• 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...

    Get involved!

Match Watford @ Wembley. 30/01

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

mikes01666 said:
...anywhere but Woolwich...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
RIGHT!
Treating him like they did, the club really deserved unswerving loyalty, passionate support for the club and deep respect for the way he was treated.

Jennings situation was the polar opposite of Campbell, who deserves to rot for what he did.

His re-introduction to the club, was the new managements way of apologising, and its churlish and petty to to think of the guy in anything but a positive light after what he did for us. The galling bit is the stupidity of the owners for selling a guy who went on to play several seasons at the top flight playing 327 games for the goons - 8 seasons, pissed away.

And people want to blame him? Boy is that an arse about face way of looking at things
 
Mick Cooper said:
RIGHT!
Treating him like they did, the club really deserved unswerving loyalty, passionate support for the club and deep respect for the way he was treated.

Jennings situation was the polar opposite of Campbell, who deserves to rot for what he did.

His re-introduction to the club, was the new managements way of apologising, and its churlish and petty to to think of the guy in anything but a positive light after what he did for us. The galling bit is the stupidity of the owners for selling a guy who went on to play several seasons at the top flight playing 327 games for the goons - 8 seasons, pissed away.

And people want to blame him? Boy is that an arse about face way of looking at things
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As I said earlier "We don't agree on much"
 
Guido said:
Yep.

Thought Auier was OK yesterday (not outstanding, OK), busier than Rose in the first half (Rose sensational, apart from his crossing, 2nd half).

His substitution was clearly tactical.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I thought he was very poor offensively.

To be subbed off and have your position filled by a CM says it all for me.
Sissoko at RB put in more decent crosses in 24min than Aurier did in 45mins.
 
Boltonspur said:
Ahh. The Pat Jennings debate again.
Man is a legend.
Told by the club he was not getting a new contract. Replaced by an absolute calamity.
It was a huge misjudgment by our club. He would have stayed with us until the end of his career had we given him the opportunity.
He was a free agent.
He was offered a great deal by that lot.
He had a young family, in an era where it was normal to keep them in the same family home and the same school. Why uproot everyone when there was a great offer on the table that prevented that? And a chance to prove his ex employees wrong.
Whilst I understand the fans perspective of a treachery, I don’t see it that way. He was happy to stay, told to leave and chose what was, for him and his family, the best option. Any fan would do exactly the same thing if they were told they could leave their current work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He was never going to sign for them....until some cunt on the board wouldn't speak to him...made his mind up there and then...
 
Guido said:
Yep.

Thought Auier was OK yesterday (not outstanding, OK), busier than Rose in the first half (Rose sensational, apart from his crossing, 2nd half).

His substitution was clearly tactical.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Is that newspeak for someone who's playing like a headless chicken?
"I hooked him for tactical reasons"
"What tactic was that?"
"I wanted my team to win, and he was a massive obstruction to that outcome"
 
stevee said:
I thought he was very poor offensively.

To be subbed off and have your position filled by a CM says it all for me.
Sissoko at RB put in more decent crosses in 24min than Aurier did in 45mins.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He's clearly wasn't hooked, the sub was tactical. It did show that Poch rates Sissoko over him, however. With the exception of Rose's cross to Llorente at the death, our crossing was abysmal last night, there were no decent crosses delivered by anyone. 49 Crosses (+ a further 9 Corners) we delivered last night!!!!
 
Mick Cooper said:
Is that newspeak for someone who's playing like a headless chicken?
"I hooked him for tactical reasons"
"What tactic was that?"
"I wanted my team to win, and he was a massive obstruction to that outcome"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We didn't create much in the first half despite our 70% possession. It was a great substitution made evident by Lucas running at the oppo and getting behind them and turning them, absolutely the right thing to do when facing a well-drilled team sitting deep happy to defend a 1-0 lead.

I thought Jan was brilliant last night, probably our best player in the first half, he was subbed off, maybe he was also hooked because Poch thought he played shite??
 
Guido said:
He's clearly wasn't hooked, the sub was tactical. It did show that Poch rates Sissoko over him, however. With the exception of Rose's cross to Llorente at the death, our crossing was abysmal last night, there were no decent crosses delivered by anyone. 49 Crosses (+ a further 9 Corners) we delivered last night!!!!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So Poch rates Sissoko a CM at RB/RWB than an actual RB/RWB.
That in itself speaks volumes.
 
Guido said:
We didn't create much in the first half despite our 70% possession. It was a great substitution made evident by Lucas running at the oppo and getting behind them and turning them, absolutely the right thing to do when facing a well-drilled team sitting deep happy to defend a 1-0 lead.

I thought Jan was brilliant last night, probably our best player in the first half, he was subbed off, maybe he was also hooked because Poch thought he played shite??
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The main argument against that being that Aurier played like he was pissed and Vert's was playing well.
IMHO
 
Five said:
Christ on a bike.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
giphy.gif
 
stevee said:
So Poch rates Sissoko a CM at RB/RWB than an actual RB/RWB.
That in itself speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not that black and white, Sissoko still offers his runs from deep, carrying the ball up the pitch, we were clearly beginning to take more risks going forward committing more people forward as Lucas's runs were creating more space. Also, 20mins latter Sissoko was subbed too. And then another sub.

Subs don't have to be like for like and by the time we had scored we were effectively playing with 1.5 CB's. (Sanchez remaining deep with Toby in advance of him as he was for the last few mins of the Fulham game).
 
Guido said:
Not that black and white, Sissoko still offers his runs from deep, carrying the ball up the pitch, we were clearly beginning to take more risks going forward committing more people forward as Lucas's runs were creating more space. Also, 20mins latter Sissoko was subbed too. And then another sub.

Subs don't have to be like for like and by the time we had scored we were effectively playing with 1.5 CB's. (Sanchez remaining deep with Toby in advance of him as he was for the last few mins of the Fulham game).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If it was for tactical reasons ONLY, to allow Moura to come on and run at their defence, why not sub Sissoko off ?

Subbing Sissoko would not have altered any change to the new approach and we would of have a "specialist" RB/WB on the pitch.

Unless as you say, Sissoko is better at running from deep and carrying the ball, which in effect is what a WB should be doing anyway.
 
Five said:
Christ on a bike. That's David Moyes stuff right there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was doing my fucking nut. I fucking hate this type of football. I've absolutely no problem if we are crossing but also building play around the box as well, I like variety. I thought our build-up wasn't too bad last night, ebbed and flowed a bit but when we got into the final third we just pumped it in to be blocked or miss a Spurs shirt.

I quite enjoyed Llorente's performance last night but the only negative is that we decided to cross it to him all night, fine with us recognising that this is his perhaps his biggest threat but that relies on us actually able to get the ball on his head.

Anyway, paid off in the end.
 
Guido said:
I was doing my fucking nut. I fucking hate this type of football. I've absolutely no problem if we are crossing but also building play around the box as well, I like variety. I thought our build-up wasn't too bad last night, ebbed and flowed a bit but when we got into the final third we just pumped it in to be blocked or miss a Spurs shirt.

I quite enjoyed Llorente's performance last night but the only negative is that we decided to cross it to him all night, fine with us recognising that this is his perhaps his biggest threat but that relies on us actually able to get the ball on his head.

Anyway, paid off in the end.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well what choice is there when Eriksen is playing on the halfway line and refuses to try anything whatsoever to unlock the defence. Lay offs in the middle of the pitch wont put Son in behind the back line
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top