Player Watch: Kieran Trippier

[Spurs_Bear]

Yeah, but you’ll also get Berbatov, Modric and Bale.

I'll raise you Pavlyuchenko, Dos Santos and David Bentley.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Or, as Trippier is the most creatively productive of those lot, it could be that they are missing a trick?

Let’s be realistic here, it’s not like Trippier is Corluka slow is it? Aurier is quicker, but what’s the point of being quicker if you do stupid shit at each end of the pitch? Is that a good trick?

Is that "more creatively productive" bollocks to the detriment of the team dynamic though? Could be, could be.

 

[lukespurs7]

Yeah not particularly mate and I don't think Davies on the other side is either. I just felt the criticism Trippier received after last night was a bit too much and I do think he has his uses even if I don't think he's long term starting 11 material for us. Currently though, other than Son he's the only other player in the squad who is really any sort of outlet from wide areas. Which maybe says a lot about our squad too really.

I am of course aware of his shortcomings, but in our current situation I'd rather have someone with those particular shortcomings being selected than someone who I unfortunately fear too often can concede stupid fouls, get sent off or give away a penalty.

Yea he’s best option at the moment and criticism was unfair as he has a great game but as I said a while ago, games we dominate against lesser teams he’s perfect but in the big games at the top level he’s not quite good enough. We shall see what Poch decides. It’s a shame as if he was a bit faster and stronger / better defensively 1v1 he’d be the perfect RB but then he’d probably be off to Madrid etc

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Is that "more creatively productive" bollocks to the detriment of the team dynamic though? Could be, could be.

Creatively productive bollocks is like .....you know....making goals and shit. Which, if he's not actually costing us much defensively, makes that bollocks quite useful. I mean do we win that game Monday if Aurier's playing (or Walker) ?

Trippier is quite a cute little fucker, unlike Aurier and Walker say. It's not just that he can cross a ball better than most RB's in this league, but he also plays clever little through balls like the handful he played Monday that put Son and Eriksen into the box - which they mostly fucked up.

I know Trippier isn't a complete package. But if you break it down to it's component parts - attacking play, midfield game play (which is what our FB's are effectively, de facto midfielders), defending - physical attributes v mental attributes - I honestly think at the very worst we are no worse off for having Trippier there over Walker.

Personally I'd take Trippier, because we are a team that spends most of it's time in our opponents half and I don't think Trippier costs us much defensively at all.

You're doing a lot of wise-cracking but not really telling me why Walker or Aurier are better overall packages?

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Creatively productive bollocks is like .....you know....making goals and shit. Which, if he's not actually costing us much defensively, makes that bollocks quite useful. I mean do we win that game Monday if Aurier's playing (or Walker) ?

Trippier is quite a cute little fucker, unlike Aurier and Walker say. It's not just that he can cross a ball better than most RB's in this league, but he also plays clever little through balls like the handful he played Monday that put Son and Eriksen into the box - which they mostly fucked up.

I know Trippier isn't a complete package. But if you break it down to it's component parts - attacking play, midfield game play (which is what our FB's are effectively, de facto midfielders), defending - physical attributes v mental attributes - I honestly think at the very worst we are no worse off for having Trippier there over Walker.

Personally I'd take Trippier, because we are a team that spends most of it's time in our opponents half and I don't think Trippier costs us much defensively at all.

You're doing a lot of wise-cracking but not really telling me why Walker or Aurier are better overall packages?

Ok.

I prefer my full backs to get beyond the defensive line (Walker type), stretch the play with pace and power, I then don't care whether he bumbles his way through into the box, there's a pinball effect that results in a goal and he doesn't get an assist for it.

Scenario: Trippier makes 8 crosses into the box over the period of 2 games, 7 of those are shite but one gets powered into the corner with a Ronaldo-esque overhead kick. In that same game a different full back, powerful and quick, stretches the back 4 and creates space for cut backs, space for strikers to knock about in etc.

At the end of those two games, here's the kick out; Trippier 1 - 0 Powerful Full back.

That's what you call "pissing on other full backs with creatively productive output", I call it #fakenews in the same way Trump or the Leave campaign conducted it's business.

I don't hate Trippier, I don't love Walker, the two aren't mutually exclusive. What I do despise is your consistent, incorrect, arrogant interpretation of completely worthless stats.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Or, as Trippier is the most creatively productive of those lot, it could be that they are missing a trick?

