Oh well years of Jose adoration has rubbed off on you. You clearly have developed some of his fiery Latin temperament. What a tool you are!!
-
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
Cunt. You and Igula can fuck off as well. All i have asked you both is why you get SOO upset when we win 3 points? You are calling me a jose fanboy, which is laughable, but carry on
Temper temper Shirley!!Must be the menopause
This is who we are. This is how we play. Dis is football. It's gut, ja?
It was not supposed to change. Don't you know that keeping possession is the sperm of the Devil?
Read your posts on a thread where we won 3 points and have a strong word with yourself. Good night .
Yep go sleep it off but before you do show me the post where I said I was unhappy with the win. Actually don’t bother cos you won’t find one. And please stop referring to Spurs as we!
People really are in lalaland if they think we're choosing to just back off. We're dead on our feet half the team.
Poxy Ropey league and the 387 games to date that is.
But 2 of those are bale and dele who have hardly played this season and now your saying they are part of the A team. Dele did t start v Burnley so don’t see any reason why jose had to sub him. Aurier didn’t even make the bench so prbly not fully recovered to play. Not sure why we always have to keep making excuses. Let’s face it if we could keep the ball and control the game we would have been home and dry without any difficulty. However we play some sort of non league pub football in the 2nd half for some reason.
This is the most BS argument. So now when everyone says we are in 2/3 cup competitions they can use that as an argument for saying we are too tired having played too many games. Either you want to do well in the cups or not. Since jose was bought in to do just that at a minimum. However the defence has been rotated all season. Dele and bale have hardly played so should be fresh. Kane has missed a few games and didn’t play in EL last 32 tie at all from what I recall. Only Son and PEH have played a lot of games.
You're right. It wasn't handball in your eyes, nor in mine. But in the eyes of the current law, it was.
I imagine we had the exact same feelings vs. Newcastle.
Oi, no need for that! And don't call me Shirley!!!
If it's dry you haven't done a good job.@matspur
what is the point of changing shape for changing sake. the best we could do on the right side was to bring on Moura for Bale. Nothing else could be done on the right side without screwing over almost everything else.
We always had 3 in the middle - Dele+Ndombele+PEH, Ndombele+PEH+Sissoko and finally Lamela+PEH+Sissoko.
Mourinho does not play with an AM but uses an advanced CM who is expected to drop deeper than the fwid players when we lose possession. Mourinho himself describe the roleas a #8.5 and not a #10.
there was no melting into the back line. it was always a 4-2-3-1.
If he was he would have started.
It did cos there was less space in the middle
We didnt start the game in that situation but as a result of changes in formation by Fulham in the 2nd half. We had the upper hand and several chances in the first but failed to convert on multiple occassions.
Your proposal would have left us exposed forthe entire 90mins
They dont lack the ability with Lookman's pace and Loftus-Cheek behind and Andersen ability to ping.
Instead of all those ping by Andersen going to close the byline, there would have been space for Lookman to be 1v1 with Lloris who is not fast enough nor willing to leave his line
You play with the personnel you have.
Yes it is. 3-number format breaks the pitch into defence, midfield and attack. 4-number formats simply further breaks down the midfield and/or attack into 2 levels 4.g. 4-3-2-1 vs 4-3-1-2
Mourinho doesnot use 4-4-2 quite often. This season we have started games with 4-2-3-1 32x, 4-3-3 3x, and 3-4-2-1 3x. Each of 4-2-1-2-1, 3-5-2, 4-4-2, 3-4-1-2, and 3-4-2-1 have only been used once
What you are describing wouldhave only made us sit even deeper. There is no justification for the extra CB, while Doherty would have been lost the protection he had in front of him. If Sanchez moved wide, it would have left a bigger space for the slower Toby to cover.
Both lookman and Robinson were already having a field day, and you dont want lookman running at Sanchez - thats a recipe for a penalty.
Cos the probem was not with the formation but with the players.
- if we had been more clinical, the game would have been out of reach
- if Kane was better at pressing, Andersen wouldnt have so much time on the ball
- if Doherty had better positioning and football iq, the same ball wouldnt have been pinged over his head 4x within 3 min
- if Davies, Doherty and Toby, could get past their man, Fulham's pressure wouldnt have been so successef
- If Sanchez, Doherty and Davies were better on the ball, they wouldnt repeatedly kick the ball to the opposition and invite further pressure.
- If Ndombele was a natural DM, we would have been more solid in the middle
- if we had a metronome/playmaker, we would be better able to maintain control of tempo in a game
Changes in formation is not going to hide those flaws
That's as banal a statement as me saying to you what's the point of not changing shape for the sake of it.
It's not quite that simplistic though, as Mourinho plays with a very clearly defined CM2 and nominal ACM, and has them (the nominal ACM) dropping back, depending on who it is, with varying efficacy, and us switching to a 352 or 442 wouldn't have had to change that aspect of tactically flexibility - even in the 442 one of the 2 could still drop back and make it a 451 without the ball.
