I'm afraid what your are suffering is confirmation bias.His game was better than the vast majority, if not all, of Auriers games for us.
He was much better attacking that Aurier ever was and defensively he wasn't any worse, actually made an effort and didn't make the moronic plays that Aurier constantly makes.
It wasn't a masterclass but much better than what we get with Aurier.
He looks a little bit like Trippier to me. Only with “crossing” swapped out for “1-2s around the area” as his special power. He does worry me defensively, looks quite flat footed and can see him having tough time against Sterling or someone nippy. Still gonna be an improvement on Aurier.Initial impression is a positive one. Puts a shift in and not afraid to go forward if the chance presents itself. Could so easily have been on the scoresheet. Few more games under his belt and we'll have a reliable solid defender who can also link up with the attack. Sorted.
I'm afraid what your are suffering is confirmation bias.
I'll type this again HE LOST ALL BAR ONE of his defensive 1v1's!!! Richarlson was allowed to cross the ball numerous times completly unopposed (I put this down to fitness, Jose confirmed this, but it's a fact, it happened and therefore that is a bad thing when it is your job (when not pushed up) to defend these actions. He was also better in the air twice at the back post, lost the flight of the ball for the first.
I've acknowledged his attacking today, I liked it, I like when he comes off the line and gets behind the defense, but this did only happen twice, but it was good, should have scored in fact but not going to did him out on it.
He wasn't fit enough to complete 75mins.
This wasn't a reliable solid defensive performance. He was poor defensively today, there is no other way to describe it.Initial impression is a positive one. Puts a shift in and not afraid to go forward if the chance presents itself. Could so easily have been on the scoresheet. Few more games under his belt and we'll have a reliable solid defender who can also link up with the attack. Sorted.
Read my fucking posts twice before you start bashing out a reply like that to me. I said :This wasn't a reliable sold defensive performance. He was poor defensively today, there is no other way to describe it.
He attacked well, but given he is our plan 'A' offensive outlet and we were shit offensively we should be going overboard either (not his fault, I blame Jose).
I do not not agree with you. Aurier is regularly better defensively that Doherty was today.We are comparing him to Aurier not saying was great.
Aurier constantly gave us similarly awful defensive displays coupled with much worse offensive performances, a lack of effort and dumb, costly mistakes.
Yes Doherty needs to be better but his performance today was better than what we got from Aurier for the vast majority of the games he played for us.
I do not not agree with you. Aurier is regularly better defensively that Doherty was today.
I really like Doherty getting into the box rather than just crossing the ball from out wide. But he did this twice, the link up with Kane was great and should/could have scored. Maybe if he's fitter and better wavelengths with AM's and Kane we'll see lot more, hope so. But my worry is we'll have to compensate him being high up the pitch, which means sacrificing a Midfielder, can't see Jose getting brave and pushing everyone up it's not his MO.
Keep you hair on fella.Read my fucking posts twice before you start bashing out a reply like that to me. I said :
Few more games under his belt and we'll have a reliable solid defender .That means we will have which implies in my opinion he showed enough today to prove that after a few more games he will be a solid and reliable defender. FFS
Ask yourself one question and answer truthfully. Had that goal scoring opportunity he had been taken would you still be spouting as negatively about him as you are doing ? If the answer (and be honest) is no then a lot of your negativity concerning the guy pivots on a very good save by Jordan Pickford. Worth thinking about maybe ?Keep you hair on fella.
It's still baseslles though isn't it? Had he actually stopped them crossing, won a tackle or defensive action then yeah, there is the basis of something to be hopefull. He was poor defensively and therefore nothing tangagble to base something for the future. Although I'm sure he'll improve if fitter etc.. that stands to reason.
Based on what I've already seen of him (pre-Tottenham) I don't believe his strengths are in defense, I think he'll be very good in attack though. This was somewhat how it played out today.