Let’s be realistic here, it’s not like Trippier is Corluka slow is it? Aurier is quicker, but what’s the point of being quicker if you do stupid shit at each end of the pitch? Is that a good trick?

I do appreciate what Trippier brings in terms of delivery.

I actually think we are yet to see a perfect example of the modern fullback.

Creatively productive bollocks is like .....you know....making goals and shit. Which, if he's not actually costing us much defensively, makes that bollocks quite useful. I mean do we win that game Monday if Aurier's playing (or Walker) ?

Trippier is quite a cute little fucker, unlike Aurier and Walker say. It's not just that he can cross a ball better than most RB's in this league, but he also plays clever little through balls like the handful he played Monday that put Son and Eriksen into the box - which they mostly fucked up.

I know Trippier isn't a complete package. But if you break it down to it's component parts - attacking play, midfield game play (which is what our FB's are effectively, de facto midfielders), defending - physical attributes v mental attributes - I honestly think at the very worst we are no worse off for having Trippier there over Walker.

Personally I'd take Trippier, because we are a team that spends most of it's time in our opponents half and I don't think Trippier costs us much defensively at all.

You're doing a lot of wise-cracking but not really telling me why Walker or Aurier are better overall packages?

Trippier and Eriksen have been combining brilliantly in recent months to end up with Eriksen in the area, down the right hand side, in lots of space.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Ok.

I prefer my full backs to get beyond the defensive line (Walker type), stretch the play with pace and power, I then don't care whether he bumbles his way through into the box, there's a pinball effect that results in a goal and he doesn't get an assist for it.

Scenario: Trippier makes 8 crosses into the box over the period of 2 games, 7 of those are shite but one gets powered into the corner with a Ronaldo-esque overhead kick. In that same game a different full back, powerful and quick, stretches the back 4 and creates space for cut backs, space for strikers to knock about in etc.

At the end of those two games, here's the kick out; Trippier 1 - 0 Powerful Full back.

That's what you call "pissing on other full backs with creatively productive output", I call it #fakenews in the same way Trump or the Leave campaign conducted it's business.

I don't hate Trippier, I don't love Walker, the two aren't mutually exclusive. What I do despise is your consistent, incorrect, arrogant interpretation of completely worthless stats.

Your "Walker powerfully running fast and whacking the ball at the first defender" is really an intricately cunning ploy to manoeuvre the time and space continuum of the footballing universe is somehow more valid than my Trippier assists at double the rate of Walker.....hmmmm...yeah right.

Kane didn't need an overhead kick to score Monday from Trippier's pass.

Trump Bear for POSC

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Your "Walker powerfully running fast and whacking the ball at the first defender" is really an intricately cunning ploy to manoeuvre the time and space continuum of the footballing universe is somehow more valid than my Trippier assists at double the rate of Walker.....hmmmm...yeah right.

Kane didn't need an overhead kick to score Monday from Trippier's pass.

Trump Bear for POSC

I purposely said "Walker type" you behemoth. As in fast and powerful. Call it an Aurier type if you want.

Kane didn't need an overhead kick to score on Monday. 1-0 to Trippier.

"Fast powerful type" rolls the ball across the face of the goal for an attacker to miss from 2 yards. Still 1-0 to Trippier. Is that fair Mr President?

It boils down to this, I've told you the type of full back I prefer, I don't hate Trippier (for the umpteenth time), but I would prefer a more dynamic player and would accept the trade off if there was a stupid decision at the other end for example. I don't believe any team we are competing with would take Trippier, but I'd probably rather have every one of their right backs instead. In fact, I'd much rather KWP and I've seen very little of him in senior football like everyone else.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I purposely said "Walker type" you behemoth. As in fast and powerful. Call it an Aurier type if you want.

Kane didn't need an overhead kick to score on Monday. 1-0 to Trippier.

"Fast powerful type" rolls the ball across the face of the goal for an attacker to miss from 2 yards. Still 1-0 to Trippier. Is that fair Mr President?

It boils down to this, I've told you the type of full back I prefer, I don't hate Trippier (for the umpteenth time), but I would prefer a more dynamic player and would accept the trade off if there was a stupid decision at the other end for example. I don't believe any team we are competing with would take Trippier, but I'd probably rather have every one of their right backs instead. In fact, I'd much rather KWP and I've seen very little of him in senior football like everyone else.

We just fundamentally disagree on what we value don't we. I like my full back to be reasonably dynamic and clever, you prefer yours to be a stupid beefcake.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

We just fundamentally disagree on what we value don't we. I like my full back to be reasonably dynamic and clever, you prefer yours to be a stupid beefcake.