Last few games he used Moura as the ACM, he is categorically not a CM or an 8.5. And he always plays with wider AM's.
I thought you said it was a 433. But that's exactly my point. It was a 4231 and stayed fundamentally by intention a 4231, just with very little coached structure as ever everyone shrinking further and further back into a de facto 6-4.
If he wasn't, he wouldn't be on the bench
Wow, they changed formation and it wasn't for the sake of it, that's blown my mind.
Mourinho rarely starts a 442, but often has us switch to one during games.
No it wouldn't. That's barely possible. It would have just done exactly what you said we needed to do, protect the flanks and clog the middle, whilst also retaining some ability to counter.
Changes in formation did exactly that for Fulham. Making no changes didn't improve us tactically at all.
If the problem is not with the formation then you dont change it
Defensively, we play with a double pivot i.e. 2 DMs (PEH+Ndombele against Fulham) side-by-side and a CM (Dele) ahead of them. the LWF/LM and RWF/RM are exepcted to track back and help the LB/RB defensively. (When we have the ball, the more creative of the DM moves to a CM role while the existing CM becomes an AM typically joined by the RM, while the LWF joins the CF in the final 3rd the full backs are expected to provide the width.)
The 3-5-2 would change things defensively as we now have WBs that are solely responsible for the flanks i.e. There is no LM/LWF or RM/RWF to help on the flanks. Doherty and Bale/Moura were struggling with Robinson and Lookman on the right flank. A change to 3-5-2 would have further exposed Doherty as he would now have to dealwith both on his own. Why you think that would helpful, I simply cant understand. As for Sanchez helping him, it would leave Toby exposed (you cant have the 3CBs too far apart)
A 4-4-2, keeps the protection on the flank, but instead of having 3 midfelders you would be expecting a striker to drop back into the midfield. Son is not used to dropping that deep nor does he have the required work rate forthe middle of the park. Son is more of a forward than a midfielder and asking him to drop that deep would be terrible.
That is the role he is played in. The more we have the ball, the more he is an AM and less he needs to be a CM
Its a 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 hybrid cos the AM is not a true AM but an ACM,while on the rightside has an RM while the left side has a LWF.
There is nothing wrong with the formation, the issue is with the limitations of the players. Changing formation wont make it go away.
Being on the bench doesnt mean a player is available to start,
cos they were outnumbered in the midfield and changed formation to fix it. Your suggested formation changes wouldnt have fixed anything
He rarely does.
No. 3-5-2 exposes the flanks as you have only the WBs out there with no cover.
It made sense cos Fulham's problem in the first half stemmed from numerical inferiority in the mdifield, with their 2 vs our 3 (4-4-2 vs 4-2-3-1) and we just played through them. the change to 4-5-1 equalized the midfield numerically. Us going to 4-4-2 would have put us in the situation that Fulham ran away from. Dont understand howyou can think that would have been a good idea.
EDIT: Ifyou want to discuss further, we can move it to a separate tactics thread
You need to see a mental heath professional. You’re like a serial killer in a Jo Nesbo book.
This is what you get when two cunts collide.
He’s a complete wanker. You would think, from all his fuming and raging, we lost 2 games in a row!
He’s upset and hurling insults left and right and center... cos we WON!
I thought you might have stopped crying by now. Out of the blue you called me a cunt and wanted a fight outside the ground- and yet I’m the wanker! I never said I was upset that we won and I never said Fulham deserved anything so give it a rest.
You clearly need some counselling
You talking as if the the three in the centre of the 5 can't move. If we have 3CM's and two WB's the whole midfield fluidly moves across where the play develops. The lateral 8's help double up with the FB's where the play develops. Conte's Inter being a very easy example. It's not like I'm advocating we push the WB's 20 yards ahead of the midfield/defence in this scenario.
At no point did we have an orthodox three in midfield, even after the first sub, Mourinho put Sissoko next to (a weary) Hojbjerg and pushed Ndombele ahead of them into the ACM position. Thus not improving our ability to prevent them playing through and around our midfield.
And even Ignoring any radical changes in shape, he could/should have just made it a proper orthodox 433 with, 451 without when he brought Sissoko (and Moura) on, instead of maintaining largely the same 4231 structure (even in hybrid form). Tactically, structurally it changed very little, Sissoko trundling about offered even less than a tiring Ndombele next to Hojbjerg. All we got was a slightly more energetic Moura on the right. No problem with that (Moura) but structurally we failed to address other issues, such as an ability to control (and clog as you put it) the centre of the pitch. It didn't address their numerical advantage in midfield (4141 v 4231 ergo 5- v 2 or at best in hybrid mode 5 v 3 midfield scenario) and their ability to pull us around and pass through us and press us out of possession.
And on a more fundamental level, the notion that we need to adopt a deep block for 45 minutes because Fulham have Lookman on their left flank is risible. They are bereft of creative and attacking quality, and Lookman aside, are pretty ponderous