My point is, that no matter how many times I say it you keep ignoring, is that very much was not a full blown B team.
Last edited:
-
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
My point is, that no matter how many times I say it you keep ignoring, is that very much was not a full blown B team.
I'm not ignoring that aspect of what you're saying, I just disagree....
9 changes from the team we fielded in the EPL last week..... Starting XI missing all of our best performers of the season thus far (including our entire MF and our biggest attacking threats by far)....
I sense you think I'm defending the result/performance in some way; I'm not... Individually, collectively and managerially it was flawed; but think back the question I responded to to initially.... I identified where the risks lay... Amongst them there were risks that didn't pay off. Seems to me that if anything is being ignored it's you ignoring these factors and gunning exclusively for Jose (even thought we've seen similar scenarios with other managers over and over when rotating heavily).
It's the risk you take, when you sacrifice continuity and momentum vs rest and assigning minutes to those deemed 'in need' in games that represent a proverbial 'cup final' for the oppo..... What's more when bringing on the big guns to save the day; if the oppo are already 'in the groove', then sometimes it will prove too little too late.
Last edited:
What is pathetic is your failure to grasp the simplicity of what my argument is, despite me explaining it and even giving you real world examples. Instead you chose to straw man it.
It would be pathetic to suggest teams won’t always be more productive with their most outstandingly productive/creative players, but that’s not what I did.
Peak Guardiola City without Aguero were still well coached, tactically proficient, played very good football (and picked up wins). Guardiola's Barca without Messi still played good football, were tactically good (and won games).
More recent iterations of Barca with Messi haven't won the league. ManC with Aguero haven't won the league or have lost games.
There is a massive difference between being well coached, tactically well drilled, performing well as a team and having you best players, and being not so well coached, not very good tactically and having your best players.
There is a difference between having a sustainable ethos and an unsustainable one, with or without your best players.
There is a massive difference between "not winning the league" because your top scorer's out, and being utterly shite because your top scorer's out.
What I'm arguing here isn't even a nuanced thing. Surely you can get that?
Let's go back to my original question, which was why was that line up so "risky"?
Bar Vinicius (and Bale but he's hardly what you'd call a B team player is he) every single one of those players are players who have played loads of first team football over the last weeks and months and with proper coaching should have been playing together as a group in training for the last few days.
That back 5 would be many people's first choice certainly 4 of them.
That CM2 is no more "risky" than Hojbjerg and Sissoko as a combo (who were atrocious last two PL games). They lack height, but are at least as tenacious more mobile and better technically.
Most people would prefer to see Bergwijn than Moura for example (personally I don't rate either). Son wasn't out there and though he's clearly not as likely to produce goods, many people still rate Alli very highly (not me).
Kane's absence should have at least been partially mitigated by having our RM uber star out there, no?
So I'm not saying that was the strongest team we could put out, it definitely wasn't, I'm saying I don't think it was risky. What were we risking? that we would only score a couple of goals instead of 4 ? That our performance wouldn't be quite as slick as with out best 11? That's not "risky" IMO, it's just minor trade offs.
IMO, that team wasn't our best obviously, but was good enough, personnel wise, to not be "risky".
What were we risking? Win vs Loss.
Seemingly Jose's favoured starting XI so far this season:
Hugo
Serge / Toby / Dier / Reg (* Though evidently not 100% trusted yet - See Burnley.)
Sissoko / PEH / Ndombele
Lucas (Lamela?) / Kane / Son
.....Those who played highlighted.
Theory:
Individually, on paper, if all were fit and in form; I'd agree those that started ought to have been enough...
Reality:
Davies had a rick..... Winks & Dav struggled... Gio looked ok, but trying to work his way back to fitness.... Dele passenger.... Frontline had no cohesion.... Bale & Stevie - individually - looked off....
Bale: Naughty Blakey, you know he's not up to speed yet. Like I said numerous times "form, fitness and rotation".
Let's call it a day, yeh.
Yeah, I'm not comfortable with acting like they're a pub side - a settled team on formidable form always has a chance against eleven strangers who don't take them seriously enough. I think ppl were pretty happy with the line-up when we first put it out though, and that XI should still have been enough; and in truth if Antwerp had even just slightly more quality in the final third they should've scored more.
I'm happy to move on but looking at that in the context of the Burnley performance as well, it's clear to me we need to figure out a more coherent system as a team for breaking down defensive sides. As well as not lose midfield against the pressing sides, which means Brighton tmw will be a good test too.
Just watched the highlights... we were pathetic! Davies shocking on 2 occasions.