Would be a good exercise to try and list the things we do agree on. From memory it's only the value of Peter Crouch.

That and Coentrao being shite.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Would be a good exercise to try and list the things we do agree on. From memory it's only the value of Peter Crouch.

That and Coentrao being shite.

You spelt Walker wrong.

 

[Deleted member 27855]

Creatively productive bollocks is like .....you know....making goals and shit. Which, if he's not actually costing us much defensively, makes that bollocks quite useful. I mean do we win that game Monday if Aurier's playing (or Walker) ?

Trippier is quite a cute little fucker, unlike Aurier and Walker say. It's not just that he can cross a ball better than most RB's in this league, but he also plays clever little through balls like the handful he played Monday that put Son and Eriksen into the box - which they mostly fucked up.

I know Trippier isn't a complete package. But if you break it down to it's component parts - attacking play, midfield game play (which is what our FB's are effectively, de facto midfielders), defending - physical attributes v mental attributes - I honestly think at the very worst we are no worse off for having Trippier there over Walker.

Personally I'd take Trippier, because we are a team that spends most of it's time in our opponents half and I don't think Trippier costs us much defensively at all.

You're doing a lot of wise-cracking but not really telling me why Walker or Aurier are better overall packages?

Both Walker and Aurier are much better defensively than Trippier. It's not even close, Trippier is awful on the defensive end. That might not be a problem against teams like Watford when we're camped out in the oppositions final third but it absolutely is a problem against the Manchester clubs.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Both Walker and Aurier are much better defensively than Trippier. It's not even close, Trippier is awful on the defensive end. That might not be a problem against teams like Watford when we're camped out in the oppositions final third but it absolutely is a problem against the Manchester clubs.

Rubbish.

 

[Trix]

Agree completely BC. I think that people look at Aurier and more so Walker as great defenders because they have the ability to recover at pace and make spectacular looking last ditch sliding tackles. I also think they ignore the fact that they have to do this because they are often so badly positioned in the first place. Trips doesn't make anywhere near the same number of stupid decisions that Aurier and Walker make/made though with rash tackling in the box and suicidal passing in and around our own area.

 

[Hercules]

You are a Trippier champion Trix?

 

[TheVoiceofReason]

The idea that, after this season, people have decided Aurier is better than Trippier... completely baffles and astounds me.

 

[Trix]

You are a Trippier champion Trix?

I wanted him a year before we bought him from Burnley, mostly because of his end product. He's not the best defensively and doesn't fit for every team we play against but I do think he is better defensively than Aurier yes. Ideal world for me would be sell Aurier and go forward with Trips and KWP. I am definitely in the camp that would take speed of thought over speed of foot all day long especially in our defensive line, and Aurier for me is always as likely to give a goal away as he is to create one.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Agree completely BC. I think that people look at Aurier and more so Walker as great defenders because they have the ability to recover at pace and make spectacular looking last ditch sliding tackles. I also think they ignore the fact that they have to do this because they are often so badly positioned in the first place. Trips doesn't make anywhere near the same number of stupid decisions that Aurier and Walker make though with rash tackling in the box and suicidal passing in and around our own area.

Nobody said they were great defenders, the poster said "much better defensively" than Trippier. Walker is for sure, Aurier meh. Otherwise just think how this sounds, Trippier cannot be better both offensively and defensively than Walker, otherwise the worlds greatest coach would have bought Trippier. That's a pretty simple fact.

 

[Hercules]

I wanted him a year before we bought him from Burnley, mostly because of his end product. He's not the best defensively and doesn't fit for every team we play against but I do think he is better defensively than Aurier yes. Ideal world for me would be sell Aurier and go forward with Trips and KWP. I am definitely in the camp that would take speed of thought over speed of foot all day long especially in our defensive line, and Aurier for me is always as likely to give a goal away as he is to create one.

Fair enough my friend. I have never been a fan, even from his Burnley days. I like my wing backs to have pace, along with brain. He is a very intelligent player, but average (to below) defensively. I don’t think anyone can argue that. I am from the old school; a defender defends, and anything else is an added bonus.

 

[buckley]

Just how Aurier could for one moment be considered better than Trippier is astounding I have said it before that there are some that would prefer aTaarabt to say an Anderton or would start Edwards before Erricson.The people that would start Aurier over Trippier so obviously view players in a different way to the voice of reason and myself.