn't get anywhere near the stomach, it just blocks the airways. I think that's what's meant by it.Well Tom Barclay has believed a myth then. It's a physical impossibility to swallow ones tongue.
A hot tikka masala? Well I never.Last night went a long way to shorting me out. That and a Chicken Tilkka massala with extra Scotch bonnet chilly helped too.
Was it particularly acute (rapid onset, but quicker than expected recovery of fever, but the cough remained)?Had the exact same thing. Sore throat, ear, now hacking cough high temperature.
See my question in the post above.Thank you, my man.
Fever down to low 38s today, breathing a little easier too. Docs reckon it's a combo of ear infection and the flu. Couple days and I'll be bouncing again.
True, but it can fall to the back of the throat and block the airway.Well Tom Barclay has believed a myth then. It's a physical impossibility to swallow ones tongue.
Great work!
Ange, in using the word "cynical" is using shorthand, rather than referring to the laws of the game. What he is likely referring to as "cynical" is unsporting behaviour designed to interfere with a promising attack (and doing so), in which case a booking is issued. Bergvall's offence was not in these terms "cynical", nor did it interfere materially with a promising attack. The question is whether Bergvall's offence was bookable in terms of it being a reckless challenge, which I think there is a good argument it was (it was late).
Agreed. What it says to me is that the PGMOL either don't know their own rules, or they've offered excuses for why players weren't booked when those offences were against us. Either way, AP's comments still aren't debatable, but the PGMOL's are.A relevant section from the laws :
"If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned."
Never suggested they should be. Maybe they should have the referees back in the classroom to reread the rules, then examine their answers. Mind you, if the PGMOL themselves don't know, they'll probably all score 100% because their "interpretation" is all that matters?I don't disagree for a minute we've had our share of bad luck / decisions (including Bergvall's first yellow), but that doesn't mean the laws of the game get re-written!
Checks shirt colour and badge...Fucking hell? Why on earth wasn't more made of this? Horrendous tackle. As bad as the Fulham one which VAR did send off.
He sure did.
6 Saves
4 Saves from Inside the Box
100% Successful Runs Out
100% Ground Duels Won
6 Successful Long Balls
32 Passes Completed
Very impressive.
Tbh, it's impossible for us to know whether it's Ange accurately repeating what PGMOL have told him or not (in the heat of an emotional post-match interview etc etc) . Ange has a right to be fucked off with officiating, and tbh I think was really naive with his "we'll just cop it" stance last season.All he did was repeat what he's been told by the PGMOL. If it's "shorthand," I'd say that's on them not him.
Agreed. What it says to me is that the PGMOL either don't know their own rules, or they've offered excuses for why players weren't booked when those offences were against us. Either way, AP's comments still aren't debatable, but the PGMOL's are.
Never suggested they should be. Maybe they should have the referees back in the classroom to reread the rules, then examine their answers. Mind you, if the PGMOL themselves don't know, they'll probably all score 100% because their "interpretation" is all that matters?
Ange has a right to be fucked off with officiating, and tbh I think was really naive with his "we'll just cop it" stance last season.
Dirty tackle of van Dijk on Solanke.
View: https://x.com/ONE_AMN/status/1877106054556725373
As the replay shows, Solanke clearly had the ball under control and Van Dijk comes in from behind with his studs high, pressing down on the Tottenham forward's calf. Per FA Law 12, S1 and S2 a player can be sent off for 'serious foul play' and 'violent conduct'.
With Van Dijk clearly not close to the ball and with his studs raking down the back of Solanke's leg, there could certainly be a case made for a red card. It will serve as a major source of frustration for Spurs fans then that VAR failed to even check the potentially dismissable offence.