Him scoring wouldn't change the fact he wasn't very good defensively today. I would have still called this whilst also congratulating him for his goal. Just as I've also said what I liked about his attacking performance today, but it wasn't anything scintillating, nothing to get overly excited about as it was only a couple of attacks but I am looking forward to him getting into the oppo box as opposed to lobbing in low % crosses all game.Ask yourself one question and answer truthfully. Had that goal scoring opportunity he had been taken would you still be spouting as negatively about him as you are doing ? If the answer (and be honest) is no then a lot of your negativity concerning the guy pivots on a very good save by Jordan Pickford. Worth thinking about maybe ?
Fair enough. I asked and you answeredHim scoring wouldn't change the fact he wasn't very good defensively today. I would have still called this whilst also congratulating him for his goal. Just as I've also said what I liked about his attacking performance today, but it wasn't anything scintillating, nothing to get overly excited about as it was only a couple of attacks but I am looking forward to him getting into the oppo box as opposed to lobbing in low % crosses all game.
But today I've put that more down to Jose than him anyway.
I'm not spouting negativity, I'm reflecting on his overall performance. If I thought he defended well then I'd be mentioning that.
I thought Hojbjerg was shit and said so, why dress it up any other way?
Hope you don't mind me posting, as a Wolves fan, as much contradictory information has been posted about the acquisition of Matt Doherty. I often check this site out anyway, as Spurs are a bit of a 2nd-team for me (if such a thing can really exist?). I last managed to catch Spurs in the flesh in a fairly dour 1-1 v Burnley at Wembley.
Anyway, I will give you my thoughts regards Doc, and the move. If anyone can be bothered to read them. Perhaps I am stating the obvious.
Wolves fans have grown fond of him after 10 years service, rising fron Irish non-League through the divisions with Wolves, to those lofty heights where he scored a superb dramatic winner at home to Man City, which is air-played repeatedly.
But Doherty, as many of you have rightly identified, constitutes two very different players and hence a bit of a conundrum. It's obviously all about how you use him - he is very effective as a wing-back in a 5-man defence and has gained Wolves precious points in this system, with Willy Boly and Saiss behind him and Conor Coady as sweeper. This is the Doc that is so admired, despite his defensive weaknesses. A very good wing-back.
But 'at times' he looks very slow and laboured, even at wing-back, and can be easily-beatable if employed in a 4-man defence as a traditional full-back. He will not sprint back. How he played yesterday was exactly how he plays all the time, though perhaps he did run out of energy late on. But in general with Doc, there are times when you want to install a battery to inject a bit of pace and urgency that appears concerningly absent, whilst at others he gallops forward late on when the game looks dead to score a crucial winning goal.
In a 4-man defence his natural game looks limited and badly exposed at points in time, but in a 5-man defence his frailties can be covered and strengths capitalised. As Wolves play a 5-man defence, dictating a counter-attacking style sometimes even at home, his game often looks impressive. So with Doc, it is critical how he used and in what formation. In a flat back four, he will be found out, and if he is used as such, for me it is the manager's fault not the player's as he should recognise these issues rather than hanging him out to dry.
One aspect that the press have wrongly reported here, is that Spurs somehow prized him away against the manager's wishes, this has been widely reported and it might seemingly make sense admittedly, as Spurs are obviously a bigger pull than Wolves. It is an angle or perspective that the press have keenly grabbed on to here, exacerbated by the likes of Sky Sports 'Mr Manchester United' man himself Dharmesh Sheth.
The truth is somewhat different. Once Mourinho made his move and offer for the player, Nuno and Jeff Shi discussed it, and Nuno sanctioned it, before telling Doherty that they would let him go if he wanted the move. In a way that was pushing him out, with Wolves content to let him go, and the player undoubtedly thrilled about joining Spurs especially once he knew Wolves were prepared to let him go. He still had a few years of his contract to run, so we had no obligation to release him. But Nuno has identified that to progress we need to evolve (easier said than done of course, especially for a club of Wolves stature). No doubt Nuno has/had some regrets, but he clearly feels that for Wolves, on balance it is an area on the pitch that could be improved. We will see if a better player comes in?
The fee seemed low, indeed reported as a steal, but again, if Doc is played in a 5-man system , even at 28 he is surely worth £20m minimum, but if you play him in a 4-man system he is probably not Premiership standard and worth about £5m.
Over to you Mourinho.